Florida Shooters Network

griffinshot06 wrote:Maybe you could just clear this all up, Tom, and simply explain as to why you back said candidate. I'm sure there are plenty of us here that would like to hear you "contribute to a mature political debate", because as of yet, I haven't exactly seen any "debating"...I'm just curious as to how you've arrived at this decision.

Griffin, if you haven't been following the Political Forum enough to either 1) hate me like the undesirables that have not yet contributed to healthy debates and 2) know why I'm supporting Mitt Romney, then I can't necessarily answer your question thoroughly. But I will give you the benefit of the doubt and get just one example from one thread.

Tom Fernandez wrote:

supertones31 wrote:Can someone write a reply in plain vernacular explaining why they are voting for said candidate?

Supertones, I voted for Mitt Romney here in South Carolina because I believe he has the experience and know-how to get our economy moving again. Talking points set aside, I do believe that with a Romney President, the "Government Train" will show up on time. The job of government bureaucracy, in my opinion, would become a "tight ship" under a Romney Administration. Spending and waste would be cut, Federal Spending would be capped at a percentage each year, and the budget would be balanced as required.

This is why I vote for Mitt Romney in the SC Primary last Saturday. For me, economy is #1 right now.

The rest is not directed at you griffin; but a necessary conversation in general.

As far as political debate, I'm all for it. Disagree w/ a point all you want, it is what keeps our political system going. But the moment someone resorts to personal attacks is the moment they lose all credibility. I support Mitt Romney, that's who I voted for. If someone voted for Newt Gingrich, though I disagree, that is who they voted for. Santorum, Cain, Perry, Bachmann or even President Obama. That is their choice and theirs alone; demonizing them (like some do on here) is not only wrong, it's un-American.

Some of you weep and gnash your teeth at Gingrich supporters wanting to pounce on a Ron Paul supporter standing alone in the crowd with his sign and shirt; necessarily so. It's uncalled for and those Newt supporters need a good Indiana Jones lashing. But then in the same breath, when you're in a crowd of Ron Paul supporters, you'll pounce on the single Newt, Romney, or Santorum supporter standing alone with their sign. What did the Ron Paul campaign call this? Serial Hypocrisy?

Perhaps some people on here would like us to go back the Palmer Raids and start rounding up thousands of innocents simply because they ideologically disagree. An extreme example of course, but the same principle nonetheless. Get up on your stage, voice your support for your candidate and even attack another candidate's positions; that's all a part of the game. You can even tell them to take their message out of the country if you want. But refrain from attacking the voter. If you can't do that, then you serve everyone best by keeping your GD mouth shut.

My credibility about to explode into a million tiny pieces of glittery magic...

Did someone hurt your feeling, Tom? Seriously, Tom, stop trolling for Mitt already

armedpolak wrote:Did someone hurt your feeling, Tom? Seriously, Tom, stop trolling for Mitt already

Yea, I'm all teary eyed.

lol

armedpolak wrote:My credibility about to explode into a million tiny pieces of glittery magic...

Did someone hurt your feeling, Tom? Seriously, Tom, stop trolling for Mitt already

Really? Why don't some of you start questioning the motives and reasons of the other members who have voted for and/or support the other presidential candidates? Why aren't Newt's supporters getting dumped on this bad? Or Paul's supporters? Or Santorum's supporters? Why all this negativism against Tom? Because he's articulated his reasons for supporting Romney and no one seems to be able to prove him completely wrong? Are some of you pissed off that he's moderated his stance from several years ago? So now it's not "proper" to change one's opinions and views?

There seems to be an overabundance of hypocracy here regarding our staunch defense of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, especially regarding the 1st amendment right to freely express oneself. And all because some of you don't like someone else's presidential candidate? Like the member who said he would have stomped on the Ron Paul supporter's head for holding up a RP sign when Gingrich arrived at the guy's polling place? Really? Are you that much of a f*%! animal that you'd physically assault someone just because they have a different opinion than your's? WTF?

Some of you people don't deserve to be called American citizens.

My vote for Romney was a pragmatic one. I love Ron Paul but I realized he can't win because he doesn't have the funds to run with the big dogs. That and Americans are too addicted to their government handouts. Once Obama took control of the narrative in a general election against Paul it would've been over. I don't think the people who want their social security and medicare handouts would've voted for him. I know people might not like to hear this, but that money's gone. Older folk need to suck it up and realize that if they're not getting any of those bennies right now or aren't eligible for them within the next few years that they've been screwed and likely won't get any.

As for Gingrich? The guy is far too volatile and several people that worked with him, or had to put up with him, have said the same. He has no core values. Pat Buchanan's recollections of Newt (along with my own research) during the former's time in the Reagan administration were damning enough that it convinced me not to vote for him.

