Who Do You Think Will Ultimately Win the 2012 Election?

Because I state my opinion doesn't mean that I am bashing your beliefs. You can believe what you want, I don't care. What I am "bashing" are your incorrect facts.

I apologize if you got the impression that I was bashing your beliefs. The problem with most of your beliefs however, is that they aren't based on fact, at least where Romney is concerned. I still claim adamantly that you know nothing about Romney. Give me just "one" instance that shows that Romney is morally corrupt. Just one. Make sure that it is not just your opinion or something that you heard. I want facts. You can't do it. Romney is squeaky clean. If you had researched on the internet, as you claim, then you would know that he is nothing like you are trying to portray him. Nothing like that. I would be interested to know where you received your information. What website? I agree with your assessment of the MSM. Wow, can you believe that? I actually agree with you on something.

As far as the lawsuit is concerned, many reputable attorneys, both Democrat and Republican have stated that it is a frivolous action that will not pass muster. And I wasn't passing it off as a petty misdemeanor either. Plus, I do have the right to say anything that I want to about the suit, Apparently you and Ron Paul don't agree on the First Amendment of the Constitution. I can guarantee you that Ron Paul would never tell me that I don't have the right to my opinion. The judge that you were referring to is a no nonsense judge so the Ron Paul suit better be pretty cut and dried... which it isn't. Again i will repeat, even Ron Paul has distanced himself from this lawsuit.

Paul may not have offered his support of the lawsuit (for political reasons) but he did offer encouragement to his supporters on the issue: http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2012... ; http://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Romney is not squeaky clean as you say. The liberal and conservative media giants keep finding problems and inconsistencies in his values and character. The sheer magnitude of negative advertising against both Romney and Obama should serve as a quantitative indicator of their corruptness, seeing as those who are more morally and politically acceptable generally have less controversy surrounding them. Here is one example of such reporting: http://thinkprogress.org/prog...

In the case of our differing beliefs, yes, your opinion often does mean you are bashing mine since ouir opinions contradict each other. By the way, there is no such thing as an incorrect fact. A fact is something that has been confirmed true and which has supporting evidence. An incorrect fact is mutually exclusive, meaning the statement you just made about my "facts" is nonsensical and contradictory. Also, any lawsuit regarding fraud involving something as important as a politcal party is not frivolous, but should be considered extremely serious and carried out fairly to the fullest extent of the law. By treating abuse of individuals and the political system as frivolous, you spit on the very documents that protect your right to speak your mind, as you and I are doing so now, and reject the right to a fair trial, which is also a critical right of our society. Think about what you are saying! I fear that this has come down to the confused panderings of an aging man (as indicated by your profile picture) even though you seem to have a reasonable amount of logic hidden behind all of that nonsense.

Even if I'm wrong, I know that you are not right.

If you keep insisting that I'm bashing your beliefs then why do you keep "bashing" my beliefs? Apparently you feel that if someone has a different thought process or different understanding than you then you are being "bashed". This is exactly why you are such a Ron Paul fanatic.

I guess I put the term "incorrect facts" in the wrong context for you. Let me explain what I meant (I think that you already know this-you are just wanting to bash me again). What I was getting at is the "facts", as you believe them, are incorrect. They are not actually facts but your beliefs.

By the way any lawsuit, no matter the subject, is considered frivolous if it has no substance. Let me define frivolous for you since you don't seam to understand the term: "FRIVOLOUS: In law, frivolous litigation is the practice of starting or carrying on law suits that, due to their lack of legal merit, have little to no chance of being won." Now that is what frivolous means. It doesn't mean that the subject matter isn't important.

You see the difference between you and me is that I am willing to concede that there are some good and admiral qualities about Ron Paul. You, on the other hand, because of your fear that someone might think that your are dissing on your favorite candidate will never find the good in any other candidate. Even if God was the other candidate you would not back off of Ron Paul.

There is never any compromise with you. Never any looking for the good in other candidates, it's just: Ron Paul-Ron Paul-Ron Paul-Ron Paul-Ron Paul-Ron Paul-Ron Paul-Ron Paul. It gets old trying to show you anything because all you want to do is bash the other person. Maybe that's all you can do. You guys are such poor losers. I hope you grow up in time.

I wasn't suggesting that Paul compromise on the Constitution. His problem is that he won't compromise on anything. There has to be some give and take in many other arenas. Paul is not God and therefore he is wrong on somethings. You shouldn't put him on such a high pedestal

I think that the Constitution is the greatest document that has ever been written. Romney does love the Constitution. Everyone knows that Obama doesn't. Obama wants to change it, but we should never let that happen. I'm not going to argue over what you think about the RNC but show me how Romney is directly involved in that. The same things could be said about Ron Paul when it comes to his supporters. Many of them have caused a lot of problems with their actions but I don't hold that against Ron Paul.

I know what Ron Paul says and thinks about the Constitution and I honor him for that. I agree with his stance on that issue. Because I disagree with Paul on many many other issues doesn't mean that I want a dictatorship. Where did you come up with that nonsense... just because I disagree. With that logic, then because I disagree with (and dislike) Obama, I must be a racist (you too). I'm not, and I feel comfortable that you're not, a racist. I also guess that with your logic, because you are so against Romney, that you must be anti-Mormon.

I didn't say that there was no dirt to dish about your candidate , it's just not worth the time to investigate. (I agree that there may not be any dirt. Just because no one has bothered to investigate it, doesn't mean that there couldn't be.

Colleen,

I'm sure that you would agree that NPR is not considered a bastion of consevratism or "pro-Republican" by most of our fellow citizens. If so, here is a telling fact to support my claims: Following Senator Santorum's multi-state primary wins, NPR ran a story basically assuring readers/listeners that despite the Senator's surprising gains, Governor Romney's frontrunner status wasn't threatened. He had always been the frontrunner, would always be the frontrunner, and in all probability would be the Republican nominee.

One of my points is that most major media outlets have been telling us that Governor Romney has been THE frontrunner since before the Republican candidate field was even formally arranged (that is, before all of the candidates announced their candidacy).

How can one candidate be the "frontrunner" when the rest of the field isn't even known? He can't. Governor Romney, and later a cycle of other candidates, were given biased and positive "press" during the primary season by most major media outlets, not just one. Of course, there was the poor reporting and sensationalism all too common in political coverage as well.

"Horse-Race" type coverage aside, I submit to you that most of the major media outlets are supportive of our Federal government and its actions, and in like fashion are supportive of presidential candidates who will maintain the status quo if elected.
(Then) Senator Obama spoke repeatedly of "Hope and Change" and was mainly given very positive coverage. Yet even many of his one-time supporters are now complaining that he has continued and expanded most of the Bush Administration's policies and activities. He has largely maintained the status quo. Many of us understand that Governor Romney, despite his any rhetoric to the contrary, will also maintain the status quo.


Regards,

Charles