PDA

View Full Version : Another Disappointment: Sheriff Mack Will Vote For Romney




donnay
10-10-2012, 12:56 PM
Here is Sheriff Mack’s explanation, kindly given to LibertyChat.com via email.

First, as you know I disagree with many of Romney’s views and my message of sheriff nullification and state sovereignty have not changed and never will. I am sure if Romney gets in that we will have to fight him also. However, there is an unprecedented threat to our country, to my children and to my grandchildren and thus, to yours as well, if you have such yet. Obama has a background that is not even close to that of Romney. Obama was raised as a communist and anti-American. Obama has made it clear he will destroy our Republic and plans to do worse as a lame duck Pres. He is the worst thing to ever happen to this country, although yes, there have been some that were similar. I am proud to say I never voted for Bush.

Be that as it may, in any fight, in the military or Law Enforcement, you are trained to take out the worst and most immediate threat first. The enemy that is the greatest threat must be neutralized first. That just happens to be Obama! He cannot stay, he must be removed. He cannot stay as our leader or Pres. If I was to write in RP or vote for a third party this time, I could not live with that. Why would I do that? So I could brag that I voted my conscience? What good is that going to do anyone? We have a man, ready to kill my country, ready to destroy us immediately, the greatest threat we have ever known, and you want me to take aim at a threat that is miles away instead of engaging the one about to kill us? If I make that move, it accomplishes nothing, the immediate threat is still there and I get to pretend to be some hero because I voted for some third party candidate. Sorry, not this time, I won’t do it. Obama is just too dangerous and poses too great a threat. In history we have seen how those under severe attack will actually join with another more passive enemy to defeat the greater enemy. That’s exactly what I am doing. America joined with the French
to defeat the British, the Sioux joined with their arch enemy the Iroquois to defeat Custer, and I will join with Romney to defeat Barak Hussein Obama. Even if it is only symbolic, I am going to do it. My vote is against Obama!

One unique thing that I find in Romney’s favor about his record, is what he did for the Olympics. I lived in Utah at the time. He is the only candidate of all of them, RP, Dems, third parties, Repubs, who has ever taken over an international organization, that was totally corrupt, totally bankrupt, and he fixed it! It was amazing leadership and I admired what he did. I hope he can do that a little bit in DC. Regardless, I am voting against BO and then we’ll take on the next threat after we remove the first.

I understand those who are not voting for either one of these two politicians, but this time I don’t agree with it. I hope people will respect my decision. I believe it makes sense.

In freedom,

Sheriff Mack

Here's Mack's letter:
http://libertychat.com/sheriff-richard-mack-to-vote-for-mitt-romney


In my opinion this is just as disappointing to me as Rand Paul endorsing Romney.

I will, come November, write-in Ron Paul. I know it means nothing because the voting is rigged.

People like Mack should reconsider backing or endorsing any of the lesser evils. I would, however, respect them more if they came out and said, "I could not, in good conscience, endorse or back any candidate that will not support and uphold the Constitution."

We have already compromised and sacrificed too much liberty as it stands now, and I will no longer support anyone who supports the lesser of two evils and the left/right false paradigm.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oK6lIEgX7p4&feature=youtu.be

kathy88
10-10-2012, 01:07 PM
Well, based on the shit I heard coming directly from his mouth at Paul Fest bashing Ron, I'm not surprised. Fucking traitor. I used to respect the guy. Not any more. This was not third hand. I heard it.

donnay
10-10-2012, 01:21 PM
Well, based on the shit I heard coming directly from his mouth at Paul Fest bashing Ron, I'm not surprised. Fucking traitor. I used to respect the guy. Not any more. This was not third hand. I heard it.


Wow! I didn't know that? I was surprised that Dr. Paul didn't endorse him for Congress.

I also just found out Sheriff Mack is a Mormon too--not that it matters, but it sure made me stand up and take notice since he said he is going to back Romney.

Acala
10-10-2012, 01:27 PM
The Sioux joined with the Iroquois to defeat Custer?? Hahahaha! Reminds me of Belushi's inspiring speech in Animal House.

He's a dupe.

Anti Federalist
10-10-2012, 01:28 PM
Well, based on the shit I heard coming directly from his mouth at Paul Fest bashing Ron, I'm not surprised. Fucking traitor. I used to respect the guy. Not any more. This was not third hand. I heard it.

