Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Why 80% Reject Paul and Romney
Townhall ^ | January 1, 2012 | Kevin McCullough

Posted on 01/01/2012 10:59:11 AM PST by greyfoxx39

Dear Iowa Caucus participants,

You have been told for the better part of year now who it is that you must choose. Beltway insiders have insisted upon thrusting establishment candidates upon you. Libertarian anarchists have swopped into your state shouting that you must support Ron Paul, while toking on the marijuana they soon believe President Paul will make legal.

You've been openly mocked by Governor John Huntsman from Utah--who ironically seeks your support.

Ann Coulter has defied every conservative principal she's ever espoused by trying to brainwash you into thinking that Mitt Romney is the best that you have to choose from.

You've endured what seems like 7,162 debates. Which have yielded roughly thirty seconds of actual substance to judge the candidates on.

Yet after all of it, nearly 80% of you do not care for the front runner who was the third place finisher in 2008. And even less of you seem enamored with the rebellion inciting candidacy of a country doctor--who clearly understands our monetary crisis, but would leave America vulnerable to horrors beyond that of 9.11--should he become the decision maker.

So what is about the 80% of GOP Caucus goers that has you siding with the other candidates?

Could it be that they clearly articulate, understand, and have demonstrated a track record on the really simple things like protecting innocent life?

This would be understandable given that Governor Romney insisted upon $50 abortions being made available through tax-payer dollars in his desire to force private citizens in Massachusetts into mandated universal health care.

Could it be that they clearly believe that this is a dangerous world and the issues of national security are not for the silly-minded?

This would also make sense given the fact that Congressman Paul chose to excoriate his opponents, accusing them of harboring desires of genocide against 1.4 billion Muslims, instead of answer the question put before him as to how his presidency would handle the growing Iranian instability. Specifically he avoided answering what he would choose to do in the event that Iran attempts to hi-jack international waterways. One of those other candidates is easily America's greatest authority on the Iranian matter, another one has seen the confidential national security documents that none of the others have, and another one has been busy catching terror suspects on his state's southern border.

Could it be that the other candidates have argued and demonstrated consistently that raising taxes and attaching fees to the basics in American life is burdensome to the economic health of the nation?

This would again be completely understandable given that Governor Romney raised taxes on education in state universities, for purchasing a home, to receive a certificate of blindness, on corporations, driver's licenses, marriage licenses, gun licenses, and even gasoline?

Could it be that the candidates drawing 80% of the GOP Caucus goers support in the polls don't believe legalizing heroin and marijuana are good ideas?

No one can argue with the logic that seems to elude Dr. Ron Paul on the simple concept of dangerous narcotics and making access easier for them.

Could it be that you don't know if you could trust Mitt Romney nor Ron Paul to protect the sacred institution of marriage?

Neither man has given you any reason to believe that they would seek to keep radical courts from imposing a government defined view of marriage upon voters in every state. Yet Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich helped you overturn activist judges in your own state, and Michelle Bachmann and Rick Perry have been long supportive of your state's rights to decide for itself what the definition of marriage should be. And when you consider the particularly heinous manipulation that Governor Romney has applied to the issue -- pretending to support marriage, while overseeing, participating in, and enforcing the view of the activist courts -- support for him is particularly troublesome.

Could it be that you really just need to know that the most offensive over-reach of government in our lifetimes will be overturned?

This is completely fair. Obamacare--and further--the entire idea of government forcing you to purchase anything--just to exist--is outrageously unconstitutional. Governor Romney, however, just this week said that not only did he still support his original blueprint for Obamacare (the one he actually authored), but he went a step further to claim that the idea of forcing citizens to purchase health care--a mandate at the force of a gun--was a "conservative principle." Never mind that fact that this type of audacity carries with it incredible hubris, how does it incline you to believe that he will do anything to repeal Obamacare?

Could it be--actually above all else--that you are more concerned about finding, getting, and keeping a job than anything else?

If so you're not alone and while Ron Paul has no experience in economic development, and Mitt Romney will certainly be bloodied in the general election campaign with advertisement after advertisement talking to people his company sought to have fired from their private sector positions. One of the other candidates has seen to it that the regulatory, tax, and litigative atmosphere in the state which he serves as Governor is kept in check, and as a result his state has seen the growth of close to half of all jobs created in the last three years--while President Obama was busy growing government payrolls, and killing private sector jobs by more than two million.

