This blog,originally founded by Blogger, who is listed in Marquis Who's Who and is a recipient of the Albert Nelson Marquis Lifetime Achievement Award. He holds a theological degree and a doctorate in Counseling Psychology. Taught Psychology for 32 years and is now Professor Emeritus. Is a board-certified psychologist and was awarded the Lifetime Achievement Award in his profession. Ministered as a chaplain, and pastored Baptist and Episcopal churches. Publications cover the integration of psychology and theology. Served in the Army, the Merchant Marines and the Peace Corps.

Thursday, June 6, 2013

The Obama Mess

From Watauga GOP....

Nine months ago there was heated debate about which policies were best for the United States as we approached the November elections. I think today, in light of the recent developments, the question is not so much which policies are best(although very important) as the question has now become: Do we want a government that taps news reporters phones, opresses political opposition through any and all means(IRS, EPA), and makes up information to DECIEVE Americans(Libyan embassy attack and the made up video explanation) and hide their own gross negligence? DO YOU SEE A PATTERN HERE? It is Freedom's worst nightmare.  Give America a chance, VOTE REPUBLICAN. Tell your friends.


NewGuy said...

Some precincts in Ohio voted more ballots than they had population. The IRS stalled, harassed or denied dozens of 501c non profit applications of conservatives - tax filings of conservative organizations were published on liberal web sites showing the names and addresses of contributors to conservative causes - drying up contributions from those who didn't want to be harassed because of their conservative political views.

The Benghazi terrorist attack was "spun" into a local demonstration against a video when Obama campaigners recognized that it could hurt his election chances if we admitted a terrorist attack - similar to the "work place violence" label they pasted onto the Fort Hood MUSLIM TERRORIST ATTACK!

Fox News reporters had their telephone calls monitored by the Justice Department while nothing was done about the Black Panther intimidation of voters in Philadelphia......and now we find out that the government has requested MILLIONS of phone records from Verizon.

When will America take serious notice?

Sarkazein said...

Wait until your family's health insurance premiums become so high you have to opt for Obamacare which is Medicaid. The IRS will make you prove you can't afford the premiums yourself. The only way they can do that is a lifestyle audit. Then Nanny will be telling you what you can afford with your own money and what you can't afford with your own money. You will have to show in your return exactly what you spent your money on and why... hence the IRS. ONE Party pushed this through and that is the Democrat Party. Even if you are healthy, and healthcare has been insignificant in your life, you will (by law) have to make it one of the most expensive and time consuming things in your life (by law). Hide your pointy heads in shame Democrats... Liberty has "changed".

Sarkazein said...

It is NOT a tax and it is "Affordable"... HUGE lies and the Democrats still support it. A "mess" indeed.

Democratus Rex said...

Rather a pointy head than an empty head.

guy faulkes said...

Unfortunately, Mr. Obama keeps his head in another part of his anatomy, forcing him to visit a proctologist for an eye examination. I assume a pointy head would aid him in this endeavor.

Sarkazein said...

And that's all you got, Rex?

Sarkazein said...

I guess that is all AKA Rex had. Proving he can be both.

Johnny Rico said...

More superficial yammering about a petty scandal or two. This is what America wants folks. hussein obummer was elected to do just this very thing. He is taking the fight to conservatives in a way that's never been done before. And all conservatives can do is feign indignity at each atrocity. If conservatives were really in it to win it, perhaps they would start connecting with young voters on social media. That STILL hasen't happened yet! Or maybe use the Hunger Games movies/books, via social media, to show what obummer is doing aligns closely with what happened in the movie.

The point is to DO SOMETHING. Sort of like the Watauga County Commissioners - DO SOMETHING. Doing nothing only emboldens liberals like obummer who are eating your lunch. So-called conservatives deserve it.

How many conservative posters on this site? There should be hundreds of pissed off people blasting the liberals right about now. Instead it's not even a murmer. Batten down the hatches, you've seen nothing yet folks. The liberals have only begun to dismantle EVERYTHING you hold dear. And they are doing so without a fight!!!

Anonymous said...

What do you want the commissioners to do JR and what are you doing to help?

Thursday said...

Johnny Rico is nothing but a critic. I’m certain he or she does absolutely nothing in the way of actually contributing to the Conservative Cause - no volunteering, contributions to candidates, or grassroots work.

Yet JR has the audacity to demand others, “DO SOMETHING.”

Let examine one of JR’s recent criticisms:

“If conservatives were really in it to win it, perhaps they would start connecting with young voters on social media. That STILL hasn’t happened yet!”

Reality Check:

Here in North Carolina, a state where registered Democrats outnumber registered Republicans by 800,000, the NCGOP’s twitter account has nearly DOUBLE the number of followers compared to the NC Dem’s Twitter account


NC Dems:

The difference between RNC Twitter followers and DNC Twitter followers is less than 1% (in favor of the Dems.)



The RNC is dominating Facebook with 100% more followers than the DNC:

RNC Facebook:

DNC Facebook:

JR, in light of the above mentioned facts, I’m curious, what exactly “still hasn’t happened yet,” in regards to Social Media?

Anonymous, you asked JR, “What do you want the commissioners to do, what are you doing to help?”

The answer to both questions is: NOTHING.

JR really doesn’t want anything from the Commissioners - the only aim is to criticize, and if your only goal is to criticize, you certainly are not going to help others do any heavy lifting.

guy faulkes said...

I think the problem some of you have is that Rico is a conservative instead of a Republican. She is more vocal than most of us that share this trait, but that may be good.

There are many of us as Romney found out and Tillis is in the process of discovering.

That being said, while I wish the Republican county commissioners were more proactive on conservative issues, I have few complaints as a whole. They certainly did the right thing concerning the distribution of sales tax monies.

Johnny Rico said...


My, my I seem to have gotten under your thin skin. Not hard to do when hammering a liberal Republitard such as yourself.

If you had tried to defend Stalin as a staunch Conservative, I'd believe it more than the drivel you posted above. Before writing a piece like this, perhaps you should run it by the common sense test. Common sense tells us that a majority of social media users are young people. Yes, I said young people. The majority of young people are liberal Democrats these days, and they use social media far more than conservatives. With that little inconvenient fact in mind, we see the fallacy, or utter stupidity, of claiming Republicans use social media more in elections than Democrats. You posit a few weak links to back up your outrageous claims, so I'll post a link that backs my quite accurate assessment that Republicans are far behind Democrats in the use of social media.

Many many more articles and statistics exist to prove my position. I don't need those statistics to prove anything however because I use something called "common sense" before spouting off with garbage like you. I'll say it again so you can try and understand - Democrats have mastered the use of Social Media to reach voters whilst Republicans are content to connect with a smaller and smaller cross-section of society. To indicate otherwise is sheer madness mixed with a healthy dose of pure inbred ignorance.