Please post what you heard.

GeorgiaAvenger
10-10-2012, 03:20 PM
Not disappointed at all. I would only be disappointed if Mack actually changed his positions, and viewed Romney as flawless.

I was disappointed that Paul didn't help out his congressional race, but what is done is done.

Ronulus
10-10-2012, 03:40 PM
In Texas his vote won't matter anyways. Not like he's going to be boosting romney's chances. So it's pretty stupid for someone who's for 'liberty' to come out and say they support romney. He's going to win texas no matter what.

JK/SEA
10-10-2012, 03:56 PM
just another fuckin' lying cop. What else is new?

KCIndy
10-10-2012, 04:00 PM
the Sioux joined with their arch enemy the Iroquois to defeat Custer,

BWAAA HAHAHAHAHAAAA!!!

Eh, I shouldn't laugh. Another sad victim of the American "public education" system. :(

DeMintConservative
10-10-2012, 05:44 PM
We have already compromised and sacrificed too much liberty as it stands now, and I will no longer support anyone who supports the lesser of two evils and the left/right false paradigm.



What do you gain from that?

If so much liberty has already been sacrificed and further loses are bound to happen, I'll take the deal that minimizes them. I completely agree with this Sheriff; very well written letter.

Brett85
10-10-2012, 05:49 PM
I'm not voting for Romney, but I don't care who Sheriff Mack votes for. He supported Ron Paul in the Republican Primary, which is the only thing that actually matters.

Brett85
10-10-2012, 05:51 PM
Well, based on the shit I heard coming directly from his mouth at Paul Fest bashing Ron, I'm not surprised.

I attended one of his speeches where he said that Ron was his favorite politician.

donnay
10-10-2012, 06:12 PM
What do you gain from that?


When you cut a deal with the devil you not only lose your liberty but you lose your soul.

I am sure glad the founders didn't cut a deal with King George III.

mczerone
10-10-2012, 06:14 PM
Another victim of the fearmongering. If Obama is an anti-American communist, then Romney is a anti-American facist.

How about we offer to let Mr. Mack go live as a serf on one of the palatial Romney estates if he promises to not impose Romney's kind massa's hand on the rest of us?

This lesser of two evils crap has gone on long enough, we should start offering supporters up to these demons as sacrifices to let the ret of us alone. We'll give Mr Romney a Mr Mack, a Rand Paul, and any one else who vocally supports him. They are now his property. They desire to live under his rule and to force us to do so too. We're giving them 1/2 of what they want. Same goes for Obama supporters. As long as they are a candidate, you are their unalienable slave.

When the going gets weird, the weird go pro.

DeMintConservative
10-10-2012, 06:18 PM
When you cut a deal with the devil you not only lose your liberty but you lose your soul.

I am sure glad the founders didn't cut a deal with King George III.

That's just an over-emotional metaphor that doesn't make much sense to me. I don't feel like I'm compromising my principles for trying to minimize the pain in the only possible way I have. If the alternatives were a social-democrat and a nazi/communist, I'd quickly pick the former.

Why? If there was a good deal to be cut that would save blood and treasure I don't see why they wouldn't.

LibertyEagle
10-10-2012, 06:39 PM
Well, based on the shit I heard coming directly from his mouth at Paul Fest bashing Ron, I'm not surprised. Fucking traitor. I used to respect the guy. Not any more. This was not third hand. I heard it.

Seriously? He actually bashed Ron???!!!!

I am shocked to say the least.

However, I do understand his rationale for voting for Romney and while I will not be doing the same, I respect his decision.

GeorgiaAvenger
10-10-2012, 06:42 PM
Seriously? He actually bashed Ron???!!!!

I am shocked to say the least.

However, I do understand his rationale for voting for Romney and while I will not be doing the same, I respect his decision.

Haven't seen evidence of that.

The worst Mack has said of Paul(that I know of) is that he was disappointed he didn't help him in his race. Even then it was very respectful.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZBceN8UISwQ

LibertyEagle
10-10-2012, 06:43 PM
Not disappointed at all. I would only be disappointed if Mack actually changed his positions, and viewed Romney as flawless.

