Election Poll, June 2012 Debate - McKee, KY

Well, Duke Snider had almost talked me into voting for Obama, but as badly as I wish there was another less "flip-floppy" choice...at this point I am leaning a bit toward Romney, or maybe writing in Ron Paul.

Ron Paul!!!

obama has got us in a terrible mess,instead of worrying about other countries we should be # 1

3 years of dismal failure, runaway deficits, food stamps numbers soaring to record heights, one excuse and blame on something or someone else is 3 and 1/2 years too much. Obama is a communist, with a long record of communist ties, who has circumvented the constitution at every twist and turn without regard to it or any other law through executive orders or one of his "czars" (most who are also known communist) and exercises a policy of personal destruction on anyone that opposes him.

America has had more than enough of this cry-baby-in-chief.

Honest Babe wrote:

Well, Duke Snider had almost talked me into voting for Obama, but as badly as I wish there was another less "flip-floppy" choice...at this point I am leaning a bit toward Romney, or maybe writing in Ron Paul.

Funny girl!

You know writing in Ron Paul is going to be a vote for Obama. You have two choices. Romney or Obama. Ron Paul should just give it up and back out. His foreign policy is what is killing him and his chances. He is a nut job....I like a lot of his ideas, but I do not like his foreign anti-Jewish policies. He and Obama have that in common.

Duke Snider wrote:

<quoted text>
Funny girl!
You know writing in Ron Paul is going to be a vote for Obama. You have two choices. Romney or Obama. Ron Paul should just give it up and back out. His foreign policy is what is killing him and his chances. He is a nut job....I like a lot of his ideas, but I do not like his foreign anti-Jewish policies. He and Obama have that in common.

LOL, it did amuse me quite a bit! I am glad you thought it funny instead of getting mad though :)

Unfortunately, I agree with you about writing in Ron Paul. Doing so will only increase Obama's chances of beating Romney. But gosh, out of the entire USA why couldn't the GOP find something better than Romney? Oh well, I suppose for me it will be what I see as the lesser of two evils, that being Romney...

I wanted Newt or even Cain, but too many people listen to the C networks and don't think with a clear head.

Romney had a lot of money from his last go at it... and that kind of money is hard to overcome.

Romney won't be as bad as some fear - maybe not as good as some hope -- but will be far better than buffoon-in-chief.

Obama.......nuff said.

you'll love it when the rich man is in charge and takes away your health care , education funding and everything else, poverty here is getting ready to get much worse,it'll be 4 more years in the wrong direction just like the bush dynasty,and i'd about bet on a few more wars started to finish us off

Vote for me.

Say what? Ron Paul is a racist against Jews because he endorses the Golden Rule?

Ron Paul is a racist against Jews because he wants the State of Israel to be able to defend itself AS IT SEES FIT?

Or Ron Paul is racist against Jews because he wants to cut off foreign aid to the State of Israel's enemies?

Makes sense don't it?....
if you're f---ing retarded!

I can understand why some of you are voting for Mitt and some of you are voting for Barry... you like to get ****ed in the *** by the government, OR you like getting down on your knees every day and giving the government a ****job. I get it. You love government. You've gotten into this love of democracy. Let's change the government! Screw the Republic. Who needs the Constitution? Just tax the life out of everyone! Who needs Congress? Just go to war when the president feels like it.

The worse thing about this situation is that regardless of which Goldman Sachs left nut or right nut (aka "the two evils") wins this election... the federal government will remain TOO DAMNED BIG.

Romney will do nothing about it because he is a fiscal liberal / big government crook cut from the same cloth as Obama.

Duke said, "You know writing in Ron Paul is going to be a vote for Obama. You have two choices. Romney or Obama."

What kind of backwards logic is this?

A vote for Ron Paul = A vote for Obama?
What about;
A vote for Ron Paul = A vote for Romney?
Makes about as much sense.

A vote for Ron Paul is a vote for Ron Paul.
Forget Duke's enslaving paradigm.
You have many choices.

You could.. vote for Obama, vote for Romney, vote third party, write in Paul, write in Gingrich, write in "No Confidence", not vote at all, etc.

Back in 2008 it was the same BS. I let a bunch of weak-kneed ignorant so-called Republicans scare me into voting for McCain. They went on and on about how Obama was going to win if I didn't vote for McCain.

Guess how that turned out.

It's like the Bush said, "Fool me once, shame on you.. you fool me we can't get fooled again."

Rupert Murdoch:'Doubtful' That Romney Will Beat Obama In 2012 Election

"Murdoch's criticism may come as a surprise to those who watch and follow right-leaning Fox News (which Murdoch owns.) The network has offered generally positive coverage of the GOP candidate. Earlier this year, Romney told conservative radio host Laura Ingraham that Fox has given his campaign "good, fair play." Even Newt Gingrich complained that "Fox has been for Romney all the way through.""

