[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
We can always choose not to play silly games.[/quote]
And that would be great if EVERYONE took that choice. But that’s not going to happen. The other side will be jumping up and down talking about “hope and change” knowing that they’re full of shit. And 67 million people will swallow that crap and vote for Obama again.
You play the game or you lose.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Those to guys say things that you and I both like to hear, but they do not have the shear political ability and charisma needed to beat Obama.[/quote]
And this right here is why Uhmuruhkuh is falling from stature: Hollywoodized elections which produce dumb voters who elect dumb politicians who do dumb things.[/quote]
I can’t disagree with LIFT here.
What a rarity.[/quote]
Then please offer up a better alternative to beating Obama. Anyone can sit on the sidelines and condemn the political game. But that doesn’t change squat!
Actually we’d all probably be better off just doing squats.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Those to guys say things that you and I both like to hear, but they do not have the shear political ability and charisma needed to beat Obama.[/quote]
And this right here is why Uhmuruhkuh is falling from stature: Hollywoodized elections which produce dumb voters who elect dumb politicians who do dumb things.[/quote]
I can’t disagree with LIFT here.
What a rarity.[/quote]
Then please offer up a better alternative to beating Obama. Anyone can sit on the sidelines and condemn the political game. But that doesn’t change squat![/quote]
You dont seem to understand.
If that is the electorate, what point is there in beating Obama?
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Actually we’d all probably be better off just doing squats.[/quote]
Yeah, that is a great movement. But then when the workout was over the President would be Obama and that’s not a good thing for anyone.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Those to guys say things that you and I both like to hear, but they do not have the shear political ability and charisma needed to beat Obama.[/quote]
And this right here is why Uhmuruhkuh is falling from stature: Hollywoodized elections which produce dumb voters who elect dumb politicians who do dumb things.[/quote]
I can’t disagree with LIFT here.
What a rarity.[/quote]
Then please offer up a better alternative to beating Obama. Anyone can sit on the sidelines and condemn the political game. But that doesn’t change squat![/quote]
You’re trying to rearrange my argument. I didn’t necessarily refute anything you said about electability.
Romney may be a good man but he appears artificial to me. Part of that comes from him trying to carefully (and to me, transparently) craft himself which is what many, if not most, politicians do.
His flip-flops are real. He really has danced all over the place in his past. That suggests a lack of principle as far as I’m concerned.
And I detest his bland gun rights support which I suspect he would flip on any minute now given the right circumstances. I don’t trust him. He wants to be all things to all people. That doesn’t work with me.[/quote]
You are doing exactly what I said you were doing. You are picking Romney apart as he does not line up with your image of the ideal President. AND…I agree. But try to get beyond that. one way to do this is to stop comparing him to people who cannot beat Obama. Compare him directly to Obama on every issue. He will start to look a whole lot better.
For example, Romney pledges to eliminate Obamacare on day one! That will save me a great deal of money how about you?
He will not raise taxes, Obama has sworn to eliminate the Bush tax cuts. That means that we all suffer a tax hike of 5%.
Do you want more Supreme court Judges like Sotomyer? NOT ME!!
If you want to talk gun rights --Do you feel better about Obama or Romney?
As I’ve said to Sloth in order to get elected Romney needs the help of conservatives and he’ll have to make promises and keep them if he wants to repeat in 4 years.
So the bottom line pal is not if Romney looks better to you than Gingrich or Santorum as they cannot beat Obama for a multitude of reasons. They will be no more than private citizens one day after the election–how does that help us? The question is does the guy who can win look better to you than Obama?
Romney is no more electable than Gingrich or Santorum.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Zeb, it was essentially your line of thinking that gave us Nixon, Ford, both Bush’s, Dole and McCain.
All of 'em either started out and/or finished up being big government Republicans. All of them along with their Democratic counterparts helped get us in the mess we’re in.
All of 'em, every fucking one of ‘em, know less about the Constitution than li’l ol’ me, a mere high school graduate.
