sailingaway
10-07-2012, 10:49 AM
http://rightquestionsblog.wordpress.com/2012/10/06/a-vote-for-who/
Leaving church last Sunday I found a handwritten note on our car. Some well-intentioned but misguided soul apparently was distressed by the Ron Paul bumper sticker and took the time to warn me that “a vote for Ron Paul is a vote for Obama.” The author lacked the courage to add their John Hancock, so I have no way to enlighten them. It was only the fiftieth time or so that I’ve been on the receiving end of such nonsense, but the anonymity of the warning nettled me enough to post a response here. So for anyone out there who might be similarly confused, here are three indisputable reasons why a vote for Ron Paul would NOT be a vote for Obama:
1 – Because it would be a vote for Ron Paul.
2 – Because Ron Paul has never had the chance to run against Obama and, at this point, will never appear on the ballot as an alternative to him.
3 – Because even if Ron Paul would have chosen to run independently this November (something that was never going to happen), any votes he received would be equally lost to all four of his opponents, including Obama.
This last would appear to be basic arithmetic. That it eludes so many otherwise intelligent conservatives is an indication of arrogance born of denial.
See, people say foolish things like the above because of faulty reasoning. Reduced to a syllogism, their logic runs like this: (a) If a person supports Ron Paul they most likely support smaller government, lower taxes and/or Christian values; (b) Mitt Romney is the most viable (or legitimate) candidate who stands for these things; therefore (c) if this person had not been led astray by Ron Paul they would instead be voting for Mitt Romney, right?
Nope.
The devil, obviously, is in (b) above; most Ron Paul supporters don’t agree that Mitt Romney stands for anything at all, unless it’s the Federal Reserve.
Of course, most conservatives agreed with us a few months ago; the difference now is that the RINO of all RINOs has been anointed Leader of the Party of God and Country (and Israel), the Standard-Bearer of Freedom, Responsibility and Judeo-Christianity Against Islamo-Fascist Marxists and Terrorists (who we know are trying every day to kill us all and also to end women’s suffrage). In other words, he’s now officially the Republican presidential nominee; to these dear people, therefore, he is The Savior. Therein lies the arrogance.
[typo corrected from original]
More at link
Leaving church last Sunday I found a handwritten note on our car. Some well-intentioned but misguided soul apparently was distressed by the Ron Paul bumper sticker and took the time to warn me that “a vote for Ron Paul is a vote for Obama.” The author lacked the courage to add their John Hancock, so I have no way to enlighten them. It was only the fiftieth time or so that I’ve been on the receiving end of such nonsense, but the anonymity of the warning nettled me enough to post a response here. So for anyone out there who might be similarly confused, here are three indisputable reasons why a vote for Ron Paul would NOT be a vote for Obama:
1 – Because it would be a vote for Ron Paul.
2 – Because Ron Paul has never had the chance to run against Obama and, at this point, will never appear on the ballot as an alternative to him.
3 – Because even if Ron Paul would have chosen to run independently this November (something that was never going to happen), any votes he received would be equally lost to all four of his opponents, including Obama.
This last would appear to be basic arithmetic. That it eludes so many otherwise intelligent conservatives is an indication of arrogance born of denial.
See, people say foolish things like the above because of faulty reasoning. Reduced to a syllogism, their logic runs like this: (a) If a person supports Ron Paul they most likely support smaller government, lower taxes and/or Christian values; (b) Mitt Romney is the most viable (or legitimate) candidate who stands for these things; therefore (c) if this person had not been led astray by Ron Paul they would instead be voting for Mitt Romney, right?
Nope.
The devil, obviously, is in (b) above; most Ron Paul supporters don’t agree that Mitt Romney stands for anything at all, unless it’s the Federal Reserve.
Of course, most conservatives agreed with us a few months ago; the difference now is that the RINO of all RINOs has been anointed Leader of the Party of God and Country (and Israel), the Standard-Bearer of Freedom, Responsibility and Judeo-Christianity Against Islamo-Fascist Marxists and Terrorists (who we know are trying every day to kill us all and also to end women’s suffrage). In other words, he’s now officially the Republican presidential nominee; to these dear people, therefore, he is The Savior. Therein lies the arrogance.
[typo corrected from original]
More at link