Originally Posted by
SpawnedX
Let me actually put it in another way.
If someone held a gun to my head and made me choose one of the two, after witnessing Romney's work firsthand, I would pick Obama. That way I can use the welfare check I can get when I lost my job to stock up on ammo for the ensuing revolution.
Sorry, but spelling be damned! Let me digest the statement above:
You don't like either choice, but if forced to choose, you pick obumma.
Reasoning: When you lose your job, due to obumma, you can be prepared for the revolution.
That is just totally irrational!
I don't really like the choices that we have either!
1. We are not at the point of having a true multi-party system. A vote for
anyone BUT Romney, is a vote for obumma!
2. Our gooberment may or may not be preparing for major civil unrest.
That would be the end of America! No one would win except our external enemies! They would pounce on us in a heartbeat!
3. obumma has had his 4 years and he has done
NOTHING to better our situation!
4. obumma is a career political activist!
A RADICAL, SOCIALIST career activist, I might add! Look at the history of his cronies and those that he has
created positions for.
5. Romney
does actually have business & governing experience.
6. Four years of Romney could at least give us a chance to
start cleaning up our mess.
7.
Four years of Romney would at the very least keep a lame duck pretender and his cronies from advancing their socialist adgenda! The Second Amendment is only the tip of the iceberg!
8. Perhaps the best we can hope for would be 4 more years of gridlock. Sometimes gridlock is good! We will not get that with a lame-duck-lame-brain in office!
Geesh! obumma was even caught on an open mike,
telling a communist dictator that "he would be in a better position to deal after his re-election!" Does that mean he would "deal" from a position of strength? Or, does that mean he will be able advance his socialist adgenda with no repercussions?