As for the do-nothing Watauga County Commissioners you ask "What do you want the commissioners to do, and what are you doing to help"? A silly question given I've indicated, for the past 4 years, what I want the Commissioners to do. What I want them to do, again just for you, is PUT POWER IN THE HANDS OF THE PROLETARIAT. I want a repeal of gun laws, a tightening of immigration laws and the repeal of oppressive County Ordinances (sign ordinance for example). You see Thursdumb, the Republican Party, especially the Commissioners, are big government oriented as much as liberal Democrats. Not much to choose between the two. The second part of your question is what do I do to make these things happen. Well, I constantly barrage the liberal Watauga County Commissioners to DO SOMETHING to increase freedom and liberty for Watauga County residents. I also help by campaigning against liberal Republicans who fail to fulfill these basic tenants of the Republican Party. We need to un-elect liberal Republicans (all Watauga County Commissioners fall into this category) and replace with conservatives. So there, I'm helping to put power where it belongs - in the hands of the people. Keeping the status quo in power is worse than being a liberal Democrat.

And what exactly do you do besides defend liberal socialist sheep intent on one thing: re-election?

This ought to be interesting.....

Your ole pal

Sarah McMann-Edwards

Johnny Rico

PS Glad to have some new lemmings to help off the cliff. I'm in it to win it unlike liberal Republicans. LOL!!!!

Johnny Rico said...

Guy Faulks,

Thanks for clearing up the fact Conservatives are a far different breed than Republicans. Kind of like comparing a Plott Hound (Conservative) to an inbred Chihuahua (Republican). One is utilitarian and ready to do what's needed whilst the other is window dressing and nothing more.

Guy, you are far more reasoned in your approach to dealing with liberals like Thursday. I don't harbor the politeness or deep articulation you possess. I feel it's impossible to reach liberals like Thursdumb so why not pound them into little piles of dust that my female Plott can piss away on the morning walk? Stupidity begets the only response they understand (or react too as they don't understand much)which is FORCE. LOL!!!

Johnny Rico

Sarkazein said...

Just curious- What percentage of OTHERS do you think came the closest to defeating Obama?

Sarkazein said...

Keeping in mind- "Others" includes the Green Party, the Socialist Party, Libertarian Party and 30 others.

NewGuy said...

Over the years I have had a few friends who became politicians - and met a few politicians who became friends. I can't think of a single one of them with whom I agreed 100% on all subjects.

I believe that the current Republicans on the county commission have all done a commendable job in changing the course of "tax, borrow, spend" that was the hallmark of the BOC under Jim Deal's chairmanship.

That being said, I have many disagreements with the way the current board still thinks of taxpayer dollars as something they should use to fund non profits which they favor! (Miller is the exception - although he did agree to a $1.00 a year lease of valuable county property to the Art's Council, he has MOSTLY held the line on funding of non profits)

Now, if there is a candidate for the BOC who I believe will be more supportive of reducing county expenses than the incumbents, then I would support that candidate.

Until then, I will support the ones who are most closely aligned with my positions. No, they aren't perfect - but they are thousands of times better than the alternatives!

Go through the minutes of the BOC meetings. You will find that Democrats Kennedy and Welch almost NEVER vote for any reduction of county expenses. I don't recall a single vote by either of them in opposition to increased funding for any non profit!

Why do these county commissioners think that they know better than I which charities and non profits my money should be contributed to?

Anonymous said...

So you agree with the county buying the property on 194? There is one commissioner against it and he isn't a Republican. I think that project will increase spending, don't you? Keep carrying the water!

Anonymous said...

All 5 County Commissioners voted for the 105 land purchase.
At a subsequent meeting, ONE voted against a contract to do the due diligence on the property.

Not that facts will affect your opinions!

guy faulkes said...

Only a fool would purchase a property such as this without knowing his options.

As stated before, many of us have reservations about buying this property, particularly at this point in time, but we will be able to decide after a study of what these options are.

Mr. Obama would do well to emulate the Watauga County Commissioners, or at least three of them.

What are your objections, Anonymous and what is the reason for them? Do you know your options?

Anonymous said...

As long as we're talking about facts, no commissioner has voted for the 194 land purchase. Any votes at this point have simply been to explore the possibility--at a cost of course. I don't agree with the land purchase, and I'm hoping they will ultimately vote against the purchase.

Johnny Rico said...

What happened to the great Thursday? I answered the question and posed a few of my own. Like a typical liberal, you took the low road and escaped with what very little dignity you have left. The truth hurts doesn't it Thursday!! LOL!!!! You've got a few questions to answer my liberal friend. Still waiting.

Your ole pal

Betsy Gardner

Johnny Rico

Thursday said...

Johnny Rico,

Simmer Down.

I will deal with you when I have the time.

- The Great Thursday.

Anonymous said...

What pains me is that only 1, a DEM at that, has public ally stated his intention to end the purchase. That study is no small study. $52k???? I think some "conservatives" on this blog have lost their principles while carrying the water for their party.

guy faulkes said...

You did not answer the questions, Anonymous. What are your objections and what are the reasons for them? Do you know the options?

Everyone agrees the price of the land is a tremendous bargain, but not if we do not need to use it for something the county rally needs. The study will tell us if the property is suitable for such a use so the commissioners can make an informed decision.

Why do you liberals want to conduct the county's business from a position of ignorance, as indicated by your pointing out that only one, a Democrat, wants to make a decision without having the information needed.

Johnny Rico said...


You mean to say you've been forced into responding when you don't know how or what to say? LOL!!! No problems, I'm available despite my commitments to making a living and paying taxes to keep liberals afloat.

Thursday said...

Johnny Rico,

I now have time for you…

The comment of yours that I responded to:

“If conservatives were really in it to win it, perhaps they would start connecting with young voters on social media. That STILL hasn’t happened yet!”

This criticism of yours was clearly aimed at Conservative organizations; your assertion was that these organizations were failing to reach out to young voters.

In rebuttal, I presented evidence that proved your claims false. (You will now attempt to argue that the Republican Party is not a Conservative Organization.)

FYI: The Heritage Foundation, NC Civitas, Americans For Prosperity, Allen West, Marco Rubio, Rand Paul, etc. all have sizable Twitter and Facebook followings. These individuals and organization are, just like the Republican Party, successfully reaching out to young voters via Social Media.

So again I ask, just what “hasn’t happened yet?”

The article you provided, “Liberals More Active Than Conservatives on Social Media,” examines the BEHAVIOR of individuals, NOT the efforts of various political organizations to engage their audiences – a.k.a “connecting with voters.”

Unfortunately for you, I do not let others put words in my mouth. I never said, “Republicans use social media more in elections than Democrats.” I did however prove that Republicans and Conservative organizations are indeed “connecting with young voters on social media.”

The Pew Research Study, which is referenced in the article you provided, concludes that Liberals are more active on Social Media than Conservatives. What you fail to realize is that the Pew Study strengthens my argument!

