- I have a list of principles that I believe in -- chiefly amongst them is civil liberties and small government/balanced budget
- I looked at the candidates in the race.
- Ron Paul fit very closely with my principles (obviously I didn't agree with everything), but I think he deeply understands the role of government & the importance of liberty. I felt like he "gets it."
This doesn't make him a God, and I didn't change my positions to fit Paul's. What is interesting is that with Obama and later Romney, hardcore supporters would change their "deeply held" convictions to match that of their candidate's. This is deification. When someone derides Paulbots in such a way that there is an underlying assumption that Paul is some sort of religious messiah, it makes me wonder if that's how they think about their candidate.
Now if someone wants to mount a logical refutation, they might point out that Romney voters are doing the same steps listed in my 3 bullet points... if you look at the number 2 bullet... the argument might go that Romney voters look at the (2) candidates in the race, and pick the one they more agree with. My counter argument here is that while I agreed with more than 50% of Paul, I probably agree with less than 50% of Obama and Romney. Maybe it's 5% Obama agreement and 25% Romney agreement. I'm not going to insult Romney voters who either have always held principles that Romney matches, or have a different % cut-off than me (I don't vote for someone unless I agree with at least half of what they say).
But by the same token, I think it's unhealthy to turn Romney into some sort of infallible saviour-from-Obama, which I suspect people are doing only because they automatically think that's how Paul supporters think. It's like... it's inconceivable to support a candidate without making him infallible/worshipping him.
Fortunately, I live in Canada and my absentee ballot is cast in Georgia, so the outcome of the race doesn't really affect me. Maybe I can just afford to take the high road here because it doesn't impact my day-to-day life. And by the way, Canadian Health Care > Obamacare.
NRA Executive vice president Wayne LaPierre and NRA Political Victory Fund chairman Chris Cox will formally announce the endorsement at a Romney rally in Virginia later Thursday evening. Vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan will also be on hand.
“In this election, there is no debate,” LaPierre said in a statement. “There is only one choice – only one hope – to save our firearms freedom and our way of life.”
The endorsement is not surprising — the NRA has a history of supporting conservative candidates, who traditionally support strong gun rights.
That is just funny.
As I keep saying, anyone who wants to vote based on some silly principles should just hit the switch for Obama because that's all your 3rd party vote is going to do. When Obama gets re-elected, you will hereby be forbidden from complaining about anything he does because you helped him get re-elected. When a viable 3rd party candidate ever meanders along, then they will get a look from me but in a place I like to call the real world, a 3rd party candidate will never have a chance in a national election. Vote for one or support one in your local area first but voting for one on the national level is throwing your vote away.
The NRA is a fraud skippy. Do you know how many pieces of Gun legislation they have successfully reversed in their history. It's about 2. They are gutless wonders.
The NRA not only compromises, but while guys like you display your really bomb diddilly hardcore NRA bumper sticker, they are helping to write almost every piece of anti-gun legislation there is.
Give me a f'in break. You are f'in kidding me? right? You really don't know much about firearms do you?
GUN OWNERS OF AMERICA ALL THE WAY. http://www.thefirearmsforum.com/showthread.php?t=51901
|« Previous Thread | Next Thread »|