In response to:

What If November Changes Nothing?

Corbett_ Wrote: Sep 13, 2012 4:43 PM
Dbeaux still cannot figure it out so I will try to explain it to him again. Maybe if I use short words... As the Judge so rightly points out, Romney and Obama are virtually equivalent. Now if you want to continue to be offered no real choice in the election, keep voting like you are voting now. But if you want to have a choice in future elections, you have to get the attention of the GOP establishment. How do you do that? You vote 3rd party. But won't that help Obama get elected? No it won't. Why not? Because of something called the Electoral College. The Electoral College is a winner-take-all system. The winner of a state takes all the electoral votes. And these are the only votes that count in choosing the President.
anti-neocon Wrote: Sep 13, 2012 4:52 PM
some republican apologists will NEVER admit that most of their candidates are not that different from the democrat party candidate. romney = obama-lite, republican = democrat-lite. it's time for the republican party to reform, or get out of the way for someone who WILL restore the constitution and liberty. romney, being pro-NDAA is pro-police state. that alone is more than enough reason to NOT vote for him.
InsightingTruth Wrote: Sep 13, 2012 5:06 PM
anti:

I find that when you peal away the first layer of a conservative/republican's skin you find a true lover of big, expensive, intrusive government. They fully support the welfare/warfare state; they just want to change the ratio to warfare/welfare.
anti-neocon Wrote: Sep 13, 2012 5:20 PM
InsightingTruth. i like how you make your point. establishment republicans are only conservative on the surface, while below the surface, loving the FDR big government nanny state. perfectly willing to give up their liberty for false promises of security.
Kevlar Wrote: Sep 13, 2012 5:29 PM
What are the facts; Most Republicans want the Constitution obeyed or legally changed. Yeh, there are some GOP politicians that become fans of big government, but at it's core...the people calling themselves Republicans approve of nearly everything Ronald Reagan stood for. Reagan was the beginning of the Tea Party movement.
InsightingTruth Wrote: Sep 13, 2012 5:30 PM
anti:

Exactly. It does not matter whether Rs or Ds are in office, governMENT GROWS!
Corbett_ Wrote: Sep 13, 2012 5:40 PM
Kevlar:

"Most Republicans want the Constitution obeyed or legally changed."

You've got to be kidding. If most of them were constitutionalists, Ron Paul would have won the nomination in a landslide. Most Republicans don't give a big rat's rear about the Constitution. They just want the government to be in the hands of Republican socialists instead of Democrat socialists.
InsightingTruth Wrote: Sep 13, 2012 5:41 PM
Kev:

Government grew during Reagan's term.

Reagan was dead before the Tea Party was conceived. (not counting the original Boston Tea Party, I think Reagan may have been involved in that one)
manzana Wrote: Sep 13, 2012 5:55 PM
Ron Paul may have had some good points, but his Foreign policy statements scared the heck out of most of us. He is too far radical to ever get elected- he couldn't even get bills passed in the congress. Despite trying 600 times.

Here's the question you must answer- do you want Barack Obama appopint up to five more supreme court judges? Napolitano missed that point. And how about hundreds of lower level judges?
InsightingTruth Wrote: Sep 13, 2012 6:21 PM
emanzana:

If Paul's Foreign policy positions scared you, it is most likely because you did not understand them.

The judge argument is truly the tail wagging the dog.
Corbett_ Wrote: Sep 13, 2012 10:55 PM
Manzana -- Romney has a history of appointing liberal activist judges. He once bragged that none of his appointees were pro-life. He also knowingly appointed homosexual activist judges to give Massachusetts homosexual "marriage".

Besides, with the GOP appointing people like Roberts, how can anyone say that we can trust them to appoint conservative judges?
Corbett_ Wrote: Sep 13, 2012 4:48 PM
So suppose you live in a state where the election is already decided (i.e., in virtually every state). Take California for example or Texas. California is going to go for Obama and Texas is going to go for Romney. So if you vote 3rd party, you have not helped Obama or hurt Romney. Obama is still going to get the electoral votes for California and Romney is still going to get the electoral votes for Texas.

So what good will voting 3rd party do? It will show the GOP establishment that you are totally dissatisfied with the man they chose to be your party's nominee. It will show them that you will not vote for a socialist and that they cannot take your vote for granted.
Corbett_ Wrote: Sep 13, 2012 4:48 PM
So suppose you live in a state where the election is already decided (i.e., in virtually every state). Take California for example or Texas. California is going to go for Obama and Texas is going to go for Romney. So if you vote 3rd party, you have not helped Obama or hurt Romney. Obama is still going to get the electoral votes for California and Romney is still going to get the electoral votes for Texas.

So what good will voting 3rd party do? It will show the GOP establishment that you are totally dissatisfied with the man they chose to be your party's nominee. It will show them that you will not vote for a socialist and that they cannot take your vote for granted.
What if the principal parties' candidates for president really agree more than they disagree?

What if they both support the authority of the federal government to spy on Americans without search warrants? What if they both support confining foreigners, uncharged and untried, in Guantanamo Bay? What if they both believe the president can arrest without charge and confine without trial any American he hates or fears?

What if they both believe in secret courts -- kept away from the public and the press -- that can take away the rights of Americans? What if they both think...