Here’s How:

Pew makes the point that Liberals are more active on Social Media than Conservatives. Given this fact, one would logically expect Liberal organizations to have larger followings on Twitter, Facebook, etc. But this is NOT the case.

It is the Republican Party and other Conservative organizations that are outpacing the Liberals on social media in terms of engagement i.e. “followers.”

What does this tell us? Conservative organizations must in fact, be doing a BETTER job of reaching out to young voters on social media. They are either successfully overcoming the Liberal on-line bias, or reaching a larger percentage of their Social Media audience (I believe the latter is the case.)

But honestly, the larger point I wanted to make has nothing to do with Social Media. The fact of the matter is: you are nothing but a critic, an ill-informed critic at that.

Case in point, your expectations for the County Commissioners:

I too am in favor of repealing gun laws, but the vast majority of what you and I would like to see repealed has to be accomplished in DC and Raleigh.

Tightening immigration laws is, again, something for our elected representatives in DC and Raleigh. Other counties across the Country have attempted to deal with immigration at the local level – all these attempts resulted in law suits and legal fees. We could go this route, but it would be costly and not fiscally responsible. Put pressure on V. Foxx, R. Burr, and D. Soucek.

I have to believe most of the sign ordinances you take issue with are the result of the Boone Town Council’s heavy-handedness, not the County Commissioner’s actions. But either way, I’ve never seen a sign that I would consider “oppressive.” If it is “oppressive,” just ignore it (I do this all the time with “oppressive” speed limit signs.)

Rico, you did get one thing right – you do “get under my skin.” You are oblivious to just how ill-informed you really are. I do in fact find this very annoying.

Johnny Rico said...

Thursdum said:

"In rebuttal, I presented evidence that proved your claims false. (You will now attempt to argue that the Republican Party is not a Conservative Organization.)"

In rebuttal to your rebuttal, I presented evidence that proved your claims false. Your stats, from establishment Republicans, claims they are ahead of Demoturds in regards to social media. My stats, from conservative media shred your outlandish claims. And then the comment about common sense and how that is one of the first things one looks at when engaging in debate was totally ignored by you (for obviously good reasons). You go own to obviate:

"Allen West, Marco Rubio, Rand Paul, etc. all have sizable Twitter and Facebook followings. These individuals and organization are, just like the Republican Party"

Just like the Republitard party? Come again? With the exception of establishment idiot Marco Rubio, West and Paul are CONSERVATIVES. Big difference between a conservative and an establishment Republican (Watauga County Commissioners). This is something liberal Republicans try hard to defuse and offline. No more my liberal friend. Conservatives have your number and call a liberal a liberal. If Paul and West have sizable social media followings, it's because they are conservative, not Republican. You will need to define the difference between the two if YOUR party is to survive. Many of us former Republicans, fed up with liberal ideals consistent with a large percentage of Republitards, have re-registered as Independents. Many more are headed our way.

Cont'd below

Stings don't it

Johnny Rico said...

Thursdu goes on to say:'

"The article you provided, “Liberals More Active Than Conservatives on Social Media,” examines the BEHAVIOR of individuals, NOT the efforts of various political organizations to engage their audiences"

And here we have the offlining tactic common to liberal Republicans unable to answer tough questions. You're yapping about the EFFORTS of political organizations, not the behavior of individuals. It's the behavior the organizations influence!! And Republicans are losing badly! You prove MY argument my liberal friend. I could care less about anything but the end result, and the end result is liberal Democrats are outclassing stodgy Republicans 2 to 1 in social media. The trend is going towards Republicans either. And you establishment Republicans wonder why you're losing the young voters? Duh.

And here's a good one:

" The fact of the matter is: you are nothing but a critic, an ill-informed critic at that."

And who made you the all knowing God of who should or shouldn't comment on politicians, especially do nothing politicians like the Watauga County Commissioners? You're ill informed yourself if you don't believe Republican Commissioners exist to limit government and put power where it belongs - in the hands of the proletariat.

"the vast majority of what you and I would like to see repealed has to be accomplished in DC and Raleigh."

Wrong again and very much so. What must be accomplished starts at the grass roots level as does ANY effort. County Commissions regularly adopt resolutions regarding what they would like to see happen in regards to laws, rules or regulations. They are a powerful force in Raleigh which in turn is a powerful force in DC. Take the Sunday Hunting law for example. County Commissioners can outlaw Sunday hunting in this county if they want to. A few years back, us hunters and shooters raised hell with the County Commission as they tried to hold a secret meeting to do who knows what with Sunday hunting. We didn't let that happen, and the Commissioners deferred to the state law which allowed Sunday hunting. When those liberal Commissioners were voted out, we expected protections from an overarching government by the new, supposed conservative, Commission. Why isn't this County Commission of supposed conservatives adopting a county Constitution or lobbying the State for a right to hunt, shoot, fish, and trap law like we've been asking for oh, about 10 years now? They ignore it. In other words, they are not about putting power in the hands of the people where it belongs. More examples abound. You seem to be a strong supporter of the status quo which, in the end, never increases our freedom or liberty. Vote them out.

Continued below

Stings don't it

Johnny "Stinger" Rico said...


Talk about ill-informed!! You say:

"I have to believe most of the sign ordinances you take issue with are the result of the Boone Town Council’s heavy-handedness"

The digital signs we are blessed with in a few places in our COUNTY are not allowed by County Ordinance. There is a sign ordinance outside city limits. Why do we have an ordinance restricting private property rights?

And finally I asked you what YOU are doing to help? You dodged that question after I detailed exactly what I do to correct the situation. Once again, what are you doing to help? Careful answering this question, as it has proven to be a self-dug pit for many liberals such as yourself. Hope you try and answer.

Vote out Republican County Commissioners because they do nothing to increase individual freedom or liberty. Replace with new politicians and then vote them out for good measure. Politicians should be treated like a necessary evil. Sort of like wheat chaffe blowing in the wind. Give them nothing and FORCE them to the will of the people. What you have now is a bloated political unit concerned with two things - Power and Keeping Power. Negate their ability in those regards and enjoy your liberty. Fulfill their true intentions and enjoy the oppression you're sure to earn!! Your choice Thursdu.

Now how about telling us how YOU HELP (third time asking).

This ought to be interesting.....

Your ole pal

Billy Barksdale-Mathis

Johnny Rico

Johnny Rico said...

Well Thursdu, what are you waiting for?

Johnny Rico said...


Are you going to answer the question? Here it is again in case you forgot. What have you done to help the situation?

Your ole pal

Johnny Rico

Thursday said...

Johnny Rico,

Mercy. What word-vomit.

I will wade through this mammoth-sized trash heap today, but do not expect the same kind of generosity going forward.

Here we go, point-by-point:

*False Statement: “Your stats, from establishment Republicans, claims they are ahead of Demoturds in regards to social media”

*Fact: The “stats” I referenced came directly from Facebook and Twitter, NOT the “Republican establishment.”

