The Real Delegate Count - it's not over

[AreYouReady?]

Originally Posted by CC1

It is no fallacy. It is a fact of life. Often times our choices are not ideal ones. People who refuse to vote for the best of two candidates on the basis that neither one fully reflects their views is being ridiculous and childish.

Sorry CC1. People who insist that other people vote against their own values and convictions for people they think is wrong for this country is acting like a little dictator themselves.

It is not childish behavior. It is an informed vote or non-vote.

Perhaps one can say it is childish behavior for those to try to bully others into voting for someone who is wrong for our country. In fact, it could be said it is thuggish behavior to intimidate others who do not agree with you by calling them names in the attempt to condescend their better judgment in order to force them into doing something they feel conviction against doing.

If one feels that they cannot vote for the lesser of two evils because it is still a vote for an evil entity over them, then who are you or anybody else to try to force them to go against their convictions?

My voting for a man who loves the bloodlust of abortion and ignores the blood of the unborn that cries out to the Lord would be akin to me agreeing with that man or woman. And how can I vote for a man whose religion believes that at some point in time the men will become a god? Thou shalt have NO other God's before me saith the Lord.

This is why America is in the shape it is in. We have the same old tired faces in politics that continue to dredge our country into the ditch. The lesser of two evils have been voted upon for how many elections? Have we seen improvement for the american people? It's a fallacy. Each president has reduced what freedoms we have until our Bill of rights is hardly recognizable.

Do you remember what Biden asked Supreme Court Justice John Roberts during the Congressional confirmation hearings?

I do not see having Brigham Romney in the Oval Office as an improvement. I feel he is going to continue Obama policies just like Obama continued Bush policies. Obama promised hope and change and we got hopeless change.

[aegsm76]

Originally Posted by AreYouReady?

Sorry CC1. People who insist that other people vote against their own values and convictions for people they think is wrong for this country is acting like a little dictator themselves.

It is not childish behavior. It is an informed vote or non-vote.

Perhaps one can say it is childish behavior for those to try to bully others into voting for someone who is wrong for our country. In fact, it could be said it is thuggish behavior to intimidate others who do not agree with you by calling them names in the attempt to condescend their better judgment in order to force them into doing something they feel conviction against doing.

If one feels that they cannot vote for the lesser of two evils because it is still a vote for an evil entity over them, then who are you or anybody else to try to force them to go against their convictions?

My voting for a man who loves the bloodlust of abortion and ignores the blood of the unborn that cries out to the Lord would be akin to me agreeing with that man or woman. And how can I vote for a man whose religion believes that at some point in time the men will become a god? Thou shalt have NO other God's before me saith the Lord.

This is why America is in the shape it is in. We have the same old tired faces in politics that continue to dredge our country into the ditch. The lesser of two evils have been voted upon for how many elections? Have we seen improvement for the american people? It's a fallacy. Each president has reduced what freedoms we have until our Bill of rights is hardly recognizable.

Do you remember what Biden asked Supreme Court Justice John Roberts during the Congressional confirmation hearings?

I do not see having Brigham Romney in the Oval Office as an improvement. I feel he is going to continue Obama policies just like Obama continued Bush policies. Obama promised hope and change and we got hopeless change.

I have nothing against people who vote their own values and convictions, consistently.
Or against people who do not believe they should vote.
I do have somewhat against people who exercise those convictions, inconsistently.
I do have somewhat against people who do not want to vote for someone, for one reason, but throw up a smokescreen and say it is another.
Let's review a little bit here.

One candidate sees nothing wrong with abortion and lets federal tax dollars be used to finance abortion.
The other opposes abortion and says that he will stop funding it on day 1.

One candidate sees nothing wrong with gay marriage and supports it.
The other candidate opposes it.

One candidate loves Obamacare.
One candidate says he will repeal it.

One candidate has the most racist, lying, unequal justice enforcing AG that has ever existed in our country.
The other candidate will send him on his way.

One candidate is shutting as many power plants as he can, to force us to use less power.
The other candidate will make sure these stay open.

One candidate opposes an oil pipeline that will bring us much needed relief.
The other says he will authorize it to be built on day 1.