In short Iowa Caucusers you have a lot of reasons to be 80% against the two men that you really can't seem to identify with. This week you have the serious job of deliberating, debating, and convincing your fellow caucusers of the truth. Feel free to take this column with you to the caucus.

But whatever you do, don't give up on your principles! Don't bankrupt our future, and don't vote out of fear.

Ronald Reagan always said that if he agreed with someone on 80% of the issues, he would count them a friend. By implication 80% disagreement would probably indicate that he couldn't work with that person.

Iowans share 80% disapproval of Mitt Romney and Ron Paul. Therefore finding unity on what you do agree on and stopping those you disagree with should be of the utmost of importance. Consider that on Tuesday.

America will be the better for it.

Kevin McCullough Kevin McCullough is the nationally syndicated host of "The Kevin McCullough Show" weekdays (7-9am EST) & "Baldwin/McCullough Radio" Saturdays (9-11pm EST) on 289 stations. His newest best-selling hardcover from Thomas Nelson Publishers, "No He Can't: How Barack Obama is Dismantling Hope and Change" is in stores now.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: carter4romney; carville4romney; clinton4romney; democrats4romney; dnc4romney; iag4romney; illegals4romney; kerry4romney; newtgingrich; nuttypaul; obama4romney; paul; reid4romney; ricksantorum; rino; rinos4romney; romney; romney4badjudges; romney4dogabuse; romney4msm; romney4romney; romney4soros; romneybackstabbers; romneybackstabbing; romneybigdig; romneycare; romneycoverups; romneydeathpanels; romneydirt; romneydirtytricks; romneyfakebadges; romneymarriage; romneynewtaxes; romneysaboteurs; romneystench; sharia4romney

1 posted on 01/01/2012 10:59:17 AM PST by greyfoxx39
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: brytlea; Diana in Wisconsin; Kakaze; Tammy8; unkus; metmom; Cap Huff; svcw; leapfrog0202; Concho; ..

Ping


2 posted on 01/01/2012 11:01:19 AM PST by greyfoxx39 (The Iowa caucuses gave you Jimmy Carter and Barack Obama. You're WELCOME, America.-Iowahawk)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: greyfoxx39
Iowans share 80% disapproval of Mitt Romney and Ron Paul. Therefore finding unity on what you do agree on and stopping those you disagree with should be of the utmost of importance. Consider that on Tuesday.

Good points all around, especially on Ann Coulter. She, Kommunist Karl Rove, and the others pushing Romney have yet to explain why the vast majority of folks don't like Romney.
3 posted on 01/01/2012 11:01:43 AM PST by af_vet_rr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: greyfoxx39
Why 80% Reject Paul and Romney???

Because they are each wacky and weird nutjobs invading the Republican primaries and caucuses.

4 posted on 01/01/2012 11:04:27 AM PST by CainConservative ( Newt/Rubio 2012 with Cain, Bolton, Santorum, Perry, Watts, Duncan, & Bachmann in Newt's Cabinet)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: greyfoxx39

Math seems off here. If Romney and Paul are polling 22% each, how can 80% disapprove of both of them?


5 posted on 01/01/2012 11:08:40 AM PST by B Knotts (Just another Tenther)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: greyfoxx39

The undecided’s and independents will go with Santorum or Perry in the end. The GOP thinks they fixed SC with the Gov. Romney endorsement.here is a reason Romney has been campaigning for five years,he can never surge,it is not nor will it ever be his turn.He should defect and turn democrat.


6 posted on 01/01/2012 11:10:30 AM PST by Dubya-M-DeesWent2SyriaStupid!
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: greyfoxx39

Sometimes you have to go with someone who doesn’t agree with you one hundred per cent, but it’s better than staying home and watching Obama steal another election.


7 posted on 01/01/2012 11:20:51 AM PST by hershey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: greyfoxx39

80% rejection of Romney the liberal and Paul the delusional - yea!! There is hope for the GOP after all.


8 posted on 01/01/2012 11:25:00 AM PST by svcw (God's Grace - thank you!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hershey; greyfoxx39

Sometimes you have to go with someone who doesn’t agree with you one hundred per cent, but it’s better than staying home and watching Obama steal another election.