I was disappointed that Paul didn't help out his congressional race, but what is done is done.

Wasn't he running against Lamar Smith? If so, Ron doesn't endorse against a sitting Republican running for reelection. Although, since he is leaving office soon, what were they going to do? Take his committee seats away from him for a few months?

LibertyEagle
10-10-2012, 06:46 PM
Another victim of the fearmongering. If Obama is an anti-American communist, then Romney is a anti-American facist.

It's not fearmongering when you are telling the truth.

GeorgiaAvenger
10-10-2012, 06:48 PM
Wasn't he running against Lamar Smith? If so, Ron doesn't endorse against a sitting Republican running for reelection.Yes he was.

I agree with Mack though, Ron is retiring so it doesn't matter. But I was upset at the time(this video is old), that Ron didn't tell Mack why he couldn't endorse him.

Ron isn't rude, so I suspect somebody in his campaign(which was miserably behind at this point) did not want Paul to be associated with Mack and clamped down on any possibility of any endorsement.

As for the rest of this thread, Mack may or may not have the best arguments for voting for Romney. There are arguments for doing so, some I agree with and others I don't. The guy isn't a college professor, but he has been diligently fighting for liberty in ways that most people would be afraid to. Anybody that gets involved with starting de-facto militias of constitutional peace officers is going to be a target from the media and the government.

qh4dotcom
10-10-2012, 06:53 PM
I don't agree with his decision...but he is still a great friend of Liberty.

AuH20
10-10-2012, 07:43 PM
Either Obama or Romney will be president. While I personally will not vote for Romney, I can't begrudge Sheriff Mack for his personal decision. He's seen Obama's term first hand and wants to experiment with another candidate.

qh4dotcom
10-10-2012, 07:58 PM
Either Obama or Romney will be president. While I personally will not vote for Romney, I can't begrudge Sheriff Mack for his personal decision. He's seen Obama's term first hand and wants to experiment with another candidate.

If the Sheriff didn't want to damage his reputation within the liberty movement like Rand Paul did, he should have kept quiet about who he is voting for while planning to vote for Romney next November 6th. Like someone else said, Romney is going to win the sheriff's home state of Texas whether the sheriff votes for him or not so all he did was to embarrass himself by publicly announcing his intent to vote for Romney.

Like I said earlier, I don't agree with his decision...but he is still a great friend of Liberty, and he hasn't lost my support.

Cleaner44
10-10-2012, 08:18 PM
This concept that Obama will destroy America is utter nonsense, if it happens it will be a joint effort of many Republicrats.

jclay2
10-10-2012, 08:36 PM
If the Sheriff didn't want to damage his reputation within the liberty movement like Rand Paul did, he should have kept quiet about who he is voting for while planning to vote for Romney next November 6th. Like someone else said, Romney is going to win the sheriff's home state of Texas whether the sheriff votes for him or not so all he did was to embarrass himself by publicly announcing his intent to vote for Romney.

Like I said earlier, I don't agree with his decision...but he is still a great friend of Liberty, and he hasn't lost my support.

People that vote for the lesser of two evils will fold under pressure when matters are really serious. Do you really trust him as a friend of liberty if he goes out of his way to slap our principles for something as pointless as a presidential election.

donnay
10-10-2012, 09:23 PM
People that vote for the lesser of two evils will fold under pressure when matters are really serious. Do you really trust him as a friend of liberty if he goes out of his way to slap our principles for something as pointless as a presidential election.

We do not need fair-weather patriots. I am more than disappointed at people who continue to compromise and willing to make deals that continue down the road to tyranny.

RickyJ
10-10-2012, 10:06 PM
I wonder how much Romney gave him for him to say this?

jclay2
10-10-2012, 10:18 PM
We do not need fair-weather patriots. I am more than disappointed at people who continue to compromise and willing to make deals that continue down the road to tyranny.

