Democrats for Romney? [Reader Post]

By 69 Comments 1,261 views

This post is for all of the lefties out there, or for anyone who has a favorite lefty friend still convinced that that an Obama re-election will ultimately make them happier than if Romney were to win on Tuesday. There are a lot of issues that are driving your decision to vote for Obama. We know that there's the right to pay for the contraception for future one percenters, hating chicken sandwiches, making our country a welcome home to illegal immigrants, telling us how much salt or sugar we're allowed to consume, or ensuring the right to cast fraudulent votes. Do you know why you care about these issues? Because you can.

That's a bit of an oversimplification, but there is a simple reason why you're able to think that these issues are important. It's because the issues that truly matter aren't things that you've had to worry about in your lifetime. With the exceptions of a few terrorist attacks, both successful and thwarted, we've never faced a serious threat of our country being invaded. We've faced economic downturns, and if we continue on our current path things are going to get a lot worse, but as a country we've not had to endure true economic hardship since the Great Depression. This is why we take these things for granted – we've never lived through these problems, and we've lost our sense of history and take for granted that peace and prosperity are the natural state of society. And that is why you're able to pretend that these trivial issues truly matter in the larger scheme of things.

So why would what I just said make any Democrat want to vote for Romney? Two words: Global Warming. Or Climate Change. Or Global Climate Disruption. Or whatever the newest term for it is. Remember when this was a critical, eminent threat and we had only days left to start responding? Yes, I remember those days too. Something weird happened over the last few years – people stopped caring. Granted, part of this is due to the fact that the sky keeps stubbornly refusing to fall, or all of the scandals that keep blowing apart what the Global Warm Mongers swore was accepted dogma. But there's something bigger than that that happened.

Our economy took a major downturn, and suddenly we're faced with problems that are actually, well, real. High unemployment, low economic growth, and mounting federal debt are very much real. And now matter how much the press tries to rationalize it away, no matter how much leftists like to delude themselves that everything wrong with our economy is George Bush's

fault, and no matter how many times you close your eyes and click your heels while chanting hope and change and change and hope the reality is that our economy is not improving, and the president's policies are making things worse. Somehow CGI polar bears dropping dead from the sky over city streets seems kind of trivial when your former job was in the coal industry that our president promised to bankrupt. For some reason blindly clinging to a hockey stick graph based off of worthless data pales when you're a laid off supplier for a pipeline that can't be built because our president has to court the Big Green branch of the anti-prosperity lobby. And oddly enough, when your business that depended on servicing the now banned offshore oil rigs is dying, for some reason that half degree rise in global temperature that may or may not happen over the next century and may or may not be caused by human activity seems trivial.

And to take this to a more graphic example, look at what the people of New York and New Jersey are experiencing now in the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy. I doubt that if you hand a family that's been without heat or electricity for a week a bag of hot chicken sandwiches they won't care what the owner's opinion is on gay marriage. Bring them a case of bottled water and the fact that it came from a multinational big box store who doesn't enforce that its third world supplier only buys its plastic bottles from fair trade unionized shops doesn't really matter.

Yes, belief in Global Warming has seen a recent spike thanks to Hurricane Sandy, but these surges always happen after acts of nature – it's how people rationalize when bad things out of the ordinary happen. Although I wonder if Oliver Stone and Chris Matthews realize how much their self righteous finger wagging comes off like the old fire and brimstone preachers who shouted that AIDS was God's way of punishing gays.

Back on topic though, the issues that you think are important really aren't. When you're out of work, without heat and electricity, or in any way wondering how you are going to provide for yourself and your family you're not worried about all of the trivial issues I mentioned at the top of this post. And sorry lefties, but expanding unemployment, food stamps, and disability rolls is not compassion. These are temporary stop gaps and to use a favorite phrase of yours, not sustainable. If you want to help people who are looking for work vote for leaders whose policies will help them get back to work. On Tuesday cast your vote not for the politician who claims he will create the most jobs (politicians don't create jobs), but for the one who will do his best to get the government out of the way of job creation. If you haven't figured it out yet, that would mean voting not for Obama, or for any other Democrats (or Republicans) who consistently vote to support his policies.

Only when our economy is right again will the majority of Americans be ready to care about the throwaway issues. If you consider those things important, and I know you do, you have only one choice come Tuesday:

Vote for Romney.

