Posted on 05/30/2012 9:24:08 PM PDT by xzins
Part of the problem, I think, is the 12th Amendment which changed the way President and Vice President are chosen.
The founders may have been brilliant, but I think they screwed up with the 12th. Having the VP be the runner-up for the Presidency meant that two very different outlooks (parties) could "have their say", so to speak.
I think that system would allow people to vote more in-line w/ their conscience than "in the interest of practicality." (someone once said that in a compromise between good and evil, good always looses.)
Just one month ago Romney announced his support for gay couples. At the same time he announced his belief that a state should be able to force gay adoption on its citizens.
How exactly is that not a leftist agenda designed to overwhelm the republic?
At least the BBC is honest. Just yesterday they called Mittens a “Liberal republican” and stated that his candidacy is a sign that the GOP is trying to move away from the “extreme right”.
If you want Ubama to win, good for you.
>How “principled” is a “principled conservatism” that gives us four more years of a Moslem-mole President whose goal is to overwhelm the Republic?
It’s pretty easy to understand. Some of us want to vote for a candidate that shares our values. Goode shares our values.
These doomsday hyperboles you ABO people keep throwing out won’t do a damn thing to change our minds. And if you’re thinking Mitt Romney is going to fix Obama’s mess, you’re sorely mistaken. There’s LESS chance of disaster under a lame-duck Obama than there is with MR and a willing Republican House that will vote for ANYTHING he proposes.
>So how exactly would you categorize a politician who has done the following?:
1. Implemented Socialized medicine with a $50 dollar Abortion
2. Implemented an “Assault” weapons ban
3. Supported the Brady Bill
4. Raised taxes/fees by $700 million
5. Whole-heartedly supported Abortion while Governor, and even after his supposed Pro-Life conversion was still nominating extreme Pro-Abortion judges.
6. Supported and forced Gay Adoption. He still supports Gay Adoption.
7. Almost implemented a Carbon cap-and-trade plan, only backing off at the last minute when he realized the political winds had changed and he was running for President.
8. Supported Planned Parenthood.
9. Nominated 27 out of 36 judges who were radical, left-wing, Progressive Liberals.
10. Supported/Supports Amnesty for Illegal Aliens.
11. Believes States forcing people to buy Health Insurance is constitutionally correct.
12. Is Ok with Homos in Scouts.
13. Supported TARP and Auto Bailouts.
14. Supported McCain-Kennedy (Amnesty for Illegal Aliens)
15. Is OK with Homos in Military.
GAME. SET. MATCH.
Earlier he wrote to Jim Robinson:
To: Jim RobinsonCain is filling the vacuum Sarah left behind. He's going to have to do.
The alternative is Myth, who is the same thing as Ubama.
10 posted on Tuesday, November 01, 2011 4:08:56 PM by E. Pluribus Unum ("Government does not solve problems; it subsidizes them." --Ronald Reagan)
found at: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2800991/posts?page=10#10
>I’m reminded of the 1992 Presidential Election. Ross Perot, seeing widespread dissatisfaction with George Bush I, entered the race as a common sense conservative. He got 18.9% of the popular vote against Bush, from people who wanted to punish Bush for violating his “read my lips, no new taxes” pledge.
The net result was that Bill Clinton won in an electoral landslide, while getting just 43% of the popular vote.
The lesson to learn here: STOP GIVING US RINO CANDIDATES OR YOU WILL LOSE TO A DEMOCRAT.
Maybe we could get the BBC to buy NBC.
They only need one consonant and don’t have to buy a vowel. :>)
BAM!
I don’t think our disagreement is on what is moral or that all morality, truth and goodness is from God. We strive to discern the will of God as He gives us the grace to do so.
We disagree on what actions that we take are moral or not, less moral or more moral.
I believe, and think you would agree, that acting in good conscience and with principles requires us to evaluate the results of our actions. In my discernment the action you propose result in greater harm, have less value in moral terms, than the action I have chosen. IOW, they are less conforming to the will of God and the absolute values we share.
This is where we disagree.
Thanks for your reply.
Just one month ago Romney said he supports gay couples adopting children.
1. If you were to guess, would you be more likely to find that position in: A. “a liberal handbook” or B. “a conservative handbook”?
Don’t sweat this one, you have a 50/50 chance of getting it right?
2. Again, allowing guessing, would you more likely conclude that “gay couples adopting children” is: A. In stark contrast to thousands of years of moral philosophy, or B. Always and everywhere an accepted practice?
I have also made this easy, giving a 50/50 chance of getting it right.
How did you score on the test?
:>)
Let's look at the WHOLE story, however.
In June and early July 1992, Perot was consistently polling in the low 40s, meaning he was leading.
Then he started to go crazy, making all kinds of accusations against the other candidates (esp. Bush I). Additionally, he made a number of tactical errors in his campaign that were the result of his trying to micromanage everything and not letting his campaign managers do their job. As well, he made an extremely poor choice in his VP running mate (nothing against Admiral Stockwell, but he did come off as being out to lunch, esp. in debates) that turned a lot of folks off. Then, he ended up dropping out of the race while accusing Bush and the Republicans of plotting to disrupt his daughter's wedding. In short, Perot more or less blew a fuse and went crazy around mid-to-late July.
He then got back into the race in early October, after having pulled all of these stunts and basically revealing himself to be a whackjob to the country.
So THIS is the context for Perot's 19% finish.
Really, the take home message is not that Perot only got 19%, but that he actually still managed to get 19%, despite it all.
Chances are, if he'd stayed in the race and not started seeing little green men on his front lawn, history books would probably be talking about President Perot (I-TX, 1993-2001).
Sad thing is that I'm not sure that's true - and I'm no fan of the Crazy Uncle.
Having said that, he's the ONLY person in the world standing between us and a 2nd term. So... I'm ABO till the end. We can't afford otherwise.
I'm not going to pick one turd because it stinks a little less than the other. You accuse another of hyperbole, yet you engage in the same thing in support of Romney. The only reasons any Romney supporters ever come up with are that "he's not as bad as Obama" or "Obama is going to destroy our nation." Can you name a President who had major accomplishments in his second term? Lame-duckness hits hard in the second term. While I don't want another Obama term, I'm not living in terror of it, either.
Whether it is Obama's second term or Romney's first, this nation has four bleak years in front of it.
I think Mitt Romney needs to drop out and stop stealing votes from Goode.
He absolutely wants Obama to win. He’s already posted a thread saying, “Vote for Obama”. This Virgil Goode crap is a total dodge. None of these “principled conservatives” are real.
At least you admit it.
Hey, anybody who's good enough for Soros...like mitt...
One of the costs of standing on principles is being ridiculed by small-minded people. I'm sure that xzins isn't concerned about your criticism, either. Neither of us answer to you.
Deb, the good news with your position is that if your "conservatism" is flexible enough to vote for Romney, you'll never face the dilemma of having to say NO to candidate because he or she is too liberal.
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.