One candidate supports a facist, supporter-rewarding form of government grants and loans.
The other does not.

I could go on and on, but to me, the choice is clear.
In fact, there is no choice.

AYR - have you ever voted for a candidate that did not pass the same test that you are giving Romney?
Now, if you have not and you are consistently applying those principles, than I have no problem with you.
It is those who are not just not applying those consistently and are using other issues as a smokescreen, that bug me.

[aegsm76]

PO - since you will not believe wikipedia, then how about some other sources?

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/apr...riage-20120430

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art...ge_112251.html

The last one was written by someone who moved to Mass. to oppose gay marriage.

[CC1]

Originally Posted by aegsm76

I have nothing against people who vote their own values and convictions, consistently.
Or against people who do not believe they should vote.
I do have somewhat against people who exercise those convictions, inconsistently.
I do have somewhat against people who do not want to vote for someone, for one reason, but throw up a smokescreen and say it is another.
Let's review a little bit here.

One candidate sees nothing wrong with abortion and lets federal tax dollars be used to finance abortion.
The other opposes abortion and says that he will stop funding it on day 1.

One candidate sees nothing wrong with gay marriage and supports it.
The other candidate opposes it.

One candidate loves Obamacare.
One candidate says he will repeal it.

One candidate has the most racist, lying, unequal justice enforcing AG that has ever existed in our country.
The other candidate will send him on his way.

One candidate is shutting as many power plants as he can, to force us to use less power.
The other candidate will make sure these stay open.

One candidate opposes an oil pipeline that will bring us much needed relief.
The other says he will authorize it to be built on day 1.

One candidate supports a facist, supporter-rewarding form of government grants and loans.
The other does not.

I could go on and on, but to me, the choice is clear.
In fact, there is no choice.

AYR - have you ever voted for a candidate that did not pass the same test that you are giving Romney?
Now, if you have not and you are consistently applying those principles, than I have no problem with you.
It is those who are not just not applying those consistently and are using other issues as a smokescreen, that bug me.

For anyone to say that there is not a clear choice in this election is absurd. As I said before Romney at his worst is so much better than Obama at his best.

Your list is a good one but did not mention what I consider the most important aspect, one that I brought up in an earlier post, - judicial appointments.

These childish acting people who are just going to take their ball and go home rather than play because they didn't get their way may insure extremely left wing federal judges and Supreme Court justices are appointed and those appointments are for life! With two Supreme Court justices in their 80's not voting for Romney because he is not conservative enough is cutting off your nose to spite your face.

[Sam]

Originally Posted by CC1

For anyone to say that there is not a clear choice in this election is absurd. As I said before Romney at his worst is so much better than Obama at his best.

Your list is a good one but did not mention what I consider the most important aspect, one that I brought up in an earlier post, - judicial appointments.

These childish acting people who are just going to take their ball and go home rather than play because they didn't get their way may insure extremely left wing federal judges and Supreme Court justices are appointed and those appointments are for life! With two Supreme Court justices in their 80's not voting for Romney because he is not conservative enough is cutting off your nose to spite your face.

I am not a big Romney fan but I think we HAVE to vote for him to get that current guy out of there and get in at least some semblance of conservatism. No, Romney is not a TEA Party kind of guy but he is more conservative than the guy who is currently in office.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by aegsm76

PO - since you will not believe wikipedia, then how about some other sources?

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/apr...riage-20120430

This is a well written article. But, it contradicts what legal experts say - I won't repost those sources as I am getting the distinct impression that nothing is being read that has been posted.

You see, the things that he says are very contradictory - His statement that he and Mrs. Romney have made that they have been pro-life all of their lives when you can simply Google an interview (I have it posted under a Romney thread) with both of them sitting on a couch saying that they will defend the right of a woman to choose.

And then there are Romney's comments on gays in the Boy Scouts - "I believe that the Boy Scouts of America does a wonderful service for this country. I support the right of the Boy Scouts of America to decide what it wants to do on that issue. I feel that all people should be able to participate in the Boy Scouts regardless of their sexual orientation."

