[Kevmo]

Well, thanks for answering my question. I kinda like what PAConservative1 has to say above. Note that everyone is logging on as a ‘conservative’.

2012 is going to be a liberal vs. a liberal. Sure, Slick Willard might be a little less offensive of a liberal than Hussein, but at the end of the day he’s still a liberal. So if hypothetically conservatives try to drag him across the finish line, we’ll have a liberal for 4 years. Then in 2016, the Dems will obviously nominate another liberal, so it would be liberal vs. liberal AGAIN.

I’d rather have a liberal now and get a true conservative in 2016 then two liberals in a row, even if they do have an (R) next to their name!

390 posted on Thursday, March 22, 2012 10:09:41 PM by PAConservative1

[Kickass Conservative]

Sorry, I'm one who believes that this Country would not survive another four years of Obama. Sure, the USA will still exist in name, but we as a people will be a hollow shell of what made our Country the greatest that ever existed in history.

Oh yeah, are you guaranteeing that another four years of Obama will result in a Conservative Republican Victory in 2016? If you are wrong, and I think you are taking a 50/50 chance of being wrong, what's next, cooking up Jim Jones tried and true Kool Aid Recipe?

[Kickass Conservative]

>”I’d rather have a liberal now and get a true conservative in 2016 then two liberals in a row, even if they do have an (R) next to their name!”<

Kevmo, just reread your statement (above) and upon reflection I read more into it than your words meant to convey. I still disagree that after another four years of Obama we will “get a true conservative in 2016”, but if that is your belief so be it. Obama is not just a Liberal, he is a tried and true Marxist masquerading as a typical modern Democrat.

My apologies for reading too much into your original post...