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/01/rupe...

For Liberty wrote:

Duke said, "You know writing in Ron Paul is going to be a vote for Obama. You have two choices. Romney or Obama."
What kind of backwards logic is this?
A vote for Ron Paul = A vote for Obama?
What about;
A vote for Ron Paul = A vote for Romney?
Makes about as much sense.
A vote for Ron Paul is a vote for Ron Paul.
Forget Duke's enslaving paradigm.
You have many choices.
You could.. vote for Obama, vote for Romney, vote third party, write in Paul, write in Gingrich, write in "No Confidence", not vote at all, etc.
Back in 2008 it was the same BS. I let a bunch of weak-kneed ignorant so-called Republicans scare me into voting for McCain. They went on and on about how Obama was going to win if I didn't vote for McCain.
Guess how that turned out.
It's like the Bush said, "Fool me once, shame on you.. you fool me we can't get fooled again."

Here is the reality.

A vote for Ron Paul might give Ron Paul a vote, but will only help Obama retain the White House.

Ron Paul IS NOT GOING TO WIN!...PERIOD! End of story. Ron Paul can not and will not even get anywhere close to winning.

Your logic is about as flawed as those who voted for Perot in 92 despite the fact Perot could not win. They called it an "idealism" vote or a "Protest" vote or a vote for what was "right" and a "send a message vote".

Even I bought into it and voted for Perot. What as the result? Perot lost by a tsunami and was swept away into oblivion and we got 8 years of Bill Clinton, the Chinese were given super computers by his administration to turn the stolen Los Alamos nuclear weapons secrets (the administration knew the Chinese had stolen them and was at least 45 to 50 years away from being able to use the technology on their own) into real bombs within weeks.

What did we get next? Clinton then gave the Chinese multi-stage rocket technology so the Chinese could then use it for "peaceful" purposes like launching our super secret satellites into orbit for us cheaper (sound like Obmama?) and they promptly put those new bombs on top of those rockets and pointed them at us!

We got 8 years of scandal and corruption - 5 trillion in debt - a surplus budget that never really materialized but was only projected, and it ended in recession just like the one that ended with Bush - only when Bush took over he fixed it and brought back 6 years of prosperity before the voters were stupid enough to put the Democrats back in charge in his last 2 years and they promptly wrecked the economy and are still wrecking the economy.

You can give Paul a vote and keep Obama in the White House or you can pull your head out of your rump and think clearly long enough to say to yourself, "Where will my vote be best served?"

The answer is obvious. With someone that stands a real chance of winning and getting rid of Obama's 6 trillion in new debt and just might have the skills to reverse the runaway spending in this nation and turn the economy back around.

Support Paul when things are better - but for now do something positive for the nation or this time next year YOUR FOOD STAMP CARD WON'T WORK...

We are in a very large economic bubble that is about to burst, and explode hard. You have no idea how bad it really is and what 4 more years of this buffoon will do.

Ask yourself, why did everything Obama wants to impose always was left until 2013 or 2014 after this election? Answer: Because he knew it would wreck the economy and if he won he couldn't be thrown out of office and if he lost then it becomes the next guy's blame and problem.

Under Bush it was all Bush's fault. Under Obama you only hear recently how the president really doesn't have that much to do with the economy...lol... It's congress that controls the economy.

Back to who was in control when the house of cards failed? The democrats.

Who is still in control of 2/3 of the government? The democrats.

Who has a better chance of winning? Not Paul...

Honest Babe wrote:

Rupert Murdoch:'Doubtful' That Romney Will Beat Obama In 2012 Election
"Murdoch's criticism may come as a surprise to those who watch and follow right-leaning Fox News (which Murdoch owns.) The network has offered generally positive coverage of the GOP candidate. Earlier this year, Romney told conservative radio host Laura Ingraham that Fox has given his campaign "good, fair play." Even Newt Gingrich complained that "Fox has been for Romney all the way through.""
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/01/rupe...

When has the media ever been fair? Fox knew Newt - as much as I would have liked to see him run and win - wasn't going to be it. Romney had way too much organization and money already behind him for someone to come up from nothing and get enough steam to win.

If the media was fair don't you think all the networks - and not just Fox and talk radio - would be beating Obama upside his stupid little head for the train-wreck of his administration instead of making excuses for him?

They don't - they lie, distort, and attempt to cover it up.

By the way people (not just you Babe) that FREE HEALTH CARE...it will take $2,200.00 a year (but some projections) right out of your minimum wage paycheck and you won't get it back at the end of the year.

YOU HAVE TO BUY HEALTH INSURANCE AND YOU WILL HAVE NO CHOICE BUT TO LET THEM TAKE YOUR MONEY ...