Both FB and Twitter are private enterprises whose corporate leaders are self-identified Liberals. I highly doubt Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg would allow the RNC to manipulate their number of “followers,” but maybe there is a conspiracy afoot; would you like to tell us about it?

In the absence of a Social Media conspiracy, engendered by Liberals to make Republicans look good, the article you reference, “Liberals More Active Than Conservatives on Social Media,” continues to strength my position. (See the “Here’s How” section of my earlier post for more details.)

*Inability to Comprehend Simple Sentence Structure: You wasted a great deal of time ranting about the differences between Conservatives and Republicans. Your time was wasted because you lack the ability to comprehend simple sentence structure. The statement you took issue with, “just like the Republican Party,” does not equate Republicans with Conservatives.

*Fact: My “just like the Republican Party” statement LIKENED the GOP’s Social Media success to the successes of Conservative individuals and organizations.

*Grammatical Lesson: If I had used the phrase: “ARE just like the Republican Party,” your tirade would have been warranted. But seeing as I did not use the word “are,” you wasted a good deal time.

*False Statement: Your original claim, which I took issue with: “If conservatives were really in it to win it, perhaps they would start connecting with young voters on social media. That STILL hasn’t happened yet!”

*Fact: This is an EFFORTS criticism. I provided clear evidence, evidence which you choose to ignore, that proves Conservatives are making the EFFORT to “connect with young voters on Social Media.”

*Attempt to Shift the Debate: The article you referenced discusses the BEHAVIOR of Social Media users. Your original criticism was aimed at the EFFORTS of Conservatives, not the BEHAVIOR of individuals. Indeed it was you “yapping about the EFFORTS of political organization” that brought about this debate. Once your statements were proved false, you attempted to shift the debate – I will not allow this to happen.

*False Statement: “Republicans are losing badly!”

*Facts: For the first time in 140 years, the Republican Party has majorities in the NC House and Senate (Super Majorities at that.) Conservative held control of the NC Supreme with the reelection on Justice Newby in 2012. Republicans took back control of the Watauga County Commission in 2010 and held control in 2012. NC has a Republican Governor and Lt. Governor. The majority of North Carolina’s Congressional Delegation is Republican. Kay Hagen will most likely be replaced by a Republican (I hope this is not Tillis as well.) Republicans control the US Congress, and stand to make gains in the US Senate.

*Sad Fact: Obama won reelection

Thankfully, American politics, and the success of political organization, is not defined in totality by who occupies the White House.

Thursday said...

I am a strong grassroots advocate. We have a Republican Lt. Governor thanks to grassroots. I do not, in any way, attempt to diminish the power of bottom-up politics.

With that said, we elect State and National representative to champion Conservative cases as well.

Surely you are familiar with the Watauga County Commissioner’s effort to abolish Boone’s ETJ – an effort to “return power to the proletariat.” It was Raleigh that stopped this effort (a decision I very much disagree with.)

I bring the ETJ up because it exemplifies the need for grassroots to put pressure on our State and National officials. You see, in spite of their commendable lobbying efforts, County officials are not always “a powerful force in Raleigh which in turn is a powerful force in DC.”

I have no problem with hunting on Sunday, and encourage you to continue to lobby for this freedom. But the fact still remains, that most of our gun laws come from Raleigh and DC – 99% of what you and I would like to see accomplished has to be dealt with at the state and national level.

The reference to “oppressive sign ordnances” was vague in your earlier post. Now that you have provided specifics, I tend to agree with you. That is if, new digital signs to not encroach on the personal property rights of others.

Yet I still find it hard to believe you label our County Commissioners as RINOs. On the whole they have done a fantastic job.

Rico, if you want to accomplish all your personal political goals, you need to run for office yourself. As much as I detest your unfound criticisms and never-ending tirades, I would more than likely vote for you. But until you do decide to run for office, stop attacking those who are doing a huge amount of good.

Show a little appreciation.

Recognize our Conservative officials work their asses off.

Be grateful.

Be grateful in particular for our Conservative State and Local officials who serve part-time and are paid next to nothing.

And if you do run for office, don’t expect much out of me.

To your earlier question about what I do to further the Conservative Cause: I don’t do much.

No volunteering to speak of. No donating to candidates. No grassroots work.

I sit on my ass most of the time.

But I sit in thanks to those who do work hard

Reader said...

Great response, Thursday. Well done!

Johnny Rico said...


My, my, Thursdu you seem a touch aggravated in your attempt to extricate yourself. You decided to go down this predacious road, so deal with it! LOL!!! Talk about wading through crap - I really don't have time to argue with a supporter of liberal agendas, but I'm glad to expose the difference between a liberal Republican and a conservative. Here goes:

" “just like the Republican Party,” does not equate Republicans with Conservatives."

You, my dear Thursdu, made the all too common mistake of equating a Republican with a conservative. A Republican refers to a political affiliation whilst the moniker conservative denotes a stance or mindset towards the world in general. The two words are not interchangeable and do not compliment each other. Again for the slow learners (you) - Republican = political party; Conservative = manner of applying personal beliefs to the outside world.

And here were splitting hairs to salvage some thread of credibility:

"EFFORT to “connect with young voters on Social Media.”

Simply making an effort isn't going to do it if the opposition's "effort" outclasses your effort due to lack of strategy on the part of establishment Republicans. Their effort and end result both, taken separately or together, beats yours. They Republicans had 4 years to figure out how to reach young voters since 2008, and they failed as miserably in that endeavor as they did in failing to support a conservative candidate over a liberal one (Romney). The establishment Republicans quite frankly cannot screw up things any more than they have - especially in their lack of exploiting social media.

Here's another hum dinger:

" For the first time in 140 years, the Republican Party has majorities in the NC House and Senate"

Very very true. But what you fail to realize, as most establishment, big government Republicans do, is that this "new" party in control is just like the old one. They are big government, tax raising, issue dodging, status quo liberals. Freedom for NC resident has not been increased at all since these dolts took office (Jordan and Souchek not included as they've proven themselves, so far, to be CONSERVATIVES). So, yes, my assessment that Republicans are losing badly is correct. They (Establishment Republicans) are after on thing - power.

Cont'd below

Johnny Rico said...

As for the rest of your points, you did fall on the sword which is very unlike most establishment Republicans. I can appreciate that and value it because you don't see that type of attitude in many Americans anymore. Good job.

One point you said is to value our Republican representatives. I find this hard to do because conservatives have been screwed over enough times by establishment Republicans that I've adopted a scorched earth policy (figuratively speaking) towards most politicans. I believe it was Thomas Paine who said government on its best day is a necessary evil, and on its worst intolerable. I find we are in the intolerable stage and it's not getting any better. Your life, and mine, is not a life of liberty Thursday. It's a cradle to grave intrusion by the nanny state.

