Republican Nomination?

Originally posted by BigRed
I believe in peace, homelessness and passing bills to stop all of that. So why would I vote against that? I apologize because I'm just not comprehending your line of logic here.

I think it shouldn't be voting on who necessarily has the best chance of winning and/or best chancing of getting things accomplished but who has the best chance of representing your beliefs and ideas. I'd rather vote for my beliefs and only one of those beliefs have a bill come to fruition to stop it (say for example, stop people from being homeless) than vote for someone I primarily disagree with just because they may win or may get more accomplished.

I just don't get how you can have that kind of foresight. But uh, what is so radical about anything Ron Paul is saying that lends you to believe he can't get anything accomplished?

FFS... I never said I'd vote or someone should vote for a candiadate they don't share views with or they wholeheartedly disagree with.

I never said vote for a candidate just because they can win.

Which foresight? Because he wants to basically re-invent the US Gov. He's a legislator; he lacks the executive experience to accomplish suck lofty goals and he lacks the political muscle. Devil King made several good points on this a page or two back, go read.

Originally posted by Robtard
FFS...

I never said I'd vote or someone should vote for a candiadate they don't share views with or they wholeheartedly disagree with.

I never said vote for a candidate just because they can win.

You implied it though. You implied that voting based on electability is okay and should be taken into consideration. I know you didn't say it was the only factor or that others should partake in such considerations.

Originally posted by BigRed
I know what you're saying. I'm not talking about completely disagreeing with them. But agreeing with someone 60% of the time is not enough for me. Definitely not enough to get me to vote for them...

You implied it though. You implied that voting based on electability is okay and should be taken into consideration. I know you didn't say it was the only factor or that others should partake in such considerations.

Good for you, find a candidate that shares 100% of your views and vote for them.

NO, I didn't imply it, I spelled out exactly what I meant and it wasn't "just vote for a guy who can win". I said "electability should be a factor"; world of difference from what you're applying to me.

What is the difference between me saying you are implying that electability should be taken into consideration and you actually literally saying electability should be a factor? There isn't.

Okay, I never said I want a candidate I agree with 100% either. But it be nice to agree with them on the major issues for the most part.

What is wrong with wanting to change the way government runs?

Originally posted by BigRed
What is the difference between me saying you are implying that electability should be taken into consideration and you actually literally saying electability should be a factor? There isn't.

Okay, I never said I want a candidate I agree with 100% either. But it be nice to agree with them on the major issues for the most part.

What is wrong with wanting to change the way government runs?

Now, that isn't what you said a few post back, now is it.

And I never said many things you've tried to attribute to me, hows it working for you? Yeah, you should agree with the candidate you support, I never said you shouldn't; the exact opposite actually.

Simple answer, nothing.

Originally posted by Robtard
There's the classical sense on being conservative, then there is the (US) Conservative Party, which gives conservatives a bad name.

indeed, I'd prefer to call them theocrats or fascists though 😉

Originally posted by lord xyz
Isn't Conservatism basically against personal freedom?

how did you arrive at that one?

Originally posted by Robtard
I can now sympathize as to why people have put you on ignore... you ignore the points made, attach your own idiot-thoughts to others and rabble on and on like the village idiot.

As usual, you end with the "your pissed" I.D.T.; it's typical of you and it's tiring... when you're ready to discuss the points I've actually made and thoughts I've actually expressed, let me know.

Thats a really big f***ing cop out...I more than addressed your points. Would you like me to label them for you to make it easier? Or is this your way of throwing in the towel?

Also...the "pissed" comment was obviously jest...you must be joking about that comment...

Also...is the only thing you are good for is exchanging insults with?

Originally posted by Robtard
Now, that isn't what you said a few post back, now is it.

And I never said many things you've tried to attribute to me, hows it working for you? Yeah, you should agree with the candidate you support, I never said you shouldn't; the exact opposite actually.

Simple answer, nothing.

WTF dude? You are splitting hairs with this guy when he has very simply summed up your POV on this. He's being nice to you and you are being a total ass about it. He's right...stop being a dick about it.

Your POV isn't a big deal because you try to educate yourself on the issues before you cast a vote...pretty much anything anyone could ask for from a voter. You just MIGHT misrepresent your vote every now and then because of this "electability" ideal you employ.

All three of you are being ****wits, so STFU, m'kay?

As for Ron Paul, will be interesting to see him go agaisnt that **** Hillary. I mean, he has the nomination as good as certain anyways, and he's probably the best to go up against a democrat anyways, if the republicans want to win.

It doesn't matter who you nominate they'll still be part of the Illuminati's pedophile child sacrifice network. doped

See...

Originally posted by Bardock42
...why do you like that moron Gore?

Before I answer...who do you like if Gore is the moron?

Originally posted by Quark_666
Before I answer...who do you like?

Originally posted by Quark_666
Before I answer...who do you like

That a joke?

In the 2008 election so far I favor Ron Paul. If you mean other politicians I support, well, there aren't many really.

[edit]T-the flashing "ANARCHY/FREEDOM" sign supported with the link "Ron Paul 2008!" accompanied with my pro Ron Paul posts should have been a pretty decent indication, though.

YouTube video

This is amazing. Intelligent, logical, moral....

Not sure how anyone that ever agreed with those points could vote for the other candidates in this election.

Df6wiesMEhc&NR

YouTube video

Also amazing, so, where does everyone get their news from, since it is basically proven that you can't trust the US Media anymore. I'd take it Iran has a less unfair and biased station, maybe that's why the US is going to invade, you envy their freedom, don't you?

Originally posted by Bardock42
That a joke?

In the 2008 election so far I favor Ron Paul. If you mean other politicians I support, well, there aren't many really.

[edit]T-the flashing "ANARCHY/FREEDOM" sign supported with the link "Ron Paul 2008!" accompanied with my pro Ron Paul posts should have been a pretty decent indication, though.

Hmm...well, nobody can deny that Paul is pro-freedom, to say it politely.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Df6wiesMEhc&NR
it is basically proven that you can't trust the US Media anymore.

Congratulations...you catch on fast.

Originally posted by Bardock42
All three of you are being ****wits, so STFU, m'kay?

As for Ron Paul, will be interesting to see him go agaisnt that **** Hillary. I mean, he has the nomination as good as certain anyways, and he's probably the best to go up against a democrat anyways, if the republicans want to win.

How am I being a ****wit, by believing that electability and potential/plausibilty for a candidate to actually do what he/she is running on, should both be considered when choosing to support?

Supporting someone just because they tell you/say things you want to hear and not taking into consideration thier potential to actually accomplish said goals, is ****witted.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Thats a really big f***ing cop out...I more than addressed your points. Would you like me to label them for you to make it easier? Or is this your way of throwing in the towel?

Also...the "pissed" comment was obviously jest...you must be joking about that comment...

Also...is the only thing you are good for is exchanging insults with?

No, you cherrypick words/lines I've said, attempt to parse it and then add your own ideas. It gets old.

If it makes you sleep better at night, YOU WIN, YOU BEAT ME.

Originally posted by Robtard
How am I being a ****wit, by believing that electability and potential/plausibilty for a candidate to actually do what he/she is running on, should both be considered when choosing to support?

Supporting someone just because they tell you/say things you want to hear and not taking into consideration thier potential to actually accomplish said goals, is ****witted.

What in the world leads you to think a candidate can't get something accomplished (in this case RP)? That is what I said, how do you have that foresight? I've asked this multiple times and have not gotten a sufficient answer.