Agreed. I am just utterly disgusted with the shear amount of people turning to mitt to stop obama. How hard is it to get people to understand. They are all the SAME!!!!! Both have not proposed spending cuts, they both support NDAA, both will keep the tsa/dhs, both will continue to expand the military industrial complex, and both have vowed to preserve entitlements. What more do we need. These puppets are on the same string. We have gotten to this ugly point by supporting the lesser of two evils and I am just done with it. I know I am speaking to the choir, but a lot of ron paul supporters have absolutely no problem with mitt romney supporters. The battle is not over picking witch tyrant is least bad, it is ending tyranny and preserving freedom. Anyone who falls into the trap of thinking that one or the other will make a difference at all is a complete fool and does not deserve my support.

erowe1
10-10-2012, 10:23 PM
This shouldn't disappoint anyone. Everyone's free to do whatever they want when they're in that voting booth this November. People are going to follow the decision they think is best out of the options available. And not everyone's going to agree on that. The part of this election that really mattered ended this past spring.

mczerone
10-10-2012, 10:32 PM
It's not fearmongering when you are telling the truth.

It's fearmongering if you only tell half the truth.

Romney can be slandered just as he slanders Obama, and they will lead to the same tyrannical outcome no matter who is nominally in charge of the means of production. He's pretending that Obama is some scary extremist, and ignoring that Romney has the same extremist tendencies with a slightly different rhetoric.

donnay
10-10-2012, 10:39 PM
This shouldn't disappoint anyone. Everyone's free to do whatever they want when they're in that voting booth this November. People are going to follow the decision they think is best out of the options available. And not everyone's going to agree on that. The part of this election that really mattered ended this past spring.

"None are so hopelessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free."

AuH20
10-10-2012, 10:42 PM
I'm surprised everyone is so irate at Sheriff Mack. It's not like he literally 'paved' the road for Romney to be at this final juncture. These are the final two choices unfortunately.

donnay
10-10-2012, 10:45 PM
Agreed. I am just utterly disgusted with the shear amount of people turning to mitt to stop obama. How hard is it to get people to understand. They are all the SAME!!!!! Both have not proposed spending cuts, they both support NDAA, both will keep the tsa/dhs, both will continue to expand the military industrial complex, and both have vowed to preserve entitlements. What more do we need. These puppets are on the same string. We have gotten to this ugly point by supporting the lesser of two evils and I am just done with it. I know I am speaking to the choir, but a lot of ron paul supporters have absolutely no problem with mitt romney supporters. The battle is not over picking witch tyrant is least bad, it is ending tyranny and preserving freedom. Anyone who falls into the trap of thinking that one or the other will make a difference at all is a complete fool and does not deserve my support.


Hear! Hear!

Again, I would have more respect for these people if they would just say, "I cannot in good conscience support either candidate for the office of Presidency. They are both usurpers of the Constitution and everything that our founders abhorred."

donnay
10-10-2012, 10:46 PM
I'm surprised everyone is so irate at Sheriff Mack. It's not like he literally 'paved' the road for Romney to be at this final juncture. These are the final two choices unfortunately.


You mean the illusion you have a choice. C'mon people, think!!!

AuH20
10-10-2012, 10:47 PM
Agreed. I am just utterly disgusted with the shear amount of people turning to mitt to stop obama. How hard is it to get people to understand. They are all the SAME!!!!! Both have not proposed spending cuts, they both support NDAA, both will keep the tsa/dhs, both will continue to expand the military industrial complex, and both have vowed to preserve entitlements. What more do we need. These puppets are on the same string. We have gotten to this ugly point by supporting the lesser of two evils and I am just done with it. I know I am speaking to the choir, but a lot of ron paul supporters have absolutely no problem with mitt romney supporters. The battle is not over picking witch tyrant is least bad, it is ending tyranny and preserving freedom. Anyone who falls into the trap of thinking that one or the other will make a difference at all is a complete fool and does not deserve my support.

I think the only legitimate Romney excuse I have heard is to stop Obama from a second term with possibly a democratic congress. That makes perfect sense. However, the other reasons make absolutely no sense. Voting for Romney will not save the country.

AuH20
10-10-2012, 10:49 PM
You mean the illusion you have a choice. C'mon people, think!!!
To a pragmatist, they are going to carefully gauge the benefits versus the cons, no matter how matter miniscule the net gain may appear. And I understand their reasoning. Locked in a room with a gun to your head with only two choices. Who do you want as president? They are choosing Romney since they have already experienced Obama.

donnay
10-10-2012, 10:53 PM
To a pragmatist, they are going to carefully gauge the benefits versus the cons, no matter how matter miniscule the net gain may appear. And I understand their reasoning. Locked in a room with a gun to your head with only two choices. Who do you want as president? They are choosing Romney since they have already experienced Obama.