Did you know it's now illegal in NC to burn your own garbage. Or to burn tires on your own property. You actually have to get a "permit" to do something on your own land now. Unconstitutional zoning laws litter the social landscape like a Nazi minefield. You can't spank your child now Thursday. You must ask the Sheriff for permission to buy a weapon. Illegal aliens aren't held to the same standard of conduct that you and I are (they're given a pass).

I encourage you to speak against tyranny - even if it means going on a tirade. I like going on tirades - it makes me feel better that I've not yet been denied the 1st Amendment. Thursday, if you don't start doing something right now, it's going to be too late. In fact, it may already be too late.

Hold your elected representatives accountable. They should be sticking up for ALL of your rights or be expected to be out of a job. If they do even one little thing that destroys freedom, then ensure they feel your wrath at the voting booth and in media such as this. Politicians are a necessary evil on their best day. Never trust them and make things uncomfortable for the dirty bastards every second of every day by speaking against their daily degradations. When they do something good, don't congratulate them for doing what they are supposed to do. Don't exalt a dirty politician - they should exalt YOU the proletariat. You are the exalted one Thursday. You may interpret this as some type of rant, but I say this because I support YOU, a citizen of this once great country. I support YOUR freedom. I support YOUR right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

So, Thursday, you see I'm not all that bad. Just a pissed off woman fighting for liberty. You seem like the type to fight for liberty and I hope you continue in that direction. I may indeed run for office so I can become a thorn in the side of corrupt, dirty politicians.

Johnny Rico

PS You are one of the few that had the courage to argue with me. I do respect that even though I disagree with you politically. Again, good job.

guy faulkes said...

A Republican is far from automatically being a conservative. In many cases, the Republicans have abandoned their conservative base and are paying for it.

Are yous keeping up with the trouble Tillis is having?

Anonymous said...

New Guy,
You need to look at the BOC minutes all but Miller voted to increase funding to non profits. That bucket of water must be getting heavy!

NewGuy said...

anon - It seems that, no matter which ID you post under, you never make much sense and you consistently misread - or simply are unable to comprehend- what others have said.

What I said was " I have many disagreements with the way the current board still thinks of taxpayer dollars as something they should use to fund non profits which they favor! (Miller is the exception - although he did agree to a $1.00 a year lease of valuable county property to the Art's Council, he has MOSTLY held the line on funding of non profits)"

Now, try to follow me on this. When I said that the current board thinks of taxpayer dollars as something they should use to fund non profits, what I meant was - the current board which, if you understand me so far - would, to most people, indicate my belief that the members of the current board share that position. To most people, that would indicate that I am aware of how they voted on non profit funding. And even Miller, whom I pointed out was the exception on much of the non profit spending - voted to lease valuable county property to the local Art Council for $1.00 a year.

Maybe if you spent some time and tried to read what others have posted- and maybe took a minute after every few words and attempted to understand what was said - then Maybe, just MAYBE, you wouldn't keep attributing positions to others which are contrary to the positions they have stated.

Thursday said...

Johnny Rico,

It is evident you care nothing about facts, figures, history or statics. (See earlier posts)

Also evident is your total disregard for what someone ACTUALLY stated. Clearly, you prefer dodging the topic and misquoting over debate - a Liberal tactic.

I am speaking specifically of:

Your EFFORTS criticism vs. your BEHAVIORAL defense. (Shifting the debate.)

Your continued insistence on misquoting my “Republicans, just like Conservatives…”, in favor of your lie: “Republicans (ARE) just like Conservative.”

Only someone like you could read our transcript and think I “fell on my sword.”
Where was this evidenced?

You make an unbelievably broad statement about the County Commissioner’s “repealing gun laws.”

I point out most of our gun laws come from Raleigh and DC.

You narrow your complaint down to the County’s ban on Sunday hunting.

I, now knowing the details of your nuanced gripe, agree with you.

And somehow you equate this to “falling on my sword?”

Your reasoning is totally devoid of logic.

Given your disregard for actualities, I see no need to further our conversation. It is impossible to debate someone who operates in a world where facts are meaningless.

Of course you will claim this as victory. But rest assured this victory is only in your mind. To the rest of the world, this is me simply me saving myself some time.

I do however hope you enjoy revealing in your make-believe victory, as these pretend victories are the only victories you will ever enjoy.

But before closing, I will deny you the moral high ground you attempted to claim for yourself:

Your statement, “I say this because I support YOU, a citizen of this once great country. I support YOUR freedom. I support YOUR right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” is no doubt genuine and admirable.

We are indeed fighting for the same cause.

With that said, our fight for Liberty and Freedom is diminished, when you slander, lie, and habitually criticize your brothers and sisters in arms.

You can attempt to justify your actions in any way you like, but there is no excuse for such behavior.

Going forward, I encourage you to:

Speak the truth,
argue facts,
and, use logic.

Employing these skills will serve you well in future.

Though you assert it as fact, we do not disagree politically.

My disagreement with you is not issues oriented, but rather behavior oriented.

Your on-line tirades are often illogical.

You spend the vast majority of your time attacking Republicans and other Conservatives instead of arguing against Liberalism.

You prefer attacking your own - I find this detestable.

As I originally state, you are nothing but a critic.

Your ole pal,

CCed: Facts Matter, Don’t Shift the Debate, and Target Liberals not Conservatives

BCCed: Critics are a Waste of Time

guy faulkes said...

Thursday, be careful what you ask for. When Rico goes into serious logic mode, nobody can stay with her.

Nobody said...

To the contrary, Thursday pasted Rico on this thread. While I enjoy reading Rico when (s)he is nailing liberals, she is the worst kind of ally -- too much collateral damage/(un)friendly fire. Cincinnatus no longer posts here because of her. She cannot (or will not) see the similarities in positions she shares with Thursday. In holding too rigidly to her ideals, she is aiding the liberals by attacking conservatives who disagree in the most minute ways, as demonstrated on this thread. This seems to me to be the biggest difference between conservatives and liberals -- liberals are willing to take small victories if it incrementally advances their overall goals. Conservatives are "too pure" in that they will not support a candidate that may differ with them on one or two issues, allowing liberals to win office (Obama) and further their agenda. Anybody tried to buy ammo at Walmart lately? Aren't you glad Obama won?

guy faulkes said...

Nobody, the only difference in the outcome of Obama winning instead of Romney is the speed at which things happened. There was no practical difference in them. Both supported gun control, abortion, amnesty for illegal aliens, and socialistic medicine.

As I said from the beginning, Romney was not electable as liberal lite cannot beat liberal. The base would not support him. In this instance, I beleive Rico and I are more in tune with political reality than those of you that beleive ins supporting the lesser of two evils. You continue to end up with evil.

As long as the Republican party does not run a conservative, they have no chance in a Presidential election.

Sarkazein said...

Nobody- They wanted to get there faster.