Nixon, Ford and GHW Bush gave us at least one dumbass, “legislate from the bnech” USSC justice. Even Reagan gave us O’Connor and Kennedy, a couple of wishy washy types that had a big government bent.
I’m disgusted with the last 90 years of American politics and Romney appears to be another in the long line of lackluster politicians with no real spine about the principles of limited government.[/quote]
AMEN
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Romney is no more electable than Gingrich or Santorum.[/quote]
I respectfully disagree for the reasons that I’ve stated over the past several months. But if you’d like to take a walk back in history take a look at who won most (every?) Presidential election since Kennedy beat Nixon. It has been the best looking or perhaps the most charismatic candidate. The dawning of the media age was a game changer for politicians, especially at that level.
Romeny has that in spades Santorum has a little, Gingrich has none. Paul is the anti- charisma candidate.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Zeb, it was essentially your line of thinking that gave us Nixon, Ford, both Bush’s, Dole and McCain.
All of 'em either started out and/or finished up being big government Republicans. All of them along with their Democratic counterparts helped get us in the mess we’re in.
All of 'em, every fucking one of ‘em, know less about the Constitution than li’l ol’ me, a mere high school graduate.
Nixon, Ford and GHW Bush gave us at least one dumbass, “legislate from the bnech” USSC justice. Even Reagan gave us O’Connor and Kennedy, a couple of wishy washy types that had a big government bent.
I’m disgusted with the last 90 years of American politics and Romney appears to be another in the long line of lackluster politicians with no real spine about the principles of limited government.[/quote]
I understand your angst. But if you have a choice between Obama or Romney I heartily urge you to support Romney. However bad you think the previous republicans were look at who they beat and ask yourself would the democrat been better.
In other words, would Dukakis had been better than GHW Bush?
Would Hubert Humphrey been better than Nixon?
Would Gore been better than GW Bush?
You and I know the answers to these questions. It is always better to have a republican than a democrat in the oval office. And I humbly submit to you that while Romney is no real deal conservative he is leaps and bounds better than Obama. And we both know that. And he is the only one with even a chance of beating him.
Aside from that I do agree with you politics can be frustrating. But I will always choose the best candidate. Giving up that choice and staying home is like handing someone in that long line of scum bags who want Obama to win so they can get “free stuff” two votes.
Think about it and allow pragmatism to win out.
Maybe, most likely, yes
I love historical conjecture.
</tears up>
South Carolina’s basketball team has a miserable SEC record, and committed double digit turnovers today in a loss to Auburn University…
Wrong forum?
[quote]DixiesFinest wrote:
South Carolina’s basketball team has a miserable SEC record, and committed double digit turnovers today in a loss to Auburn University…
Wrong forum?[/quote]
That was funny I think. No?
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]DixiesFinest wrote:
South Carolina’s basketball team has a miserable SEC record, and committed double digit turnovers today in a loss to Auburn University…
Wrong forum?[/quote]
That was funny I think. No?[/quote]
Not one bit.
[quote]DixiesFinest wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]DixiesFinest wrote:
South Carolina’s basketball team has a miserable SEC record, and committed double digit turnovers today in a loss to Auburn University…
Wrong forum?[/quote]
That was funny I think. No?[/quote]
Not one bit.[/quote]
Funny or not you’re making more sense than some on this thread.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]DixiesFinest wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]DixiesFinest wrote:
South Carolina’s basketball team has a miserable SEC record, and committed double digit turnovers today in a loss to Auburn University…
Wrong forum?[/quote]
That was funny I think. No?[/quote]
Not one bit.[/quote]
Funny or not you’re making more sense than some on this thread. [/quote]
It looks like Newt has won SC.
I don’t know if the GOP needs to do some “Soul Searching” in relation to whom they want to face the President…but if they do, they most likely need to start soon.
(Or maybe they have already?)
Mufasa