And his stand on gays adopting - “I believe marriage has been defined the same way for literally thousands of years by virtually every civilization in history and that marriage is literally by its definition a relationship between a man and a woman,” he told Fox News’ Neil Cavuto. “And that if two people of the same gender want to live together, want to have a loving relationship and even want to adopt a child, in my state individuals of the same sex were able to adopt children. In my view that’s something that people have the right to do, but to call that marriage is, in my view, a departure of the real meaning of that word.”

He simply says and acts in a very convoluting way. I just don't like or trust him.

I will include this for anyone that is interested in more details on the same-sex marriage debacle in Massachusetts.

Former Vatican Ambassadors, pro-family advocates misrepresent Romney record on defense of marriage

But in addition, it now appears to BCI that our own Catholic lawyers advising the archdiocese at the time on defense of marriage gave faulty advice that contributed to a surrender on this battle rather than a legitimate constitutional fight. We are assembling rather conclusive proof of that. Some of those lawyers are also now apparently giving political air-cover to Gov. Romney in his campaign instead of speaking the truth.

“Boston lawyer” said, “The simplest way for people to understand this is to just look at Chapter 3, Article V–anything having to do with marriage according to the Mass Constitution separation of powers is the purview of Governor and the Legislature–the SJC is banned by the state constitution from ruling on marriage.”

Articles XX and XXX of the constitution say the courts have no power to suspend laws or change the laws. Article X says the people of the commonwealth are only bound by laws passed by the people they elect to the legislative branch of government, not judges.

Several lawyers and experts on this topic say that if Mitt Romney had just followed the Massachusetts Constitution–as he took an oath to do–he would have said two things–the court had no constitutional authority to rule on marriage, and only the legislature could change the laws. Since the elected Legislature never approved changes in the law to permit and legalize “gay marriage,” the Romney administration–Romney himself, his general counsel and Department of Health under his authority–had a constitutional duty to uphold the law on the books. Thus, they should not have directed town clerks to issue “same-sex marriage licenses,” and the people of the commonwealth should never have been bound by a supposed new “law” that really was never a law at all, and is not even a law today, despite popular misconception.

Here is the bitter irony and grave tragedy as we understand it. Even the attorney for the gay and lesbian couples in the Goodridge case, Mary Bonauto, acknowledged in November 2003 that the legislature had to act to change the marriage laws before “same-sex marriages” were permitted, but it was Gov. Romney and our own Catholic lawyers who said that was not necessary!

http://bostoncatholicinsider.wordpre...e-of-marriage/

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art...ge_112251.html

The last one was written by someone who moved to Mass. to oppose gay marriage.

And here is an article written by a gay man.

Romney Offers Mixed Message on Gay Marriage

This boost for gay marriage surprised me, given Romney's numerous contrary pronouncements on the matter.

"I oppose same-sex marriage," Romney declared at Iowa's Dec. 15 GOP debate. "That's been my position from the beginning."

Romney's statements, however, conflict with his gubernatorial behavior.

Lawmakers debated various measures and even deliberated as a constitutional convention. But they never enacted a same-sex marriage law. The old, traditional marriage statute remains intact.

Nonetheless, Romney enforced the court's opinion, even though it required nothing of him, having allowed the legislature a window to act "as it may deem appropriate."

http://www.newsmax.com/Murdock/Romne...2/30/id/422597

[Pressing-On]

Now that we have solidly established our views and opinions on candidate Romney, let's get back to what the topic of the thread is about - THE DELEGATES.

I am following a lawsuit filed against the RNC and ordering them to release their delegates from voting for Romney. 120 Republicans have joined with 40 more, as of this date, wanting to be included.

http://arizona.lastchanceforliberty....-Lawsuit-1.pdf

[aegsm76]

One correction on your posts.
Your statement should have said:
"It contradicts what the legal experts, that I choose to believe, say".
It did not contradict all legal experts.

I feel like we are at an impasse.
Good luck with your presidential candidate, whoever that may be...

[AreYouReady?]