- - - - -
It doesn’t mean you have to back someone who agrees with you nearly ZERO percent (Romney) and who is a proven liar. I don’t agree with Newt, or Perry, or anyone else 100% but I may hold my nose and vote for them because they would be better than Obama. Romney? NO WAY. He is in a few ways worse than Obama because he pretends to be on our side when he isn’t at all.

Romney is NOT better than Obama, he is just paler.


9 posted on 01/01/2012 11:28:52 AM PST by reaganaut (Romney IS Obama - just 'white and delightsome' 2 Nephi 30:6)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Dubya-M-DeesWent2SyriaStupid!

I would love Romney to switch parties, he can be the Dems problem, not ours.

UGH that man is just so evil!


10 posted on 01/01/2012 11:30:24 AM PST by reaganaut (Romney IS Obama - just 'white and delightsome' 2 Nephi 30:6)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: greyfoxx39

I thought this looked familiar:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2827378/posts


11 posted on 01/01/2012 11:31:31 AM PST by upchuck (Let's have the Revolution NOW before we get dumbed down to the point that we can't.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dubya-M-DeesWent2SyriaStupid!
Romney has been campaigning for five years,he can never surge,it is not nor will it ever be his turn.He should defect and turn democrat.

The dhimmis don't want him either lol

12 posted on 01/01/2012 11:40:27 AM PST by rockrr (Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: greyfoxx39
Could it be that they clearly believe that this is a dangerous world and the issues of national security are not for the silly-minded?

Is it silly to see the American hostile elite as the greatest danger to the American people?

13 posted on 01/01/2012 11:41:27 AM PST by mas cerveza por favor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rockrr

The biggest trick of all: the Obama Axelrod machine is pulling off; slicker than the devil.Is... the notion that Romney can beat Obama.Obama will eat Obama up and chew him again and have him for dinner in the bowels of hell in numerous facets.One being that Romney is as full of BS as Obama so he knows how to bring him down. As well as he will harp ObamneyCare and before it is over Romney will have been sleeping with seven hookers from the mormon church and prove he eats dead babies nightly and sleeps with children.Whatever it takes...Obama will not let up until Romney is toast and or resigns like Cain.Obama cannot wait for Romney.

Also The axelrod machine truly enjoys sitting back while they do nothing and use the MSM to print news that infuriate Perry,Bachmann,Palin,Santorum supporters keeping them all divided.They created a schism.They know the GOP is McCain loving PC wussies afraid very afraid of a conservative right candidate.This plus Paul is a sure re election for Obama.BUT the tea party will rise to the occasion and unite behind ONE just in time.


14 posted on 01/01/2012 11:58:48 AM PST by Dubya-M-DeesWent2SyriaStupid!
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: greyfoxx39

If Romney (pro-gay, pro-abort record) and Paul (where to begin!) are the two front runners in Iowa —
there’s something wrong with Iowa.


15 posted on 01/01/2012 12:03:01 PM PST by Lady Lucky (Happy Newt Year!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: B Knotts

“Math seems off here. If Romney and Paul are polling 22% each, how can 80% disapprove of both of them?”

New conservative math.


16 posted on 01/01/2012 12:06:18 PM PST by truth_seeker (l)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: rockrr

LOL I typed Obama will eat Obama up and I meant Obama will eat ROMNEY up and spit him out.Same thing as they are twins.One has thicker eyebrows and no dumbo ears is all.


17 posted on 01/01/2012 12:10:18 PM PST by Dubya-M-DeesWent2SyriaStupid!
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: greyfoxx39

Because one is a screeching lunatic and the other is a liberal. That’s why.


18 posted on 01/01/2012 12:21:06 PM PST by Lurker (The avalanche has begun. The pebbles no longer have a vote.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: B Knotts
Math seems off here. If Romney and Paul are polling 22% each, how can 80% disapprove of both of them?

You could disapprove of Paul, for instance, and yet still name him as your choice on the grounds that he is the least bad choice able to stop Romney. You might actually prefer Perry, Bachmann, Santorum, Huntsman, or Gingrich, yet believe supporting any of them would split the vote, giving victory to Romney.

19 posted on 01/01/2012 12:21:49 PM PST by cynwoody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: upchuck

I ran a search before I posted.


20 posted on 01/01/2012 12:22:48 PM PST by greyfoxx39 (The Iowa caucuses gave you Jimmy Carter and Barack Obama. You're WELCOME, America.-Iowahawk)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: greyfoxx39

Good question. Force feeding RINOs down our throat only results in vomitus.


