Posted on 11/14/2012 3:40:05 PM PST by Arthurio
“Your biggest complaint about conservatism is probably the social issues, they annoy liberals to no end.”
Listen, you have obviously got a some weird hangup, and you don’t know me so there you are again trying to attach labels based on your perceptions rather than the facts.... you are proving my point.
You really don’t get it. You feel comfortable bashing Romney but again your postmortem is short sighted and small minded.
Social issues are important from a cultural aspect yes, I don’t disagree, but you are wasting time thinking that they are or should have been a key element in the election. What you are seeing and will continue to see is a continuous erosion of the social fabric, not because people have all sudden become immoral but because they don’t care. They don’t care because they are being run over by a government out of control - they don’t have a job and pretty much feel demoralized.
So go ahead and make your silly case that Romney isn’t conservative enough while you watch “Rome” burn. Your kind of argument is strikingly parallel to the one unions just used to shutter Hostess, focusing on a small element, and not willing to compromise, while 18,500 families become unemployed... ya wonder what the social priorities are for those families when they are asking the government for food. And then you wonder who are they are going to vote for, the party that gave them food or the one that doesn’t (per MSM) ?
There’s your postmortem pal, for the next election too.
“Its about non whites you head in the sand goober”
What percentage of non-whites take government aid ?
If all the people that took government aid voted for Obama that would make up for 75% of his total.
Side note:
Are Hispanics the new welfare class ? If so we don’t need immigration reform.
No one is watching Rome burn except you, you want to keep promoting the liberal wing of the party, to squelch the Reagan wing, and to keep propping up Romney’s agenda and destructive influence on the GOP, and America.
I love that you anti-social conservative types are so easy to spot.
You just ran the most hard left on social issues candidate in republican history, but you still want to postmortum on the agenda that social issues are the problem.
Romney was not conservative enough, that isn’t “silly”, that is his life long politics, the kind of stuff that you keep ignoring in my posts.
Romney was anti-Reagan, anti-conservative, even anti-republican, yet he seems to have grabbed your heart and devotion. Even after the election, you still embrace his agenda, his politics, and are promoting them on this thread, trying to keep them alive, to protect his image, his influence.
I didn't understand your post. We know that the most republican age group is the social security collectors.
I don't know why you wouldn't look up your own data that you asked about in regards to who collects government aid, (checks?) rather than ask someone else to, we do know that 59% of whites voted GOP, and in California the GOP won 53% of whites, and I didn't understand the last sentence about Hispanics and welfare, and immigration reform.
you are still being a simpleton Ansel...
“I love that you anti-social conservative types are so easy to spot.”
I’m not anti-social conservative, in fact quite the opposite. But I am not going to allow my kids and grandkids to suffer on account of my beliefs, and in fact to do more harm than good, meaning I’ll take the lesser of two evils given the choice. Yet you are strangely comfortable with Obama as your president ?????
And no Romney wasn’t my first choice - he probably was about my third.
“No one is watching Rome burn except you” The fact you don’t think America is worse off because Obama got re-elected is to say the least disturbing, for a person who proclaims your social values.
Ansel try to read the entire post.... and to proclaim I embrace Romney’s agenda is yet another assumption of yours.... I never said that. Go back and read.
Man, talking to you is like talking to a lib - are you like 12 years old ?
I get it, you aren't social conservative, you merely want to fight against it as you are on this thread, your man Mitt Romney was the most anti-social conservative GOP candidate in history, yet you keep blaming his loss on the very thing that he was not, and which he rejected.
Your man ran against social conservatism, and the party platform.
“We know that the most republican age group is the social security collectors.”
What is “republican age group” ?
And the question I posed was more rhetorical to an earlier post by wardaddy... not sure what you’ll looking for ?
“Your man ran against social conservatism, and the party platform.”
And yet again another post by Ansel - The conservative who is “strangely comfortable with Obama” as his president. Come on I dare ya, say a bad thing about Obama....lol I’ve been watching you post on this thread for about three days now and not negative word on Obama or his campaign, in any of the posts to me.
Your posts are being contradictory in themselves now - pretty funny really.
You can’t do a deceit postmortem if you really wanted Obama to win can you Ansel - time to come out of the closet ?
I didn’t understand the last sentence in post 42 about Hispanics and welfare, and immigration reform.
We know that the most republican VOTING age group is the social security collectors.
I don’t know why you wouldn’t look up your own data that you asked about in regards to who collects government aid, (checks?) rather than ask someone else to, we do know that 59% of whites voted GOP, and in California the GOP won 53% of whites, and I didn’t understand the last sentence about Hispanics and welfare, and immigration reform.
Don’t pretend quotes, and don’t lie about posters while doing it.
Your man ran against social conservatism, and the party platform.
Do you have an explanation for why, and why now that the election is over, you keep working to promote his anti-conservative agenda and are working to give him a role in the GOP rather than supporting we conservatives who want to drive him from any chance that he might become the face of the republican party, and continue his destruction?
“republican VOTING age group”... ahh Seniors
“Hispanics and welfare, and immigration reform.”