To be a realist...

http://gilliganscorner.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/stalin_voting.jpg?w=490

liberalnurse
10-11-2012, 04:20 AM
Originally Posted by kathy88
Well, based on the shit I heard coming directly from his mouth at Paul Fest bashing Ron, I'm not surprised. Fucking traitor. I used to respect the guy. Not any more. This was not third hand. I heard it.



Please post what you heard.


I believe what Kathy is referring to is a round table discussion that took place in a secure area during the Paul Fest. The topic: "Where do we go from here." In addtion to Sheriff Mack other participants included, Stewart Rhodes, Chuck Baldwin, Jordan Page, Adam Kokesh, Tracy Diaz, several delegates, other activists and elected "Ron Paul Republicans.". There were maybe a dozen participating, the camera man (Gray State) and a few spectators who had access to that area were present.

My recolllection is that Sheriff Mack was really frustrated with Ron Paul for not endorsing him. The phrase that he used numerous times was that "Ron Paul sucks the air out of the room." He commented several times that he was unable to raise the funds to run an effective campaign because everyone that was asked to contribute was donating all their funds exclusivley to Ron Paul. He said that he had endorsed Ron and was disappointed (to put it mildly) that Ron didn't endorse him in return. It sorta turned into a rant and everyone was quiet and then Chuck Baldwin to the rescue. He literally cut him off and talked for about fifteen minutes disputing what Sheriff Mack said in a kind and professional manner.

Kathy please add or correct any of the above as I don't remember everything that was said.:)

Czolgosz
10-11-2012, 04:56 AM
Humans are stupid, no wonder they don't remain free for very long.

MelissaCato
10-11-2012, 04:58 AM
What does Stewart Rhodes say about all this ?

kathy88
10-11-2012, 05:16 AM
I attended one of his speeches where he said that Ron was his favorite politician.

He was mad that Ron didn't endorse him, and went on and on about it. Then he said that Ron "sucked the air out of the room" and left nothing for other liberty candidates, of course, he was talking about money. He says he didn't get the contributions he should have because of Ron, and that because we supported Ron financially it was basically Ron's fault that more liberty candidates' campaigns failed.

kathy88
10-11-2012, 05:19 AM
I believe what Kathy is referring to is a round table discussion that took place in a secure area during the Paul Fest. The topic: "Where do we go from here." In addtion to Sheriff Mack other participants included, Stewart Rhodes, Chuck Baldwin, Jordan Page, Adam Kokesh, Tracy Diaz, several delegates, other activists and elected "Ron Paul Republicans.". There were maybe a dozen participating, the camera man (Gray State) and a few spectators who had access to that area were present.

My recolllection is that Sheriff Mack was really frustrated with Ron Paul for not endorsing him. The phrase that he used numerous times was that "Ron Paul sucks the air out of the room." He commented several times that he was unable to raise the funds to run an effective campaign because everyone that was asked to contribute was donating all their funds exclusivley to Ron Paul. He said that he had endorsed Ron and was disappointed (to put it mildly) that Ron didn't endorse him in return. It sorta turned into a rant and everyone was quiet and then Chuck Baldwin to the rescue. He literally cut him off and talked for about fifteen minutes disputing what Sheriff Mack said in a kind and professional manner.

Kathy please add or correct any of the above as I don't remember everything that was said.:)

Sorry, didn't see this. Her recollection is correct. And Baldwin was the only gentleman in the room.

nobody's_hero
10-11-2012, 05:49 AM
Well, I can understand Richard's frustration, but I also know we don't have a lot of money in the liberty movement. Unfortunately, donations tend to get prioritized to races that get the most attention (presidential races). If I had one million dollars I would spread the love as much as possible to all these races.

I'm frustrated too. I'm frustrated that politics is fueled by money, and sadly, 'freedom doesn't pay' compared to the hordes of lobbyists the anti-freedom establishment has backing its candidates. I hate to see Patriots such as Mack take their frustrations out on Paul. It's misdirected anger. Justified anger, perhaps—but misdirected.