Cross posted from Brother Bob's Blog

zp8497586rq

Blogging by the credo of "Making the world a more offensive place, one blog post at a time", Brother Bob started writing posts around the beginning of the Obama presidency over at Brother Bob's Blog. A born-again Existentialist and self-professed libertarian with conservative tendencies, he has ironically chosen to live in the Washington, DC area - deep behind enemy lines. He has always loved history, and spent eight years volunteering as a tour guide on weekends, giving over 200 tours to roughly 2,500 mostly foreign guests. His tours were highlighted by stories generally not found in the history books or most other tours, such as the importance of the Battle if Antietam, the origins or Arlington Cemetery, and dispelling the myths of FDR's New Deal. Although his favorite subject to blog about is Economics, as seen in his Economics for Politicians series, his posts try to address angles that other conservative writers and the mainstream media (naturally!) miss. "There's no point in putting up a post on a subject that someone smarter than me has already written". He believes in the "Happy Warrior" approach, and tries to inject humor in his posts, sometimes successfully. Two such examples are his posts comparing the modern left to the horrible Star Wars prequels, and analyzing the laments of a DC woman in search of a feminist boyfriend. Brother Bob lives with his very patient wife known as Sister Babe, and their fantastic son. Little Bob. Little Bob is also the reason that being a tour guide came to an end, as spending Saturdays raising a son takes priority over giving lectures to foreign visitors on the folly of Keynesian economics. BB is also grateful for the opportunity to take his place among the outstanding writers at Flopping Aces, appreciates every person who takes the time to read his posts, and especially those who join him in the conversation in the comments.

69 Responses to “Democrats for Romney? [Reader Post]”

  1. 51

    Liberal1 (Objectivity)

    @Mully: I suggest that if you are really interest in the foundations of an opinion of abortion, other that the conservative-politico-religious answer, you should review some scientific journals on the physiology and testing of self-awareness. I’m not a scientist, and not capable of rendering a valid exposition on the subject—like I’m sure many readers of this blog consider themselves to be.

    I have read my share, and have thereby developed my opinion. But like many scientific positions which collide with religion—like evolution and the big band—there is a lot of controversy about nature of human life. I think there is more agreement of this issue with regard to children, adults, and the elderly, as far as when it’s acceptable to remove life support in cases of age, illness, and injury, than is the case with infancts—members of the family, in consultation with medical doctors usually make these decisions (although often the means of life support are often inhumane, in my opinion—-removal of respiration, food or water—are hypothetically often painful, as opposed to lethal injection—which is not common in this country because of religious objections). Because a patient is no self-aware doesn’t mean they don’t feel pain. In fact presents abortion laws are based on when a fetus begins to feel pain.

    But my conclusions based on my research is no nearly as important as yours. How many women’s deaths due to illegal abortions (and statistics show that they will increase—that is the reason the procedure was legalized in the first place) will you justify by the conservative position on eliminating Roe vs Wade: 10 per day; 20 per day; 50 per day. Keep in mind the world-wide daily death tole due to illegal abortions is 215. All based upon religious beliefs about the soul.

  2. 52

    retire05

    @Liberal1 (Objectivity):

    Lib1, you mention the deaths of women who sought illegal abortions. So we can assume that part of the reason you support abortion is to prevent those deaths. What about those who die because they too, did something illegal? Do you want to protect the life of the criminal who gets shot during an illegal home invasion? How about the rapist who winds up shot by his victim? You seem interested in protecting the life of hardened criminals, women who break the law, et al, all except the most defenseless among us, the unborn. I would wager you oppose the death sentence. If so, how do you justify saving the life of someone who has forfeited their own humanity by taking the life of another, yet can so callously support the murder of the unborn? You also seem to support the removal of life support systems when a patient is brain dead, yet support the murder of a child whose brain is not only growing, but functioning.

    Petty hard to support your positions, Lib1. They are in direct conflict with each other.

  3. 53

    Liberal1 (Objectivity)

    @johngalt: No John Galt, you’re completely in error in what you’ve said. Some day, if you learn something about critical thinking, you may come to learn that. Because of your lack of ability to distinguish between ‘lies’ and ‘mistakes’, I’d say that reflects poorly on your ability to think critically.

  4. 55

    Liberal1 (Objectivity)

    @retire05: Good you can look something up in the dictionary. Now you just need to learn what a situation does and does not imply. There’s another reason Planned Parenthood (PP) might be in black neighborhoods: Maybe the residents can’t afford the service with PP. Therefore, since their are other explanations besides your conspiracy theory, without any further empirical evidence, your conclusion does not follow. That’s logic.

  5. 56

    retire05

    @Liberal1 (Objectivity):

    Most of the abortions are done on metropolitan black and Hispanic women. Are you trying to say that these women don’t have access to a bus, or other public transportation? If that is the case, how do they get to other medical services that are NOT located in minority neighborhoods, like doctors and hospitals?

    Planned Parenthood provides services on a sliding scale, including free abortions for those on Medicaid.

    There is only one reason that PP abortion facilities are located in the ghettos and barrios of our nation, Lib1. To continue to philosphy of Margaret Sanger. I can’t help it if you are too damn stupid to realize that.

  6. 57

    Mully

    @Liberal1 (Objectivity):
    I was asking about you specifically, not some journal you wish to point for some kind of support. Apparently a child a month or two old who turns out to not be wanted or a burden can be disposed of in your world view. I can only come to this conclusion as you seem reticent to actually answer simple questions instead choosing to filibuster.

