New York Firearms Forum banner

You Have Until Thursday to Explain What the President Meant by ‘Unprecedented’ & ‘Une

5K views 51 replies 20 participants last post by  Temporaryscars 
IMO thats a wasted vote
Not going to tell you how to vote, not that it matters much in NY anyway, but a write-in or vote for Ron Paul, if he makes an independent run for it is still a vote for Obama anyway. I agree that the alternative is not looking much better but at least he's not a socialist.
If your choice were either Stalin or Hitler, would you feel ok voting for one because he's not as bad as the other?

It may be a wasted vote, but both choices are damning and when things turn to $hit, I can at least say "I didn't vote for him."
 
Like I said, being in NY your vote (or mine) doesn't count anyway, so who really cares? Fortunately for the rest of the country, I don't think the choice is between a Stalin or a Hitler, so we'll probably all get by just the same. The only point I was trying to make is no vote or a write-in vote is essentially the same as a vote for Obama whether you want to say you didn't vote for him or not. Reminds me of an old Rush song... "if you choose not to decide you still have made a choice". Sad state of affairs we find ourselves in. For me, the lessor of two evils is much better than the status quo.
I disagree. It's a vote of no confidence in the choices we have been presented. I'd like to believe it sends a message, though that's probably just me being naive.

A write-in vote is not a vote for Obama. A write-in vote is a vote for whoever I write in. Shouldn't I vote for the person I want to win, no matter what their chances are? I'm not willing to play Stratego with my beliefs and values.

At the end of the day, a tyrant is a tyrant, whether they're flying a flag of hammer and sickle or a cross, it makes no difference.
 
Removing Obama from office should be a priority even if his replacement is no better. When disenfranchised with an elected official, the only recourse we have is to vote him out of office. A second term should be a reward for producing positive results. To allow him to remain is to condone his agenda. He needs to go. If that means casting a vote for a less-than-ideal candidate who otherwise has the best chance of unseating Obama, then so be it.
Actually, that's a really good point. Just the act of being able to toss his ass out of office IS part of my responsibility as an American, even if his replacement is no better (I can toss him out after his first term too).

cgrutt, you need to learn to argue like 944turbo. He's good! Hahah

I might have to think about my choice a little more...
 
What is "it's"? If you are referring to Romney's intent, I get the sense that Romney is interested in leading a first world country (regardless of methodology), unlike Obama who seems intent on ruling a third world country.

To clarify, I am not a Romney fan boy, but the next POTUS will be either Romney or Obama. I'll choose the unknown over what I consider true evil.
I'm simply asking what proof you have that Romney's liberal positions are just "whoopies" and not an agenda that he's trying to push.
 
So you're asking me to prove what another person is thinking? That's an unreasonable request; I can only offer conjecture on a person's intent based on their actions. I also understand the difference between state's rights and federal constraints, which Romney has repeatedly referenced in defense of his MA healthcare plan and his opposition to Obamacare.

You seem intent on disparaging the Romney campaign while excluding the Obama campaign. They are not mutually exclusive, but rather a weighed scale. Consideration given to one must be given to the other, or your partisan gamesmanship is laid bare.
Ahhh, so being critical of Romney MUST mean that I support Obama, right? A strawman if I ever saw one.

Trust me, if anyone here were in support of Obama, you'd see the $hit list I have complied against him, but nobody here is doing that, so I don't need to point out how terrible he is. It's a known fact in these parts.

I'm simply asking you to back up a statement that you made. You said Romney "suffers from occasional virtuous misguidance," and I was just wondering if you have any proof that his big-government agenda was simply a couple of political missteps, as you seem to think they are. "No" is an acceptable answer.
 
You can keep asking that question, and you'll keep getting the same answer. You are asking me to somehow prove intent which is simply not possible. What I think, based on the candidate's past actions, is that Romney is a far less dangerous candidate than Obama.

The only straw man here is the criticizing of Romney... yet Zero fiddles while Rome burns. What are your priorities? Our next president will be Romney or Obama. You don't have to like the options, but there they are.
Sorry, I thought you were basing your opinion on facts or evidence. Guess I should have known better.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top