Nobody said...

Are you seriously contending that we are better off with Obama in office until 2017 than we would have been with Romney in office? The fact is that Romney was chosen by a primary electoral process. To contend that this is the fault of a few "establishment Republicans" is to insinuate that the mass of grassroots Republican voters are mindless robots taking orders from a few. Romney was NOT my ideal candidate, but when it came down to a choice between four more years of Obama or Romney, how could anyone who calls themself a conservative rationally see no difference? Purists will continue to contribute to the success of liberals eroding liberty for all of us while placating themselves with self-congradulations for their purity while attacking and alienating their own political allies.

Nobody said...

I'm as big an Ayn Rand fan as anyone, but it is fiction. After the collapse, there will be no John Galt or Dagney Taggart riding out to save the world. We will just be left with the collapse. I think you're right -- that some wish to reach the collapse more quickly in order to rebuild from the ashes (interestingly, this is an anarchist view as well), but I worry too much about my children surviving that crash. It has been said that liberals model revolution after the French model -- quite a few people went to the guillotine and the short-term result was a dictatorship.

Sarkazein said...

Nobody 2:22 PM- Ditto!

guy faulkes said...

Nobody, I am stating the indisputable fact that here was no difference in Obama and Romney. Romney backed gun control, he supported abortion, he supported amenity for illegal aliens, and developed Romneycare from which Obaamacare was patterned. The country is not better off with either one over the other. Therefore I supported neither of them. At least three million other voters did the same.

The Republican party cannot win without its base and the base requires a conservative. Until the establishment leadership figures this out, there will never be a Republican President.

Nobody said...

This is not an indisputable fact -- "Nobody, I am stating the indisputable fact that here was NO difference in Obama and Romney."

This is merely your opinion. Personally, I think there are a lot of differences between the two (especially economically!), but since Romney wasn't elected, we'll never know. Would he have repealed Obamacare as he stated he would? I believe he would. Those of you who fell for the democratic ploy that Obamacare was patterned after Romneycare overlook one HUGE difference. According to the 10th Amendment, states have the power to do ANYTHING not specifically denied to them by the constitution (limitations through the Bill of Rights being one example), as long as it is not a power specifically given to the federal government (declare war). According to the US Constitution, STATES absolutely can develop a state-run health care system -- I don't hear many of you complaining about TennCare next door or other state health care systems. If, as governor of Mass., Romney felt that the citizens of Mass. wanted a state run health care system, he and they have the right to do just that FOR MASS. Obamacare IS prohibited by the 10th amendment, since that amendment states that any power not specifically granted to the federal government, nor denied the states, is automatically to be assumed to be a state power. The US Supreme Court should have struck down Obamacare, but I understand Roberts' ruling the way he did. He had stated that he wanted to give the people the opportunity to strike down Obamacare through the electoral process last November, rather than through judicial fiat. Some people believed it more important to boycott based on their principles and saddle us with Obamacare forever. Perhaps ten years from now, when Obamacare has wrecked our health care system and we have moved towards complete socialized health care this will become apparent.

Nobody said...

"The Republican party cannot win without its base and the base requires a conservative. Until the establishment leadership figures this out, there will never be a Republican President."

Guy -- wouldn't you agree that it WAS the base that chose Romney through the primary process? I mean, is there some establishment "gatekeeper" preventing conservatives from voluntarily entering the nominating process? Doesn't "the base" vote for the nominee? Of all of the candidates in the Republican primaries, which one WOULD you have supported? Cain? Newt? Rick Perry? Santorum? Bachman? (She was toast after her hpv statement, which just fueled the libelous accusations that all conservatives are uneducated hicks). Which one would have won in November? I'll guarantee I could find a position every one of these candidates has held at some point that would be in contradiction to your views. Would you not have traded four years of Romney for no Obamacare?

guy faulkes said...

No, Nobody, the base did not choose Romney. The liberals and the establishment Republicans did. This is the problem. The winner of the primary is someone that will not be supported by one of the other faction of the Party.

The base has repeatedly shown it will not support Liberal lite. The liberal Republicans will not support a conservative. The establishment Republicans are only interested in maintaining the status quote that keeps them personally in office.

Neither of these groups are any better or worse than the others when supporting people in the political process is concerned. The Republican party is dead as an effective national entity.

Personally I liked Cain; however I would have supported any of them except Romney. I would have had to take a deep breath and hold my nose if Newt or Perry were nominated.

None of the others was the Obama Clone that was Romney. This being said, I think any of them had a better chance than Romney and would probably have won. One or two issues that were not to the liking of the base might be acceptable, but not an almost straight down the line relation to the views of Obama.

Sarkazein said...

If the "base" is that small of a percentage of the whole, it is not the base... it is the fringe.

Sarkazein said...

If almost ALL Conservative talking heads and Conservative politicians eventually endorsed Romney, and almost ALL Conservative groups including the Tea Party groups eventually endorsed Romney, including Army, Bachman, Palin etc. Those who didn't vote for Romney are either democrats or fringe voters/refused to be a voter or couldn't figure out the ballot.
The "base" might not have been excited by Romney, but they voted for him. The polls I read show less than 1,000,000 votes were cast for Romney as compared to McCain. There is no proof as to why, only guesses.
There's nothing wrong with being in the fringe. I just wish the fringe was not failing so miserably.

Sarkazein said...

I believe Romney had more primary votes than all the others combined... or it is close. Santorum was second with not even half of Romney's votes.
Should Romney have spotted the "base" candidates some votes? Should we have a quota system (at least one "base" candidate should be given the victory in every other primary election)? Should some "base" candidates not be allowed to withdraw and endorse the one with the most primary votes? Should we make the candidate with the lowest number of votes our candidate (using a golf type scoring system)?

Nobody said...

Total votes in Republican primaries:

Romney - 9,809,662

Santorum (pro-union candidate) - 3,909,460

Gingrich (thrice married, Lutheran-Southern Baptist-Roman Catholic candidate ("family values?")) - 2,720,135

Ron Paul (Libertarian but scary foreign policy candidate more "unelectable" than Romney) - 2,063,043

Of course, one could make the argument that Romney racked up a lot of his votes after the other candidates dropped out, but if you just look at the first four states n the process, it looks like this:

Romney - 1,071,678
Santorum - 378,995
Gingrich - 817,770
Paul - 278,829

These are votes -- by people, not some ethereal "establishment" that is impossible to prove. Who is this "establishment" and HOW do they choose their candidates? How do they then get over 9 million individuals to mindlessly follow their instructions? Where is your proof? No, unfortunately, while the Republican party is not as conservative as we might like (but a heck of a lot better than the Obama led government we have now), the candidates chosen by the Republican party are selected by the base of the Republican party and the 3 million voters you continue to reference as not voting for Romney are the fringe. Remember, Ronald Reagan signed an amnesty bill in 1986, so I guess you would not have supported him, either. As long as we continue to fracture in this way, democrats will continue to win and change this country in ways not to our liking...