  7. 59

    Greg

    @Mully, #57:

    Not everyone agrees that at 1 or 2 months the correct term is “child.” Some even want to talk about a fertilized egg as a “child.” This is absurd.

    People holding absurd views cannot be allowed to dictate how those who don’t share them should behave.

  8. 60

    johngalt

    @Liberal1 (Objectivity):

    Nice comeback, Lib1. Kinda like the two kids on the play ground saying, “no I’m not, you are”. I highly doubt that you will ever come here and display true objectivity, as your chosen FA name implies.

  9. 61

    johngalt

    @Greg:

    People holding absurd views cannot be allowed to dictate how those who don’t share them should behave.

    We will remember this the next time you claim a liberal/progressive’s source doesn’t matter since it’s the accusation itself that should be looked into, but if a conservative claims a source, you wish it to be declared right off the bat or the claim is bogus. Double standards, Greg. Nothing more absurd than that.

  10. 62

    Richard Wheeler

    Anticsrocks I made 4 predictions many months ago 1)Romney would win nom. 2) Dems would hold Senate 3) Romney needs to win FL Va. and OHIO to be Prez. 4) popular vote will be very close. Nothings changed.

    A.V You and I CLEARLY DENOUNCED Ivan’s comments .Would suggest J.G. and Retire05 not nearly so strong.
    I’ll add at 68 I’ve never texted anyone and don’t have a clue re the power of twitter to influence. I’d heard nothing of credible threats against Romney or Obama’s life though we know there are crazies on both sides of this unfortunate issue.

  11. 63

    ilovebeeswarzone

    GREG
    A fertilized egg, is for chickens,
    a woman pregnancy from the beginning is a human with
    the composites of the soul which come first before the body,
    that has never been said to be false unless the pregnant woman want to believe it’s nothing
    and want it out.
    they are advertizing and make it easy to abort,
    why?
    because they want to see real rooted AMERICANS TO DISAPEAR, FROM THIS AMERICA,
    AND BE REPLACE BY THE FAVORITES OF OBAMA WHO MAKE ABOUT 6 BABIES WHEN THEY ARE SETTLE IN,
    call it the death of a NATION OF GIANTS

  12. 64

    James Raider

    @ilovebeeswarzone: #63,

    ” . . . the composites of the soul which come first before the body . . . “

    MsBees, this is another gem, as you are occasionally wont to drop amidst sometimes faltering debates.

    From very personal experience, and without getting into why I do so, may I stand and applaud your statement’s veracity, particularly as it addresses one of the most obscure and difficult questions facing humanity, . . . the reality of the Soul, its arrival and its presence in our corporeal selves. You’re awesome.

  13. 66

    anticsrocks

    @Liberal1 (Objectivity): You said:

    But they are based in the fundamental belief in the common good for each living, breathing, cognitive individual—rather than that of potential human beings.

    And there’s the rub, you like to play God with your “opinion” and decide that the unborn child, who has no one to speak for it, should die because you say so.

    Life in prison for an act as consequential—for most of the life of the fetus—as stepping on a bug (assuming you don’t believe that you kill the soul as a result of abortion).

    Well, I believe you meant “inconsequential,” although your typo doesn’t make your statement any easier to stomach.

    That you are a liberal in favor of abortion does not surprise me, that you compare the murder of a human being to stepping on a bug does surprise me, even for you lib1.

    What you said is disgusting and tells so very much where you stand and where your values are (if you could even call them values at all).
    .
    .

  14. 67

    anticsrocks

    @Liberal1 (Objectivity): You said:

    Nobody needs to have spoken for me before I was born—it wouldn’t have mattered any way.

    So if it never mattered, why in the blue hell should ANYONE take your opinion seriously? By your own words, you didn’t matter.

    I am beginning to see that this is quite possibly the first thing you’ve ever said that I agree with; even though everything I believe in tells me there is good in everyone, it’s just so damned hard to find in a few folks.

  15. 68

    anticsrocks

    @Liberal1 (Objectivity): You said:

    I base my limits for life on cognitive awareness of self—if one doesn’t even know that one exists, the what difference does it make?

    So until a human is “cognitively self aware,” they do not have a soul?

    This is something that is in my wheelhouse lib1 and you have literally stepped in it. Cognitive Self Awareness does not begin to develop until early in the child’s second year of life, 12-18 months. Therefore if this is your litmus test of humanity, of possessing a soul, then you would have no problems with a 6 month old child being murdered???|

    Are you serious??

    How can you seriously take that position? God have mercy on any children you may be in charge of.

  16. 69

    jlfintx

    Lib1 please warn us when you post things like “based on my research” because I spewed a coke all over my new screen. I fell off my chair laughing on that one.