Anti-Romney people need to remember that if nothing else we can pressure him into ensuring we continue to have a slight edge in conservative Supreme Court justices. That's VERY important. If Obama is re-elected because you stayed home then we are ****ed as far as the Supreme Court goes. You have to remember they're gonna be around until they retire or DIE. Do you want socialist activists possessing a majority on the USSC? You can kiss your second amendment rights goodbye if Obama wins a second term.

Right now Ginsberg, Breyer, Kennedy, Scalia, and Thomas are getting up there in age. If Obama's re-elected and either Thomas or Scalia dies or retires, they're going to be replaced with leftist activists that will change the entire balance of the court for god knows how long. I shudder at the thought.

Getting back to Romney, I do think he's a good choice if you're voting for him for technocratic reasons.

That isn't really my concern, though, because I don't know how much longer this economy is going to stay afloat. Even if Romney reduces spending he's not going to be able to reduce it enough to the point that we can avoid insane inflation and the collapse of the dollar. We may get a libertarian government in the end because that's all we'll be able to afford.

As my favorite commentator said recently to me in a conversation we had on Facebook:

John T. Reed wrote:"Greece’s Debt-to-GDP ratio is now about 140%. We are at 102%. Our debt went up 67% in the last four years. At that 17% per year rate, it would take us 2.25 years got (sic) get to 140% if GDP did not change. If GDP goes up at 1.5% per year, as it has lately, it would take about 2.5 years. Greece has not yet defaulted but seems about to. Since we have no big brother like Greece does have, we might not be allowed to go so far before the bond market bails. Also a shock could speed things up like some sort of war with Iran or collapse of the euro. When trust in the dollar dies is not an exact science."

[quote="mjmensale]............There seems to be an overabundance of hypocracy here regarding our staunch defense of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, especially regarding the 1st amendment right to freely express oneself. And all because some of you don't like someone else's presidential candidate? Like the member who said he would have stomped on the Ron Paul supporter's head for holding up a RP sign when Gingrich arrived at the guy's polling place? Really? Are you that much of a f*%! animal that you'd physically assault someone just because they have a different opinion than your's? WTF?

Some of you people don't deserve to be called American citizens. [/quote]

Horrors. A personal attack!

For myself, I wouldn't mind a bit if every politician and every one of their rabid, non-thinking groupies got their heads stomped on.

I am VERY unimpressed by the current crop of presidential wannabees, but not nearly as unimpressed by them as I am horrified by the creature now inhabiting the White House. On electability by a fairly simple process of examining the history of the candidates and their likely acceptance by the entire electorate I've determined that Mitt Romney is most likely to defeat the beast who dwells at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. And by the same process I've determined that the other active candidates are certain to be defeated by the beast.

And on executive competence and experience, there's no comparison. Mitt Romney is far better than the others in experience and in demonstrated outcomes, including The Beast of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Gingrich, in particular, has a big negative, a failure at the only high position he held, being tossed out in disgrace. The other 2 are close to zero.

Please don't delude yourself into thinking that any other outcome is possible. A candidate with a perfect ideology and platform by your standards means NOTHING if a majority of Americans won't elect enough of the Electoral College to make him President. This isn't a game or a mental pastime of what-ifs, like spinning utopian theories about a perfect world or imagining a non-existant golden age and dreaming of just flipping back the calendar. We are engaged in determining if the United States of America will remain a free Republic, or if it will become the Social Democratic States of America, an adjunct of the European Union in ideology, politics and economics.

I support Ron Paul and if somebody post lies about him I will call them out.
I don't care who you support.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk

Just remember - these are our own opinions and we are allowed to have them.

I voted Romney!

I support Ron Paul.....I just think he is not leader material.
Yes he's got a lot of good ideas....but that doesn't count if he is not effective.
JMO
Neener Neener Neener!

mjmensale wrote:

armedpolak wrote:My credibility about to explode into a million tiny pieces of glittery magic...

Did someone hurt your feeling, Tom? Seriously, Tom, stop trolling for Mitt already

Really? Why don't some of you start questioning the motives and reasons of the other members who have voted for and/or support the other presidential candidates? Why aren't Newt's supporters getting dumped on this bad? Or Paul's supporters? Or Santorum's supporters? Why all this negativism against Tom? Because he's articulated his reasons for supporting Romney and no one seems to be able to prove him completely wrong? Are some of you pissed off that he's moderated his stance from several years ago? So now it's not "proper" to change one's opinions and views?

There seems to be an overabundance of hypocracy here regarding our staunch defense of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, especially regarding the 1st amendment right to freely express oneself. And all because some of you don't like someone else's presidential candidate? Like the member who said he would have stomped on the Ron Paul supporter's head for holding up a RP sign when Gingrich arrived at the guy's polling place? Really? Are you that much of a f*%! animal that you'd physically assault someone just because they have a different opinion than your's? WTF?

Some of you people don't deserve to be called American citizens.

Looks like someone is in need of Xanax.

And as far as the red highlight goes: F U MOE!

onree, love that .GIF.