21 posted on 01/01/2012 12:24:54 PM PST by catfish1957 (Save a Pretzel for the Gas Jets!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hershey; Jim Robinson
Sometimes you have to go with someone who doesn’t agree with you one hundred per cent, but it’s better than staying home and watching Obama steal another election.

That is a deceptive rationale because 100 percent of the time, Romney opposes the principles of limited government conservatism:

1. Vote against Obama by all means, but if you vote FOR Romney, you are voting FOR making the Republican Party the party of keeping abortion legal on the FEDERAL level and, if his RomneyCare in Mass. is the standard, making YOU and ME pay for the at-will murder of the unborn.

2. Vote against Obama by all means, but if you vote FOR Romney, you are voting FOR making the Republican Party the party of embracing save-the-planetism, global warming, and the regulation by OTHER NATIONS of America's energy production and consumption (Quoth Romney, who believes global warming is happening and that man is at least partially to blame: "Any carbon plan has to be worldwide in scop. Let's have a worldwide solution, not an American one." -- CPAC speech, 2008).

3. Vote against Obama by all means, but if you vote FOR Romney, you are voting FOR making the Republican Party the party of forcing American culture, including its military, to EMBRACE open homosexuality in virtually every aspect of life, and PUNISHING people when they peacefully reject, by discriminating against, open homosexuality in their workplaces, their childrens's schools and youth groups, their business choices, their neighborhoods, and their military ranks. Understand that no rights are bestowed -- "gay rights" is all about DENYING Americans their God-given right to reject open homosexuality in their personal and public lives.

4. Vote against Obama by all means, but if you vote FOR Romney, you are voting FOR making the Republican Party the party of the appointment of activist liberal judges to the Supreme Court. Romney has a track record of piss-poor judge picks, and it is because CONSERVATIVE PRINCIPLE SAILS OVER HIS HEAD.

5. Vote against Obama by all means, but if you vote FOR Romney, you are voting FOR making the Republican Party the party of more and bigger governnment, increased statism, and heavier government tyranny.

When you vote FOR Romney, Obama has zero to do with anything, because you will be voting to increase liberalism in both political parties. You will be voting to allow statism and government tyranny to STEAL our nation under the Republican banner!

Obama we can fight. Romney ties our hands behind our backs. ROMNEY NEEDS TO LOSE.

22 posted on 01/01/2012 12:36:07 PM PST by Finny ("Raise hell. Vote smart." -- Ted Nugent)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: hershey

DO NOT PUSH ROMNEY ON THIS PRO-LIFE SITE!!


23 posted on 01/01/2012 12:40:04 PM PST by Jim Robinson (Rebellion is brewing!! Impeach the corrupt Marxist bastard!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: greyfoxx39

24 posted on 01/01/2012 12:49:46 PM PST by PhilDragoo (Hussein: Islamo-Commie from Kenya)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: greyfoxx39

A search like this?

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/search?s=paul+and+romney&ok=Search&q=quick&m=exact&o=time


25 posted on 01/01/2012 1:06:15 PM PST by upchuck (Let's have the Revolution NOW before we get dumbed down to the point that we can't.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: greyfoxx39

I am voting for Rick Perry. Enough said.


26 posted on 01/01/2012 1:07:28 PM PST by stars & stripes forever (Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hershey

27 posted on 01/01/2012 1:38:34 PM PST by Scoutmaster (You knew the job was dangerous when you took it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: greyfoxx39

The Paul voters who are independents or Democrats should not be included in the polling. These people are hijacking the Republican nomination process. No more open primaries!


28 posted on 01/01/2012 1:55:11 PM PST by Socon-Econ (Socon-Econ)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: upchuck

I searched the title of the article, in the manner in which it was named...”Why 80% Reject Paul and Romney”...why is this your concern? Are you the new FR posting czar? If so, you will be very busy as there are duplicate threads posted quite often. In any case, get off my back!


29 posted on 01/01/2012 2:23:02 PM PST by greyfoxx39 (The Iowa caucuses gave you Jimmy Carter and Barack Obama. You're WELCOME, America.-Iowahawk)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Finny
When you vote FOR Romney, Obama has zero to do with anything, because you will be voting to increase liberalism in both political parties. You will be voting to allow statism and government tyranny to STEAL our nation under the Republican banner!

Obama we can fight. Romney ties our hands behind our backs. ROMNEY NEEDS TO LOSE.

