Its all about the..
Posted on 12/22/2007 6:24:10 AM PST by Reaganesque
Ok. You're right. I don't know Mitt, but I assume he is a good guy. And Mitt is just a regular liberal, more akin to Joe Lieberman, Arnold Schwarzenegger, or Paul Sarbanes, than the more Marxist variety represented by the former first co-dependent.
Having said that, he is a liberal and therefore should not ever occupy the White House.
Its all about the..
If I wanted to make a personal attack on you, there would be no question about it. As for your point:
progressive=liberal
My counter is that it is a simplistic assertion unworthy of further comment, sort of like:
big’ol_freeper=stupid
Obviously, I don’t know if you’re stupid or not. I don’t have your IQ test results in my back pocket. What I do know is that your assertion was simplistic, and if simplistic is aproximately equal to stupid, then it was stupid.
Of course I mean this in a nice, constructive way. :^)
That was not a simplistic assertion. The Democrats are known as the progressive party. They use the word progressive as a code word for liberalism because liberals run away from that label. In your post I was responding to you claimed that Georgie Romney was a progressive. My point was that a progressive is a liberal. Its more a fact of political life than any assertion on my part. Guess you kinda missed that.
It’s hard to tell the anti-Romney slanderers from Dim attack bots. They put a little Larry O’Donnell into each post.
I think Mitt’s going to take this thing. Their attacks are weak and without merit.
-—And it is because he has been a devoted father and husband his entire life, not just because he is very attractive.-—
Exactly so! His beauty is obviously more than skin deep. The image in this case reflects an underlying reality.
That is exactly my problem with Thompson. I love his white papers. He has the most conservative and detailed policy proposals that I have seen from any Repub. candidate, but I wonder about his leadership, and hence, his ability, were he to win the presidency, to push and propel his policy initiatives through the battle royal that will always be the lot of a conservative president.
Also, is it true that he was a cosigner of McCain Feingold? THAT is certainly not conservative.
You obviously have not read too many of my posts over time and I don't post to satisfy your need for proof for my arguments so if it means that much to you then you can go back over a few months of my posts to see my reasoning of why Fred or Duncan are conservative while Romney is liberal. Have a nice day.
Sorry. Don’t have the time or interest in looking up your old posts. I like Fred and Duncan Hunter, and I have my reasons. What are yours? I’m curious. You still have not supported your argument on this thread.
And, according to multiple eye witnesses I can scrounge up, I interviewed Robert E. Lee for my high school American History term paper.
History is not documented by stating "Some 72 year old named Shirley told someone that she remembers joining a march back in 1963 and that Martin Luther King and the Governor were somewhere in the crowd of thousands."
History is documented by corroboration with primary source material and the primary sources extensively document that Martin Luther King spoke at Grosse Pointe High School on 14 March, 1968 and there is no documentation whatsoever that Martin Luther King ever marched in Grosse Point in 1963 or at any other time.
According to the Grosse Pointe Historical Society, Martin Luther King never marched there.
Martin Luther King's speech at Grosse Pointe High School was delivered on 14 March, 1968 and can be accessed here
The extensive newspaper documentation of that Grosse Pointe High School speech by Martin Luther King collected by the Grosse Point Historical Society can be seen here
Even Mitt Romney himself admits that he never saw his gather march with King.
The historical record shows Martin Luther King marched at multiple places in the U.S. but not in Grosse Pointe and not with George Romney.
The historical record shows that George Romney supported the ideal of Martin Luther King at a time when many politicians did not and therefore figuratively marched with the ideals of Martin Luther King.
Why don't you just leave it at that instead of continuously attacking multiple Freepers on multiple threads who are pointing out the true history of the events.
To: cripplecreek .... You're calling this elderly woman a liar too? You're pathetic and sick in the soul. .... 5 posted on 12/21/2007 5:32:41 PM PST by JCEccles
It is mind boggling to me why people, in general, place so much weight on polls. Everyone's individual vote is a precious franchise that should be cast with much thought. I don't want to let 400 anonymous people at the other end of a pollster's telephone line decide who will be POTUS. Following polls allows those 400 people, that happened to pick up the phone, to have unjustifiable influence--the poll becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.
My 2 cents: Look at the issues. Look at the character. Vote for who you think will do the best job.
When I was in first grade, Nixon was running against Kennedy.
One of my classmates said to me, “Who are you voting for?” (as if we could vote)
I said, “Oh, I’m voting for Nixon!” (My parents were Republicans.)
My friend said: “I’m voting for Kennedy. He’s cuter!”
Bttt!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.