Replies

There are people on this site who, if the were playing blackjack, would “hit” on 20 every time. Your odds of winning get pretty slim when you do that.

There are lots of flaws among these conservative candidates but a Romney vs. Obama race means America goes socialist forever. Whatever their flaws Santorum, Gingrich or Newt would reverse this.

I can put up with those who would hit on 20. What I have trouble with is people who pick a flawed candidate, pretend they are perfect, and bash every other candidate as an unacceptable RINO.

They simply BEG for others to respond in kind. And since there are supporters of every candidate who are like that, you can’t post a nice positive thread about any candidate, without getting spammed with vitriolic attacks by these “purists with blinders”.

I can overlook flaws in the candidate I support, even though I won’t ignore them when we are discussing candidates. I’d vote for Gingrich (heck, I came without hours of endorsing him when he looked like the only guy left worth voting for in Virginia) — but I see him as pretty flawed, and hardly a sure thing to win an election anyway. And up until 2 months ago, that was the majority opinion here at FR as well, Gingrich getting the laugh-treatment when his name came up.

Likewise, I’ve always liked Santorum but figured with the pure hatred for him here at FR and in other conservative circles due to his Specter support and something about the weather channel, he’d never really get the look he deserved.

I never really liked Perry as governor of Texas because of what I read here, and when I looked at his record for myself I loved it, but still see how hard it is for him because of his flaws.

We are much better at picking over the dead bones of our victims than finding nice things to like about people. I remember the night Colonel West went from Tea Party hero to RINO scum, in the course of 2 hours. It wasn’t pretty.

There are people on this site who, if the were playing blackjack, would “hit” on 20 every time. Your odds of winning get pretty slim when you do that.

That is a great example to explain this situation, and I am concerned if these players hitting at 20 on Free Republic as real conservatives, or stealth liberals acting as conservatives to destroy conservative candidates. The true strategy is comparing cards, and selecting the best card among all. In other words, if there is no Joker or Ace in hand, and the remaining are King, Queen, or Jack, the best choice is the King. Just because King is not an Ace, you never remove the King from the game. However, if there is only a Three in hand no different from the opponent, I expect it is time to gamble with the tea Party to join the game and challenge as the third party. It may be a double edge knife, but could also be a game to prepare for the next, as a warning to Republican Party to remove Rinos from its party.

There are people on this site who, if the were playing blackjack, would “hit” on 20 every time. Your odds of winning get pretty slim when you do that.

That is a great example to explain this situation, and I am concerned if these players hitting at 20 on Free Republic as real conservatives, or stealth liberals acting as conservatives to destroy conservative candidates. The true strategy is comparing cards, and selecting the best card among all. In other words, if there is no Joker or Ace in hand, and the remaining are King, Queen, or Jack, the best choice is the King. Just because King is not an Ace, you never remove the King from the game. However, if there is only a Three in hand no different from the opponent, I expect it is time to gamble with the Tea Party to join the game and challenge as the third party. It may be a double edge knife, but could also be a game to prepare for the next, as a warning to Republican Party to remove Rinos from its party.