Travlyr
10-11-2012, 06:01 AM
just another fuckin' lying cop. What else is new?

Sheriffs are not cops. Sheriffs are elected officials. Cops are hired thugs.

liberalnurse
10-11-2012, 06:09 AM
I believe he said he was relocating to New Mexico where he has a friend who is a sheriff. He invited all to come live in New Mexico in what he referred to as the "freest county in the United States."

liberalnurse
10-11-2012, 06:45 AM
What does Stewart Rhodes say about all this ?

I don't recall Stewart Rhodes specifically addressing Sheriff Macks remarks. However, when he did speak, he was very supportive and appreciative of Ron Paul and the Liberty Movement.

pcosmar
10-11-2012, 08:20 AM
I was disappointed, But I guess that is his choice.

I have listened to a lot of his speeches and writings. and supported him.
I don't think he likes him,, but is just picking the less worse. Everybody is going to have to do that I suppose.
This shit is not going to get better. Both Parties and the choices suck. They both will be bad, but just bad in varying ways.
Some things will get less worse than others with either choice.
Profits may shift from one favored corporation to another,, but the main agenda will continue.

Both choices suck.

I wish he hadn't even picked one.. I can't.
But a lot of people are going to chose the less worse (in their minds) and elect one of them.

Pericles
10-11-2012, 08:26 AM
This shouldn't disappoint anyone. Everyone's free to do whatever they want when they're in that voting booth this November. People are going to follow the decision they think is best out of the options available. And not everyone's going to agree on that. The part of this election that really mattered ended this past spring.

Agree - while I disagree with his choice and his reasoning, he has every right to do as he has done and make his case.

erowe1
10-11-2012, 09:13 AM
"None are so hopelessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free."

How does that relate to what I said?

erowe1
10-11-2012, 09:14 AM
You mean the illusion you have a choice. C'mon people, think!!!

So if it's just an illusion of having a choice, what's the big deal about how someone votes?

Danke
10-11-2012, 09:54 AM
So if it's just an illusion of having a choice, what's the big deal about how someone votes?

Imagine if they had a vote and no one showed up.

donnay
10-11-2012, 10:00 AM
How does that relate to what I said?


Originally Posted by erowe1
This shouldn't disappoint anyone. Everyone's free to do whatever they want when they're in that voting booth this November. People are going to follow the decision they think is best out of the options available. And not everyone's going to agree on that. The part of this election that really mattered ended this past spring.


So if it's just an illusion of having a choice, what's the big deal about how someone votes?

Because we continue on the same path of deception that has gotten us in this predicament in the first place. This is where people need to wake up.

Einstein definition of insanity: Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

erowe1
10-11-2012, 10:13 AM
Imagine if they had a vote and no one showed up.

I think that would be awesome.

erowe1
10-11-2012, 10:15 AM
Because we continue on the same path of deception that has gotten us in this predicament in the first place. This is where people need to wake up.

Einstein definition of insanity: Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

Was this post meant to help me understand how your previous post had anything to do with anything I said?

You're like that Sphinx character in Mystery Men, always speaking in aphorisms.

My point is, the general election doesn't matter. Who cares what anybody does in it? His vote won't affect the outcome, and even if it did, you couldn't really say that that outcome was any worse than the other.

Also, he who can balance a tack hammer on his head can head off his foes with a balanced attack.

VBRonPaulFan
10-11-2012, 10:20 AM
Imagine if they had a vote and no one showed up.

Not enough people understand that they are each a sovereign individual, and have inalienable god given rights for that to ever happen.

Oh yeah, and people love abdicating responsibilities to the government. So there's that.

donnay
10-11-2012, 10:35 AM
Was this post meant to help me understand how your previous post had anything to do with anything I said?

You're like that Sphinx character in Mystery Men, always speaking in aphorisms.


I do not know how I can do any more to explain to you what you said. You think people are free to choice whomever they want to vote for. I am trying to point at that flawed thinking-- "None are so hopelessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free." No one is free to vote for whomever (Nationally), that is the illusion. Using that flawed thinking only reaffirms, that to continue to believe we are free to vote for whomever, in a National election, is why nothing changes, for the good, in this country.

The change has got to come from within-- each and every one of us, not from within a criminal syndicate who have hijacked our government.