Excellent post. Bears repeating.

30 posted on 01/01/2012 2:26:30 PM PST by greyfoxx39 (The Iowa caucuses gave you Jimmy Carter and Barack Obama. You're WELCOME, America.-Iowahawk)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: greyfoxx39

This is the most condescending piece of tripe I’ve read on this matter yet. Does the author actually think that Iowans are not evaluating the candidates with their very own brain cells and reaching their very own conclusions?

I tell you, I am sick to death of any statement of support for a candidate, or any non-negative analysis of that candidate, being perceived emotionally as someone “telling you what to think.”

Good grief.

Can we move beyond the psychobabble and simply state the case for or against a candidate, without framing it as those who may disagree with your analysis are duped, mind-numbed robots? Thank you.


31 posted on 01/01/2012 2:30:16 PM PST by fightinJAG (So many seem to have lost their sense of smell . . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fightinJAG; Jim Robinson
Can we move beyond the psychobabble and simply state the case for or against a candidate, without framing it as those who may disagree with your analysis are duped, mind-numbed robots?

IMO, and that of the owner of FR, anyone who supports Romney and/or Paul IS a mind-numbed robot.

I think the author makes a lot of sense.

32 posted on 01/01/2012 2:36:51 PM PST by greyfoxx39 (The Iowa caucuses gave you Jimmy Carter and Barack Obama. You're WELCOME, America.-Iowahawk)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: AdmSmith; AnonymousConservative; Berosus; bigheadfred; Bockscar; ColdOne; Convert from ECUSA; ...

Thanks greyfoxx39.


33 posted on 01/01/2012 2:55:12 PM PST by SunkenCiv (Merry Christmas, Happy New Year! May 2013 be even Happier!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: greyfoxx39
People reject the notion of anarchy without looking at the definition. It means "without a ruler".

Frequently, that doesn't sound bad to me.

34 posted on 01/01/2012 3:14:44 PM PST by elkfersupper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CainConservative

One is plastic—say anything to get elected sort of rich guy who thinks he can buy the office, the other guy is a nut—a libertarian who would be as bad as a liberal imposing his way of thinking on the rest of us.


35 posted on 01/01/2012 5:42:18 PM PST by Forward the Light Brigade (Into the Jaws of H*ll)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: hershey
Sometimes you have to go with someone who doesn’t agree with you one hundred per cent, but it’s better than staying home and watching Obama steal another election.

“The other guy is driving us towards the cliff at 100 mph” is not a reason to vote for a guy who will drive us towards the cliff at a mere 80 mph.

36 posted on 01/01/2012 5:54:43 PM PST by COBOL2Java (Virginia GOP: Romney's favorite butt boys)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: greyfoxx39
Why in the world are you running to JimRob for a pat on the head because of my comment?

Good grief, first off, I did not say anything about supporting Romney.

Secondly, my entire post was a comment on the ridiculous analytical framework of the article and the condescension involved in claiming that people with whom one disagrees are not thinking for themselves.

You, obviously, think otherwise. And you seem perfectly comfortable with the delusion that the only reason someone might disagree with you on who is the best candidate is that they are mind-numbed robots.

Sorry. I recognize and accept that most people are able to think for themselves and do. I don't need a bunch of psychobabble hooey to help me deal with the fact that people disagree with me sometimes. I don't condescend to people who reach different conclusions from me. I accept that they have their reasons and, if I am so inclined, I engage those reasons and set out countervailing arguments.

But to write an article about how a whole state is full of people unwilling to think for themselves — as “evidenced” by the fact that people are not supporting “your” candidate — is, in my view, a wagonload of lamentable tripe.

But suit yourself.

37 posted on 01/01/2012 6:04:39 PM PST by fightinJAG (So many seem to have lost their sense of smell . . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: upchuck; greyfoxx39
"911 operator. What is the nature of your emergency?"

Upchuck: "Someone posted a duplicate thread on Free Republic!!!"

38 posted on 01/01/2012 7:21:48 PM PST by Windflier (To anger a conservative, tell him a lie. To anger a liberal, tell him the truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Windflier

LOL


39 posted on 01/01/2012 7:30:39 PM PST by upchuck (Let's have the Revolution NOW before we get dumbed down to the point that we can't.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: fightinJAG; Jim Robinson
"a wagonload of lamentable tripe" is your arrogant reply to me. Oh, did I mention "condescending"? You are the one who called folks "mind-numbed robots, you obviously are ignorant of the FR custom of pinging a FReeper when he is mentioned in a post which is why JR was mentioned....{DARN, now I have to ping him again!)