Originally Posted by aegsm76

I have nothing against people who vote their own values and convictions, consistently.
Or against people who do not believe they should vote.
I do have somewhat against people who exercise those convictions, inconsistently.
I do have somewhat against people who do not want to vote for someone, for one reason, but throw up a smokescreen and say it is another.
Let's review a little bit here.

One candidate sees nothing wrong with abortion and lets federal tax dollars be used to finance abortion.
The other opposes abortion and says that he will stop funding it on day 1.

One candidate sees nothing wrong with gay marriage and supports it.
The other candidate opposes it.

One candidate loves Obamacare.
One candidate says he will repeal it.

One candidate has the most racist, lying, unequal justice enforcing AG that has ever existed in our country.
The other candidate will send him on his way.

One candidate is shutting as many power plants as he can, to force us to use less power.
The other candidate will make sure these stay open.

One candidate opposes an oil pipeline that will bring us much needed relief.
The other says he will authorize it to be built on day 1.

One candidate supports a facist, supporter-rewarding form of government grants and loans.
The other does not.

I could go on and on, but to me, the choice is clear.
In fact, there is no choice.

AYR - have you ever voted for a candidate that did not pass the same test that you are giving Romney?
Now, if you have not and you are consistently applying those principles, than I have no problem with you.
It is those who are not just not applying those consistently and are using other issues as a smokescreen, that bug me.

In my younger years, I voted for Reagan. I was disappointed in him. I voted for Ross Perot because I did not agree with Bush Sr. or Clinton. I was disappointed in Perot abandoning the people he persuaded. I rode out Clinton policies and was appalled at his shenanigans, although I do note that there were some good laws that came out of his administration. However, I was vehemently against Al Gore's liberal ideas so I voted for what I considered the lesser of two evils...GWB because he talked about believing in God and other things. What a disaster!

I could not vote for Obama or McCain because of both of their policies. Obama won because people became weary and hated the disaster of Bush policies for our nation. McCain was seen as a man who would continue with Bush policies and Obama was seen as someone who promised hope and change. Well...we see that hope and change did not work out for the average american...but it did for large corporations such as Wall St. and corporate bailouts and insurance companies. And...I just happen to know something about what is going on with hospitals and the inside workings and changes of healthcare. And you would not like it if you knew.

So I am a bit jaded and skeptical when Romney says he will do something on day 1 such as repealing obamacare. In fact, I have a huge problem with him saying so because of romneycare. He is not telling the truth when he says he will repeal it. He cannot do it on his own because it must go through Congress for that to happen. If it does not, then Romney will be nothing but our new dictator.

Romney just says he will authorize the new pipeline. Heh heh heh. I've heard stuff like that before. You watch the barrage of protests, environmental groups and others come forward and Congress will pass their laws against doing so. That will free up Romney and give him cover for it not to happen.

Romney does not say what AG he will have. It seems as though with each elected president, we get equally lying AGs. The one Bush had was not exactly pristine in his actions either. But I will not go into those actions. Before that Reno the butcher, as she is called in many circles did not administer justice.

You say that you do not like inconsistency...well Romney is quite inconsistent himself just by some of the videos that are posted. I just simply do not believe what he is saying.
I know what Obama has done. He has proven himself to be a con. His promises of "yes we can" were only for large corporations and nothing for the people who believed him. We are trillions more in debt ...and it is by design to bankrupt this country.

I have long been castigated by people who get angry at me when I say I vote my conviction. It happens every election for me. This election is no different.

So...those of us who vote our conviction find ourselves between a rock and a hard place when terrible choices are placed before us. They may not be terrible choices for many others as I recognize that there are millions of people living in America that have no regard for our Creator.

I know that God is in control over even evil governments. We get the kind of government that we deserve. When our government will not acknowledge God in it's governing of the people and take the "separation of church and state" to the extreme that it does, it makes it hard to vote for the lesser of two evils...because it is still a vote for evil. Who wants to be governed by a lesser evil?

I am choosing Christ to be my God, my King, my president and let my life fall into his hands no matter who is voted in. Since God is in control over all governments, he is our protector and giver of life.

[Sam]

Question: How can you tell if a politician is lying?

Answer: His/her lips are moving.