Todd
10-11-2012, 10:38 AM
I wish that people who are disapointed in guys like Rand and Mack would try to understand this doesn't make them our enemies or worthless. Some people just don't think the same way about politics as we do.

erowe1
10-11-2012, 10:54 AM
You think people are free to choice whomever they want to vote for.
Which was obviously referring to the election coming up that either Romney or Obama will win.


I am trying to point at that flawed thinking-- "None are so hopelessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free."
But that has nothing to do with what I was saying.


No one is free to vote for whomever (Nationally), that is the illusion. Using that flawed thinking only reaffirms, that to continue to believe we are free to vote for whomever, in a National election, is why nothing changes, for the good, in this country.

The change has got to come from within-- each and every one of us, not from within a criminal syndicate who have hijacked our government.
But again. So what? What about any of this makes Sheriff Mack's decision to vote for Romney disappointing? You seem to be agreeing that it doesn't matter and then using the fact that it doesn't matter as a reason to say it's a big deal.

Imagine two Jews are in prison, and the warden tells them, your choices for dinner are a BLT or a pork chop, and one of them says, I'll take the BLT, and then the other turns to him and says, "How dare you eat non-kosher food?!" You're being like that second guy.

Czolgosz
10-11-2012, 11:09 AM
Gifelta fish is on the menu, it's just not listed.

brandon
10-11-2012, 11:09 AM
This guy is a moron. Always has been.

donnay
10-11-2012, 11:26 AM
This is apparent. Because you keep saying the same meaningless things.

So says you. It is only meaningless when you don't understand it.



Which was obviously referring to the election coming up that either Romney or Obama will win.

I referring to National Elections, past, present and future.



But that has nothing to do with what I was saying.

So what is it you're saying?




But again. So what? What about any of this makes Sheriff Mack's decision to vote for Romney disappointing? You seem to be agreeing that it doesn't matter and then using the fact that it doesn't matter as a reason to say it's a big deal.

Because it is a false left/right paradigm!! I thought Mack was smarter than that--my mistake. It's disappointing because so many people are looking for leaders--these leaders are sending them down the wrong path and continuing the illusions.




Imagine two Jews are in prison, and the warden tells them, your choices for dinner are a BLT or a pork chop, and one of them says, I'll take the BLT, and then the other turns to him and says, "How dare you eat non-kosher food?!" You're being like that second guy.

Oh okay--that makes perfect sense. :rolleyes:

erowe1
10-11-2012, 11:28 AM
So what is it you're saying?


That there's no reason to be disappointed with Sheriff Mack and that nothing you have said gives any reason to be.



Because it is a false left/right paradigm!! I thought Mack was smarter than that--my mistake. It's disappointing because so many people are looking for leaders--these leaders are sending them down the wrong path and continuing the illusions.


I don't see anything in Mack's words that supports saying this about him, and I see a lot in what he's done over the years that doesn't.

So he thinks Romney's less bad than Obama. Who can blame him for that?

donnay
10-11-2012, 11:31 AM
That there's no reason to be disappointed with Sheriff Mack and that nothing you have said gives any reason to be.



I don't see anything in Mack's words that supports saying this about him, and I see a lot in what he's done over the years that doesn't.


Who's on first?

VegasPatriot
10-11-2012, 11:42 AM
What does Stewart Rhodes say about all this ?

Stewart was not real happy when he found out about Macks endorsement. I was at a breakfast meeting with Stewart, Sheriff Mack and various other members of Oath Keepers on Saturday Aug 25 (right before PAULFest) when Stewart sat next to me and said something to the effect of "I can't believe it... Sheriff Mack is endorsing friggin Romney". Stewart then went on to say Mack should know better. However Stewart knows Mack is a true patriot; he is dissapointed Mack has made this endorsement but Stewart understands Mack has been, and will continue to fight for our liberty movement. Later that day during PAULFest, Stewart gave a speech with his take on voting for the lesser of two evils.


http://youtu.be/44h8QQdcymE

Pericles
10-11-2012, 12:35 PM
I've known Germans who voted for the Nazis because they were the lessor evil than the Communists, and insisted to the day they died, that history proved them correct. In terms of number of people murdered, they were right - but voting for the lessor of two evils is voting for evil.