Anonymous said...

Guy -- would you at least agree that there was a difference between Romney and Obama on tax policies?

guy faulkes said...

If the base is large enough to cost the Republicans the election due to their running an Obama clone that hey will not support, then it is big enough to be listened to, no matter what you call it.

There is nothing to be said. The Republican party is split and is dead. My faction is no more the cause of it than is yours, Sark.

A third party will eventually emerge to satisfy one of us.

Sarkazein said...

GuyFaulkes- A third Party could emerge that would satisfy us both, as we see eye to eye on almost everything. But, I want to be still alive and not somebody's ancestor when it finally happens.

Sarkazein said...

We are witnessing what happens when a man with absolutely NO executive experience runs the country. Health workers at Walter Reed laid off and IRS union workers getting millions in bonuses. Aside from the fact that hundreds of millions of our tax dollars are going to pay-offs for political cronies support of Obamacaretax, an assistant to the assistant manager at Walmart could run the country better than the Vacationer in Chief.
THIS is the biggest reason an experienced executive would have done a better job. Look what just happened to the stock market when the Fed said they might quit throwing funny money at it. NO ONE IS LEADING.

Nobody said...

By that logic, the 3% of voters who voted for Nader in Florida in 2000 are the democratic "base." They were not. They were a disaffected fringe that weakened the liberal vote enough to allow Bush to win. This is what purist conservatives are -- not the "base," but a disaffected fringe that allows for liberal victories. THIS is an indisputable fact, based on numbers. Again, since Reagan signed an amnesty bill, I suppose you would not have supported him or feel he was not a true conservative? Was their a difference between Romney and Obama on tax policy?

Sarkazein said...

Reader- I am liking CRUZ (R) more and more all the time. He is putting up the real fight.

Reader said...

Yes he is Sark and I still like him.

guy faulkes said...

In a way you have a point, Nobody, but not the one you are trying to make. A large enough group of people dissenting from a political party's platform can cost the party an election.

The problem is that the base has been dissatisfied with the establishment leadership for years. This has lead to the defeat of the Republican party for 5 of 6 elections.

You are certainly correct in that Reagan missed the boat on illegal immigration. I did not support him on that issue. However he was a good pick on almost all of the other issues. Romney's actions, which spoke louder than his words, made him an Obama clone on the majority of issues. Even his strong suite, which was the economic side of the equation, was negated by the harm his stance on illegal aliens would have created.

The main point is that the base no longer supports the party when the party does not listen to it. They are not party hacks any longer. As the party cannot win without either the base or the other factions that follow the same reasoning but are in opposition to what the base wants, the party is no longer viable.

Sarkazein said...

GuyFaulkes- I agree with most of your last comment. I am going to throw out a scenario- Senator Ted Cruz (there is no one on Earth more conservative and/or Tea Partyish) wins the Republican 2016 Primary by twice as many votes as the runner-up. He is then defeated in the general election because a percentage of Republican voters who had fiercely supported Lindsay Graham from the Rodney King can't we just all get along wing of the Republican Party wouldn't vote for Cruz, causing the election to tip in Chelsea Clinton's (also supported by the MSM and the IRS and Planned Parenthood and her father Web Hubble) favor.

Nobody said...

Since the topic of this post is the Obama Mess, I guess the point I'm trying to make is that those who like to take credit for helping bring about the defeat of Romney aided the reelection of Obama -- it is really just two ways of stating the same fact. If you can claim that you and three million others like you are the reason Romney lost, then you are also the reason Obama won. You can blame it on the "establishment" if it helps your conscience, but it seems like doublespeak to me. There are plenty of third parties out there already -- Conervative Party US or Libertarian, for example. Why doyou think they are not more influential if there are so many disaffected conservatives? BTW, I agree with you on so many things and refrained from this line of conversation for a long time, but still fail to see how anyone could say there are absolutely no differences between Obama and Romney when there were and not see that their actions aided Obama, who is MUCH further away from us ideologically. Economic policies are the most important, to me. It is from economic liberty that all other freedoms are derived, and it is through economic controls that liberals primarily wish to carry out their control.

guy faulkes said...

No, Nobody, it is not an either or situation. The only way you supported Obama is if you voted for him. If you voted for neither, you supported neither.

The point I am trying unsuccessfully to make is that the Republican party is so split that they are no longer a viable party, at least as far as Presidential elections go. The base that is composed of conservatives such as me will not support a liberal lite candidate. We will not change our minds. Those that proclaim to be moderates but are in fact liberal lite will not support a candidate that would be acceptable to us. A true moderate might support either kind of candidate, but when you get down to brass tacks, there are few true moderates. Most people have strong opinions, even if they refuse to admit it even to themselves.

Neither faction is any better or worse than the other for promoting their political beliefs and standing by them. The faction that is upset is the group that wants to support the Republican party regardless of the views of the candidates. Neither those that want a socially conservative candidate or a socially liberal candidate is ever going to do this. The days of supporting the party, right or wrong, are gone.

I may be wrong, but 5 out of 6 elections seem to support my point of view. The Republican party has to split if it ever is effective again.

I know this will be a long process, but I think the idea reflects the real world.

guy faulkes said...

Sark, your scenario fairly well addresses my last post. This scenario shows the problem within the Republican party.

The present Republican party not only does not agree on how to achieve its goals, it has drastically different goals in many cases. It is doomed until the members are of a like mind (not necessarily an identical mind, but one in which the factions support each other). I do not think this can happen without a split.

Sarkazein said...

It might not be the intent, but it is the result.

Anonymous said...

You've now said 5 out of 6 wrongly twice. Bush won twice, so going back to clinton, it would be 4 out of 6. Going back to reagan it would be 5 out of 9 in favor of repubs. It may seem like a lot of years but thats just 5 presidents.

guy faulkes said...

So, you believe Bush was not a conservative? You are probably correct. This would make him the sixth example.

However maybe I should have said presidential contests where two liberals ran against each other, not the last six races. I thought this was clear from the context of the posts.

You may also want to note his father lost his second bid after his ban on the importation of guns turned off the base and they refused to support him.

Sarkazein said...

If you count the Perot fluke, you end up with two Democrat Presidents in that period. One was a pervert liar with a nose like a vacuum cleaner and the other was an unqualified community agitator with a druggy background. I say the blame can go squarely on the shoulders of the Democrat voters and the MSM for not vetting properly and the many (Perotistas) and the handful of disgruntled Conservatives who didn't vote for closest runner up in the election.

guy faulkes said...

Blame whom you wish, Sark, It does not change the fact liberal lite is not the way to win an election and that the Republican party is no longer a valid entity because of the split.

Personally, I blame the establishment leadership whose influence keeps social conservatives out of the race.

