Skip to comments.You can legally vote twice! Here's how:
Posted on 09/23/2011 5:44:03 AM PDT by Halfmanhalfamazing
click here to read article
Sorry but I won’t vote for Romney or Perry. I will write in Palin. If the GOP wants my vote...they need to put in a candidate I can vote FOR.
If the GOP wants my vote...they need to put in a candidate I can vote FOR.
I worked my a$$ off for the last republican candidate because of my “anybody but Obama” attitude. Come to think of it I worked harder than he did. And where did it get me. I made several enemies on FR. Never Again. If they want my vote they must earn it.
Exactly!!! Good post!
Again, you bake 6 loaves. This time they take 2 to give to those who won't bake.
Next time - 6 loaves, they take 3.
During this period, you've had politicians on one side saying "yes, lets just take one more loaf" and politicans on the other side saying "no, lets take it all!"
It is true that eventually you will starve to death either way (i.e. taking 1 more loaf each time you bake vs taking it all now), but you will survive longer if they only increase it by one at a time.
And you just may survive long enough to figure out a way to stop the madness.
A country of 300,000,000, we can’t find “1” good person. Dire times indeed.
Can’t steal what’s freely given.
Have a good day.
What you fail to realize is the long term strategy. Most here seem to focus only on 1 goal - to remove Obama at all costs, which is a short term goal.
While it would be very painful to have Obama win a second term, the long term benefit of a possible 3rd party emergence could outweigh the negatives of second Obama term.
Or you just quit baking bread and magically somebody brings you a loaf of bread.
Hmmm...same problem they had in Sodom and we know what happened there.
Of course, there are a million plus choices, but in 2012 there are only two that will count.
There is a need to face reality. The next President will either be a Democrat or a Republican unless the world collapses before then.
You can certainly chose to not vote, but then you are not participating in making the decision. Voting for minor candidates may determine whether the Republican or Democrat wins.
“And you just may survive long enough to figure out a way to stop the madness.”
That is one survival strategy, but it assumes that the bread won’t run out for a long time. In today’s economy, that maybe a poor assumption.
Another survivial strategy is to blow up both sides and form a new 3rd side that won’t take bread from you at all...
And how did that strategy work out when Perot ran under a 3rd party?
From last night, it appears that Fox News wants that, as well as the other lib-media outlets, but the primaries are still months away.
Romney hasn't sealed anything yet and neither has anyone else.
Losing the election is not winning.
We need to stop the chaos NOW!
This country will not survive a second term of Obama.
Obamacare is destoying this country.
And by how much.
Voting for a minor candidate can leave the Republicans with slim victory against an unpopular Democratic candidate, and make them realize (finally) that they're going to have to do something different.
Or will it take an outright loss to get their attention?
“This country will not survive a second term of Obama.”
Nor will this country survive under a RINO like Romney. Voting in Romney will not stop the chaos NOW! There’s no guarantee that Romney would lead to repeal Obamacare - he’s a flip-flopper and liberal at his core.
If Obama were to beat Romney, then hopefully a new Tea Party would emerge and conservatives would flee the GOP to leave it as the establishment, liberal-lite party. Then, the new Tea Party could actually institute real change.
First off, in this country there is one predominant party - the Government Party.
It has two subsidiary wings, that which we popularly know as the Democrats and the Republicans.
In the past, they have vied with each other to take turns running the apparatus of the government, with marginally differing views on how to do that. But they have all essentially pushed the same things, the same ideas.
In the past, we have called these “elections”.
So the first point is, that exercising your franchise is a patriotic duty beyond question is a nice thought, but I remind you in many dictatorships of varying flavors around the world voter participation is often above 95%, many times higher than that.
Next up, if somehow Romney is the Republican candidate, then the choice becomes whether you want to plunge head first into the swirling waters of socialism (Obama) or commit suicide on the installment plan (Romney).
Again, the “lesser evil” is still evil.
So the stratagem now becomes insuring that Romney or the likes is not the nominee. That is why we have primaries. This is where the first real blood-fest will occur, where we will see if there is anything to the perception that the Republican Establishment is, in it's current incarnation, in it's death throes.
Don't want Romney? Start working now to insure it's not him.
As for me, personally, I remember his old man. Met him once, briefly, in ‘68. Didn't like him at all, and I've always wondered just how far the acorn falls from the tree.
I don't like Mitt, either.
But returning to the original premise of this post, the Government Party, with it's attendant sycophantic propaganda apparatus, masquerading as the press corp, finally feels it's grip on the country in trouble with the emergence of the Tea Party (and rightly so!).
That cannot be permitted under any circumstance!
Personally, I don't give a damn about the Democrats, and neither should you. Beyond redemption, they can go to hell in their own way (and they most assuredly will). It's the Republican party we must commandeer, as they are, historically, most akin to our thoughts.
The day of the “big tent” is over. Having a “conservative” party brim full of liberals is a redundancy we can no longer afford. Liberalism is, as P. J. O'Rourke once said, Communism one drink at a time. Why should we have that in our midst? That's what the other party is for.
Just as in 1964, we do not have the press on our side. But unlike ‘64, we have the far-reaching effects of the Internet that can negate the former power of the liberal press. Additionally, there are many, many personal communication opportunities that exist today that were not available then.
Also, the corruptive influence of “public education” is far more advanced today than it was in the mid ‘60’s, and our own efforts at “consumer education” must be trebled because of this. We must become aggressive about this.
By recognizing every communication with the public, no matter how small that public is, is an opportunity to educate. And by refuting smears, a favorite Alinsky-ite tactic of the left, with truth, and doing it loudly and aggressively.
Candidates like Palin and Cain would have no problem jousting with the mainstream press, and coming out ahead on it.
The point there is, we don't have to meet these guys on their terms, not when we can meet them on ours!
When thinking of deciding our country's future, and hence the future of our posterity, there can be no mistake - the Tea Party, or whatever it evolves in to, is at this juncture in history our last, best hope. This is the vehicle we should utilize to tap the widespread anger and angst that exists out there.
The Republican party as it is presently constituted is as good as dead.
The message conveyed must be unequivocal: This time, America really does want a choice, and not an echo.
The existing Tea Party is not a registered 3rd party that gets its own candidates on ballots....
I’d like to see conservatives leave the GOP to RINOs like McCain, Romney, etc., for another real party and not some caucus.
A win is win and knowbody pays attention to a loser.
A loser can come back a be a winner (like Nixon).
Sending a message may give you a little influence, but not much.
You need to win, but you only have one vote. You need to work to get your candidate elected, but don’t take the football home if your candidate doesn’t win. Play the game with the best quarterback that the majority supports.
Liberals win because they stick together irrespective if their particular group is getting all they want.
Conservatives need to stick together. Conservatives have too many independent thinkers (that’s good) but each person want it their way and not willing to take small gains and work together for the greater good. The Tea Party is changing that, but they continue to need to convince others.
They have an influence, but they are not in control.
There are strenghts and weaknesses in each Republican candidate, but I will support the Republican nominee.
I hope we get a better nominee than Rommney, but he would be better than the alternative. I could see Rommney as a better President than Bush.