"Why in the world are you running to JimRob for a pat on the head because of my comment?"

For some reason you seem to believe I wrote the article heading the thread, which I did not.

And you seem perfectly comfortable with the delusion that the only reason someone might disagree with you on ..anything....is that they are mind-numbed robots.

Quoting you again.."if I am so inclined, I engage those reasons and set out countervailing arguments."...full of hostility and "condescension".

But suit yourself.

40 posted on 01/01/2012 7:47:35 PM PST by greyfoxx39 (The Iowa caucuses gave you Jimmy Carter and Barack Obama. You're WELCOME, America.-Iowahawk)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: greyfoxx39

Good grief, obviously my comment was to the author of the lamentable tripe. Get a grip.

And pinging a freeper who is mentioned in a post doesn’t answer the question of why you felt you had to go running to said freeper for a pat on the head in the first place, just because I posted that the author’s analysis was, let’s cut to the chase here, stupid?

Your response proved my point very well about letting emotion frame one’s “analysis.”

Why did you post this thread anyway, if you did not want the author’s views to be debated?


41 posted on 01/02/2012 5:01:47 PM PST by fightinJAG (So many seem to have lost their sense of smell . . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: fightinJAG
You obviously are ignorant of the FR custom of pinging a FReeper when he is mentioned in a post which is why JR was mentioned..I pinged JR because I mentioned him...pats on the heard are nice, but hardly necessary.

"Your response proved my point very well about letting emotion frame one’s “analysis.”

42 posted on 01/02/2012 5:15:04 PM PST by greyfoxx39 (The Iowa caucuses gave you Jimmy Carter and Barack Obama. You're WELCOME, America.-Iowahawk)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: greyfoxx39
No, I know that custom very well. But pinging someone has nothing to do with what I have asked you twice and what you have not answered, so let me try once more:

You would not have had to ping said freeper if you had not mentioned him in the post in the first place.

Right?

So, as I asked you twice before, my question is: WHY did you feel the need to mention said freeper in the post at all? WHY did you feel the need to use his opinion to back up your own, especially when you used his opinion on a matter of Romney supporters and my post, as I also said clearly in response to you, had NOTHING to do with ROMNEY or ROMNEY supporters!

To repeat, here's the post to which you responded:

This is the most condescending piece of tripe I’ve read on this matter yet. Does the author actually think that Iowans are not evaluating the candidates with their very own brain cells and reaching their very own conclusions?

I tell you, I am sick to death of any statement of support for a candidate, or any non-negative analysis of that candidate, being perceived emotionally as someone “telling you what to think.”

Good grief.

Can we move beyond the psychobabble and simply state the case for or against a candidate, without framing it as those who may disagree with your analysis are duped, mind-numbed robots? Thank you.

And for that you ran off yelling "DAAAADDDD, there's a freeper who doesn't think Romney supporters are mind-numbed robots!!"

What you said, specifically, in response to me saying "Can we move beyond the psychobabble and simply state the case for or against a candidate, without framing it as those who may disagree with your analysis are duped, mind-numbed robots?, was:

IMO, and that of the owner of FR, anyone who supports Romney and/or Paul IS a mind-numbed robot.

I think the author makes a lot of sense.

So, we disagree on that last point. My question to you was why you felt that my simplying disagreeing with the author's psychoemotional analytical framework, no matter WHICH candidate it was applied to, required you to bring another freeper into this matter in the first place.

You specifically said you agree with claiming that politically engaged people who don't see things your way are mind-numbed robots, rather than thinking people who reached a different conclusion.

I specifically said I reject that. Doesn't mean I agree with them. Just means that I respect that they have their reasons.

I don't think there's more to say on this subject.

43 posted on 01/02/2012 5:44:11 PM PST by fightinJAG (So many seem to have lost their sense of smell . . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: fightinJAG
I don't think there's more to say on this subject.

What a relief. I was looking for an "ignore" button.

44 posted on 01/02/2012 6:06:23 PM PST by greyfoxx39 (The Iowa caucuses gave you Jimmy Carter and Barack Obama. You're WELCOME, America.-Iowahawk)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson