Posted on 09/18/2012 6:52:15 AM PDT by SoFloFreeper
Just brain dead zombies.....
No "therefore" about it. If I hate vanilla, that doesn't mean I love chocolate. (Yes, my choice of analogy is racist.)
Sorry but if you believe that you are a fool.
You are free to call me that which is fine but seriously if you think that talking Romney up is going to make a difference on Free Republic, you are a little crazy. I prefer on Free Republic to express my true views. I don’t talk this way about Romney to others outside of Free Republic which I thought was a 100 percent conservative site. I would rather be truthful about my views on Romney here. I know this facade is going on that Romney is somehow this Savior for the United States, but that is just not the case. The way you sound, even next year as President we are all STILL going to have to honor the great Almighty Romney. When does this craziness stop? Yes I am voting for him but I refuse to lie about the guy HERE on Free Republic!
It does mean that if those are the only two choices on the table and you must choose one-—and the chocolate is a fungus that will spread over your kitchen and kill you.
Sad that on every thread you bash Romney and therefore praise Obama. Truly sad and soooo predictable.
Telling the truth is bashing. Never thought I would see the day. And was a twist to say that talking bad about Romeny on a conservative site is saying praise to Obama. Are you that impressionable that what I say has any bearing on your decision to vote. If that is the case then perhaps a more middle of the road political website might be more to your needs. We are 100 percent conservative here. If you can’t accept that, then the door is open.
The idea that “association with Christian causes” would sink a candidate is absolutely preposterous. You seem to contradict yourself anyway, when you say Huckabee was a stronger candidate, and he is more recognized as a Christian than any other candidate. Santorum’s religious perspective is no different than George W. Bush’s, who said his favorite philosopher was Jesus Christ. And Reagan won by being more vocally Christian than any modern candidate.
Newt wasn’t sunk by his marital history. He won big in South Carolina even after his ex-wife appeared on ABC. Romney simply bombarded him with negative ads in Florida and lied about Newt’s record to a live TV audience in the debates. People were obsessed with this idea of “electability” which they seemed to define as whichever guy had the least negative ads run about him. So they switched to Santorum, but once Romney’s negative ads and the press targetted him, people backed off of him too.
Newt was the best candidate for the general election. If past marital problems mattered to voters, Clinton wouldn’t be as popular as he is. We needed a very experienced politician who’s been under assault before to deal with the Obama and media attack machines. Romney continues to be woefully unprepared to handle the attacks from every angle that are hitting him. He winces and surrenders at the first sign of pressure.
Sadly, the electoral college news (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/archive/2012_electoral_college_scoreboard) is less good. If 0bama wins all his “leans” votes, Romney has to take 78% of the “tossup” votes to win.
No "therefore" about it. If I hate vanilla, that doesn't mean I love chocolate.
It does mean that if those are the only two choices on the table and you must choose one-—and the chocolate is a fungus that will spread over your kitchen and kill you.
Even if that's true, it's still false that "to bash Romney is therefore to praise Obama."
“I know this facade is going on that Romney is somehow this Savior for the United States, but that is just not the case.”
http://www.powerofaith.com/blog/blog1.php/2009/07/23/2-rowboats-and-a-helocopter
You are free to express your views, never said you weren’t, but if you believe Bachmann or Cain or Santorum would be winning a general election you are indeed NAIVE.
They all washed out for very good reasons. Just because they may have been more ideologically to your liking does not mean they were going to win a general election.
The rest of your rant just comes across as sour grapes, and that doesn’t solve anything, though it may make you feel better.
Romney wasn’t my first choice, but this entire electoral field on the republican side was WEAK AS HELL! Of that weak bunch Romney won the nomination, you can whine about that like a child, or deal with it.
Who has asked you to lie about anything? You believe he was the worst the Republicans had to offer, you are free to believe that, but I can tell you without any remote reservatioin Bacmann, Perry, Cain and Santorum had ZERO chance of even having an national campaign had they won the nomination, every one of them would have been 10 points behind from the get go and fallen from there. They may have been closer to your or my ideological viewpoints but they had ZERO chance of election, and like it or not, winning elections matter.
Romney for all his flaws showed he could get votes, all those others failed. You are trying to make the argument that folks who lost in previous rounds of the playoffs would have been better options for the championship game and like it or not, that defies reality.
Now, I can sit here an voice all the points I disagree with Romney, and there are many, or I can be sour grapes and make ludicrous claims that there isn’t a “dimes bit of difference between Romney and Obama Larry..” Or I can point out that, that argument is nonsensical.
Our embassies are attacked, and Romney condemns the attackers, while Obama apologizes to them! I don’t think Romney is the savior of anything, no living person is my savior, he left this world a long time ago. however this nonsense that there isn’t any difference or one is just as bad as the other etc is nonsensical. You are free to believe it, but its nonsensical.
I do not dispute the historical evidence that the Founding Fathers were strongly influenced by Biblical teachings and were mostly churchgoers and often officers (elders, vestrymen, deacons) of their local churches. In that respect, Santorum and Bachmann come closer to foundational principles than the others. However, with each passing year, this country grows more secular, like it or not.
I will agree that my citing Huckabee as a stronger candidate is contradictory. My reasoning is that he is an engaging personality and a less strident spokesman for his positions, more so than Santorum or Bachmann.
You have some good points. Trust me, I have long ago come to the realization that I have to vote for Romney. It doesn’t even make me ill thinking of that. You could be right about the others not being able to beat Obama, but everyone here has stated that an empty suit can beat Obama but you are saying differently. Anyway, some good points by you for sure and every now and again, I will get frustrated and whine like a child as you say but I can tell you it has gone down quite a bit from the day he won the nomination (the day Santorum got out and Romney was basically it and not the convention). The United States of America’s population has clearly gone the way of liberalism even though it is reported here that 40 percent of America is conservative...I find that hard to believe after this nominating season. I get most of my news on FR so I guess I believe what I read from fellow FREEPERS who say that Obama is EASY to beat....
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.