Wait until the reality of your drooling pudding heads finally slaps you full force in the face a year or two from now and let's see how well you like your 'FREE' health care and that is not to mention the other 29 tax increases across the board you will be paying on top of it for your free health care....lol.

IT AIN'T FREE....

Stop crying about what was or wasn't fair during the primary and look towards what we can to do defuse Obama and undo what he has done.

Romney isn't my first pick but he sure is better than statuesque.

Duke Snider wrote:

<quoted text>
When has the media ever been fair? Fox knew Newt - as much as I would have liked to see him run and win - wasn't going to be it. Romney had way too much organization and money already behind him for someone to come up from nothing and get enough steam to win.
If the media was fair don't you think all the networks - and not just Fox and talk radio - would be beating Obama upside his stupid little head for the train-wreck of his administration instead of making excuses for him?
They don't - they lie, distort, and attempt to cover it up.
By the way people (not just you Babe) that FREE HEALTH CARE...it will take $2,200.00 a year (but some projections) right out of your minimum wage paycheck and you won't get it back at the end of the year.
YOU HAVE TO BUY HEALTH INSURANCE AND YOU WILL HAVE NO CHOICE BUT TO LET THEM TAKE YOUR MONEY ...
Wait until the reality of your drooling pudding heads finally slaps you full force in the face a year or two from now and let's see how well you like your 'FREE' health care and that is not to mention the other 29 tax increases across the board you will be paying on top of it for your free health care....lol.
IT AIN'T FREE....
Stop crying about what was or wasn't fair during the primary and look towards what we can to do defuse Obama and undo what he has done.
Romney isn't my first pick but he sure is better than statuesque.

It was pretty obvious that Romney would be the GOP pick from day one. Of course it was/is natural for FOX to dote on Romney so to speak. I don't think anyone was complaining about fairness. Rather, only that it was just a bit surprising that Murdoch, who owns FOX News which is what you might say very pro-Romney, would make a statement criticizing Romney's campaign.

Personally I am not a fan of Rupert Murdoch, but I am quite sure he is no fool when it comes to politics. The thing is...Rupert, even though he DOES want Romney to win, stated this..."Tough O Chicago pros will be hard to beat unless he (Romney) drops old friends from team and hires some real pros."

Honestly, I don't think Romney will have an easy time beating Obama, and, I know it is only one man's opinion, but you have to wonder if ole' Rupert doesn't know what he is talking about.

I doubt the so called "free health care" will be much of a good thing. I wish everyone could have access to health care, and there may be SOME good things about the plan such as insurers supposedly not being able to turn one down for pre-existing conditions. However, by the time the insurance companies get done lobbying I am sure everything will be in their favor at a great expense to the taxpayer. Neither is it very clear how some of the low income will afford this if it is MANDATED that they have to purchase health insurance.

As for your comments concerning a vote for Ron Paul being the same as a vote for Obama...I think you are right on target there. In my opinion, for the greatest majority, those that would vote for Obama will without a doubt vote for Obama. Those that would vote for Paul would mainly be those that see him as a protest vote, or an alternative to Romney.

Honest Babe wrote:

<quoted text>
It was pretty obvious that Romney would be the GOP pick from day one. Of course it was/is natural for FOX to dote on Romney so to speak. I don't think anyone was complaining about fairness. Rather, only that it was just a bit surprising that Murdoch, who owns FOX News which is what you might say very pro-Romney, would make a statement criticizing Romney's campaign.
Personally I am not a fan of Rupert Murdoch, but I am quite sure he is no fool when it comes to politics. The thing is...Rupert, even though he DOES want Romney to win, stated this..."Tough O Chicago pros will be hard to beat unless he (Romney) drops old friends from team and hires some real pros."
Honestly, I don't think Romney will have an easy time beating Obama, and, I know it is only one man's opinion, but you have to wonder if ole' Rupert doesn't know what he is talking about.
I doubt the so called "free health care" will be much of a good thing. I wish everyone could have access to health care, and there may be SOME good things about the plan such as insurers supposedly not being able to turn one down for pre-existing conditions. However, by the time the insurance companies get done lobbying I am sure everything will be in their favor at a great expense to the taxpayer. Neither is it very clear how some of the low income will afford this if it is MANDATED that they have to purchase health insurance.
As for your comments concerning a vote for Ron Paul being the same as a vote for Obama...I think you are right on target there. In my opinion, for the greatest majority, those that would vote for Obama will without a doubt vote for Obama. Those that would vote for Paul would mainly be those that see him as a protest vote, or an alternative to Romney.

Obama is going to lose massively...

Duke Snider wrote:

<quoted text>
Obama is going to lose massively...

Well then, perhaps ole' Rupert is simply clueless.