POLAK

This is proof that all them polish jokes are true........

armedpolak wrote:

mjmensale wrote:

armedpolak wrote:My credibility about to explode into a million tiny pieces of glittery magic...

Did someone hurt your feeling, Tom? Seriously, Tom, stop trolling for Mitt already

Some of you people don't deserve to be called American citizens.

Looks like someone is in need of Xanax.

And as far as the red highlight goes: F U MOE!

He's GD right ap whether you like it or not. That's probably why your only contribution to the debate on personal attacks is "f u moe" or "did someone hurt your feelings." I honestly just don't get your response.

I have spoken with voters from every group, including Obama supporters and have observed behaviors both on the internet and at the many rallies I attended here in South Carolina in the week leading up to our primary. And of all of these campaigners, the venom is coming from only two camps: the KIDS under the Ron Paul banner and the Occupy Wall Street protestors. Sadly its also coming from some of the older RP supporters, but this is very limited. Are you seriously that naive to think that everyone who thinks differently than you suffers from some type of mental dillusion? Or is it some type of stupidity you believe they have?

I've even had this VERY EXACT DEBATE amongst the large crowd of Ron Paul kids in most of my Political Science classes where their only response to a debate is, "Well you're stupid." I am forced to tell them time and again to stop telling people are stupid simply because they disagree w/ them. Even asked an older student (24-years old) if he tells his wife that she's stupid when she disagrees w/ him. Personally, I just believe the kids I argue with at school have never been fisted in the mouth by their father or sent outside to get a switch off the tree by their mother for mouthing off.

There are some men posting on this forum that are absolute giants when it comes to political behavior, and I'm definitely not one of them. For those of you struggling with the concept of reasonable debate while remaining civil, take note to the responses by tector, jaybird, mjmensale, AirForceShooter, jazzmanDK, and a few others I can't remember from the top of my head. You'll learn a great deal on how to contribute to a meaningful debate while keeping your brain properly seated in your skull.

armedpolak wrote:Looks like someone is in need of Xanax.

And as far as the red highlight goes: F U MOE!

Does that mean you disagree with my assessment? Do you really think throwing invectives at me (or anyone else) is the best response?

I didn't post this - unacceptable-forum-behavior-t98338.html - just to up my post count you know. But then maybe you didn't fully understand the point I was trying to get across so take a week off and see if you can figure it out.

Tom Fernandez wrote:

armedpolak wrote:

mjmensale wrote:

armedpolak wrote:My credibility about to explode into a million tiny pieces of glittery magic...

Did someone hurt your feeling, Tom? Seriously, Tom, stop trolling for Mitt already

Some of you people don't deserve to be called American citizens.

Looks like someone is in need of Xanax.

And as far as the red highlight goes: F U MOE!

He's GD right ap whether you like it or not. That's probably why your only contribution to the debate on personal attacks is "f u moe" or "did someone hurt your feelings." I honestly just don't get your response.

I have spoken with voters from every group, including Obama supporters and have observed behaviors both on the internet and at the many rallies I attended here in South Carolina in the week leading up to our primary. And of all of these campaigners, the venom is coming from only two camps: the KIDS under the Ron Paul banner and the Occupy Wall Street protestors. Sadly its also coming from some of the older RP supporters, but this is very limited. Are you seriously that naive to think that everyone who thinks differently than you suffers from some type of mental dillusion? Or is it some type of stupidity you believe they have?

I've even had this VERY EXACT DEBATE amongst the large crowd of Ron Paul kids in most of my Political Science classes where their only response to a debate is, "Well you're stupid." I am forced to tell them time and again to stop telling people are stupid simply because they disagree w/ them. Even asked an older student (24-years old) if he tells his wife that she's stupid when she disagrees w/ him. Personally, I just believe the kids I argue with at school have never been fisted in the mouth by their father or sent outside to get a switch off the tree by their mother for mouthing off.

There are some men posting on this forum that are absolute giants when it comes to political behavior, and I'm definitely not one of them. For those of you struggling with the concept of reasonable debate while remaining civil, take note to the responses by tector, jaybird, mjmensale, AirForceShooter, jazzmanDK, and a few others I can't remember from the top of my head. You'll learn a great deal on how to contribute to a meaningful debate while keeping your brain properly seated in your skull.

They don't teach people how to debate in high school or college anymore so I'm not surprised that those students do that.

However, I do understand resentment toward the republican candidates and most politicians from people my age. We've been screwed again and again by selfish baby boomer politicians and voters and that's going to continue for many more years before it gets any better. So expect more anger from the younger folk. Our freedoms and our opportunities are being stolen from us, which is why we like a politician like Paul that promises to reverse such things and seems to mean it.

Also, a lot of us are civil libertarians who despise people that would trample on our rights for whatever cause or belief they support or hold. There are plenty of radicals in my generation who are offended by the mere thought of censorship. Overall I think this is a good thing. Now, if only we can get them all equally offended at the thought of gun control we'll have it made.