Anonymous said...

you don't get it --

Obama (D) - 2012
Obama (D) - 2008
Bush (R) - 2004
Bush (R) - 2000
Clinton (D) - 1996
Clinton (D) - 1992

Dems win 4 out of 6, not 5 out of 6 as you have wrongly stated twice. its okay to admit when you made a mistake.

Nobody said...

Guy -- that's the perfect scenario for you, isn't it? Claim credit for the defeat of a candidate you call liberal lite, then deny all responsibility for the reelection of Obama while blaming someone else -- the "establishment," who you still cannot name or prove is mind-controlling Republican primary voters to follow their instructions. Do you really believe that Romney would have done this:

To me, this is the most powerful passage, outlining how Obama's control of executive departments, agencies and regulatory commissions is the primary method through which he will slowly destroy this country; actions I am sure Romney would never have taken:

"So instead Mr. Obama will impose these inherently political policy choices via unaccountable bureaucracies, with little or no debate. Mr. Obama might have at least announced his war on carbon before the election and let voters have a say. Instead he posed as the John the Baptist of fossil fuels in locales such as Ohio, Pennsylvania and Virginia—taking credit for the shale fracking boom he had nothing to do with and running ads attacking Mitt Romney as anticoal.

Now safely re-elected, Mr. Obama figures he can do what he pleases. The Americans who will be harmed will have to console themselves with 99 weeks of jobless benefits, food stamps and ObamaCare."

guy faulkes said...

I freely admit my opinion may be wrong. If people really think I am, it is a mystery to me why so many people blame those of us that did not support Romney or Obama for Obama;s victory. It would seem that this would make them agree with what I say. I beleive several of you fit into this category. If we do not matter, why do you care how we vote?

The entire issue really does not matter. If I am right, nothing any of us can do will change it. If I am wrong, then the rule of the lesser of two evils will continue and I cannot change it. However, it might make some of you happy if you do not mind being ruled by evil as long as it is under your party.

Nobody said...

Actually, Guy, I believe that you do matter tremendously. I believe that the country is pretty evenly split between conservative and liberal. I believe that a small number of voters can have tremendous impact on elections. What I cannot understand is how anyone who considers themselves conservative could have undertaken any course of action that aided the reelection of Obama, which is the result. If Obama takes an action that harms this country or diminishes liberty, you can only proclaim that Romney WOULD have done the same thing, but you cannot KNOW -- only God could know what MIGHT have happened if events had occurred differently. And while I don't agree with Romney on everything, I would not describe him as evil.

guy faulkes said...

You think not voting for Romney or Obama aided Obama, Nobody. The same thing can be said about not voting for Obama aiding Romney. Both are erroneous. Neither of them were worthy of support so I did not support either.

You are correct in that I cannot know for certain what Romney would have done, but then again, neither can you.

I would think that my use of the word evil in the context of "the lessor of two evils" should be understood to mean that the lesser of two evils means that the proposed policies are still highly objectionable, in a political sense. As to it being actually evil, I guess that depends on the definition of evil you choose to use.

NewGuy said...

Since we never know with certainty what any candidate will do once elected, then, by your logic Guy, we should never vote for anybody!

My best judgement is that Romney would have been far superior on economic issues; stronger on immigration; supportive of the DOMA case before the SCOTUS and, when the time comes, would have definitely nominated more conservative Supreme Court justices than Obams is likely to do.

Thursday said...

Guy Faulkes,

I’m curious, when were we not under “the rule of the lesser of two evils?”

What President do you consider the Conservative Gold Standard? Or, have we never elected a Conservative President?

In your opinion, what politician(s) got it, or get it, exactly right?

I ask these questions in all sincerity, because there must to be some baseline in which you/we measure future Presidential candidates.

What Conservative threshold must a Presidential candidate pass in order for you to support them?

guy faulkes said...

It was not my logic, NewGuy. Nobody said I could not know what Romney would have done and he is correct. However, I had more to go on than his rhetoric which most of you chose to beleive. I did not believe what he said, I believed he would continue with his previous actions, which were to support gun control abortion, amnesty for illegal aliens, and socialized medicine.

I am also correct in saying you do not know what he would have done, either. I happen to think my line of reasoning was superior as the old saying is actions speak louder than words.

You are correct in saying that if you require certainty, then we would never vote for anyone. We apply our reasoning as to the best candidate and go from there.

guy faulkes said...

Thursday, the term lesser of two evils refers to candidates that share so many traits that there is really no choice between them. This was certainly the case with Obama and Romney. We are not under the rule of the lesser of two evils when we are given a choice between ideologies.

No President will ever meet my desires 100%, just as none will ever meet yours. To answer your question, Regan comes the closest in the modern era, although there were issues that I disagreed with him also on some issues (such as the amnesty for illegal aliens issue).

Why do you think the lessor of two evils has anything to do with getting something the way I want it or exactly right? The term refers to having a choice. It does not just refer to me. it could just as easily be used by a liberal if a Democrat conservative were running against a Republican conservative.

As to the threshold of what it takes to get my support, it would require strong support for some of my main concerns and at least moderate thinking on most of them. No one will ever match what I think perfectly, not do they have to. They do have to be largely both socially and economically conservative because that is what I am.

What does it take to get your support?

Sarkazein said...

JFK vs Ike, LBJ vs Goldwater, Nixon vs Humphrey, Ford vs Nixon, Reagan vs Carter, Ford vs Carter, Bush vs Clinton... ALL of them held very similar beliefs in most areas as presented by their platforms. Bush vs Gore was the changing point because of Gore's trashing the USA to foreign countries. Before, it was hard to tell the difference between Republican and Democrat in most of their political views. Romney was not much different them all those candidates including Reagan, excluding Gore and Obama. It is Obama who is the oddest duck. He as much said so himself with the "fundamentally change" promise.
I would have voted for ANY of those pre-Obama candidates (excluding Gore) over the likes of Obama, including the dumbass Carter. Obama is the difference... Romney was the better man and more like all the previous candidates. The difference was HUGE.

Sarkazein said...

Should have written IKE vs Stevenson and JFK vs Nixon

Sarkazein said...

The Romney vs Obama election showcased the biggest difference in candidates in recent history- a Socialist vs a Capitalist, a druggy vs a clean liver and liver, an executive vs a non-executive, a man with successful pro-American friends vs a man with terrorist and America hating friends. Nowhere near the same. Opposites.

guy faulkes said...

Economic reasons are not the only criteria for supporting a candidate, Sark. Many of us demand a social conservative. I have irrefutably shown how Obama and Romney were alike. At least three million people seem to have agreed with this.

The point has nothing to do with Romney and Obama. That is water under the bridge. The point is that the Republican party cannot get it through its head that they cannot win with a liberal candidate, either economically or socially. This is even considering that the entitlement abusers have discovered they can vote themselves bread and circuses.

The Republicans might have a chance with a social and economic conservative that has more than rhetoric to back up his/her claims.