Was noted as a side.... and intended to illicit a response to a rhetorical question on whether or not immigration reform would help the GOP or not. I’m of the opinion that it won’t help the GOP (which is at odds with conventional wisdom).... I believe that Hispanics may be becoming (or are) the new “takers” in our society - so they will align themselves with dems (perceived givers). Therefore immigration reform is a waste of time polictically as well as legally. IMO
“Do you have an explanation for why, and why now that the election is over, you keep working to promote his anti-conservative agenda and are working to give him a role in the GOP rather than supporting we conservatives who want to drive him from any chance that he might become the face of the republican party, and continue his destruction?”
Whoa there kiddo.... I’m not promoting any agenda, nor will I give anyone a role in the GOP.
We were talking postmortem remember. My point, which you failed to agree with, is that social conservatism should have not been a priority in this election cycle, period. Because no matter how bad you think Romney is he is still the lesser of two evils socially speaking, and light years better from a national prosperity perspective. And furthermore as our national economic standards continue to drop because of Obama, our social values will also to drop (more stress, broken marriages, school shootings, etc).
Lastly my perspective is that Romney wants nothing to do with politics anymore. Not sure why you are concerned with Romney becoming the face of the party, I haven’t seen him offer any policy suggestions going forward.
Romney was obviously terrible on the issues, rejecting the party platform on abortion and homosexuality was not a good thing.
Romney just lost to Carter the 2nd while we are on the verge of a depression and with low turnouts on both sides.
Evidently your post is flat out silly, or the campaign would have been "a great campaign", "solid on the issues". Your agenda sucks, and you have trolled enough on this thread, how about joining us over here?
MARK LEVIN: TEA PARTY ONLY THING THAT STANDS 'BETWEEN LIBERTY AND TYRANNY'
“Evidently your post is flat out silly, or the campaign would have been “a great campaign”, “solid on the issues”. Your agenda sucks, and you have trolled enough on this thread, how about joining us over here?”
You started over... that’s funny, going to try a new tact ?
My agenda ? I don’t have an agenda. Romney did run a great campaign... and he was solid on the issues.
You argument that he was not solid on social issues are your perceptions - my recollection of the race is that he gave a good response the Christian Right and Billy Graham. I contend that the social issues were not a factor when considering a postmortem of the race. And if their were people who actually decided to stay home for those reasons they most probably screwed themselves and their ideals as I explained earlier.
As far as coming over to your side - you are border line lib as far as I can tell. Your apparent disgust for Republicans is similar to what I hear on MSNBC. I tend not to insult my party and the people who participate in it but would rather try to effect change - I don’t see you doing that. You are more the supporting Obama type because you don’t like Romney.
You really don’t make a point, you prefer Romney’s politics, and that seems to be all that you have to say, a sing-song, series of vague posts supporting Romney and coming out against conservatism.
What does your home page mean, it is as vague as your posts are.
“”Old time conservative....
But we need some drastic changes.... time to stand up
If you don’t make a choice the choice will make you....””
That is is in it’s entirety, it seems that you have an agenda that you are dedicated to, passionate about, but hesitant to reveal, just as your posts on this thread, they are dripping with hostility and have the color of liberalism, but they are slippery and evasive, and vague.
What does that vague 24 word home page translate into? What does Romney’s liberalism represent to you and how does it reflect your own political agenda?
Wow, looking at your history, I see that you are an old time Romney supporter from 2007, and a long time Palin hater, even right now, since Romney lost, you are going after Palin with a new vigor, this is where we see your agenda, advance and defend Romney’s liberalism, fight and denigrate Palin and tea party conservatism.
Yeah, quite a little strategy you you work with year after year.
“”I wouldn’t be surprised to see that tactic again - “let’s paint the conservative as a moderate so all the conservatives stay home.”, anybody looking at your posting history sees the same, soft massaging, always to the left, including the old ‘I’m personally pro-life, but let’s drop it from the party’ type line.
You were anti-Palin and pro-Romney in 2009, and 2011.
You were wanting to remove abortion as an issue in 2003 and 2004, as part of your anti-social conservative work here at FR.
LOL, you really are dedicated to the guy and his liberalism.
Are you hoping that Romney runs again in 2016, or are you just going to fight to keep his liberal politics alive, and front and center until you can get someone like Christie or whoever your next Romney will be?
You were wanting to take abortion off the table when you were promoting Condoleeza Rice as your favorite in 2004 and at other times, including this thread, it seems to be a strong part of your agenda.
Wow, pro-Romney, pro-Condoleeza Rice, pro-Christie, but anti-Palin and social issues. God, you liked Harriet Miers’s conservatism.
Post after post, year after year of you complaining that conservatives were “eating their own” which, when it is a constant 10 year message you have been pounding here at FR, translates to ‘leave the rinos alone’.
You even do that thing over and over where you accuse the people who are conservatives, of being democrats, I suppose that you think that is some kind of spooky trick to fool people reading your posts.
“You really don’t make a point, you prefer Romney’s politics,”
Ansel I’m almost flattered at the attention - probably would be if you were a 20 something blonde.
But you really should consider thinking before you write. Of course I prefer Romney politics over Obama - don’t you ?
Wow now I am super flattered.
“You were wanting to remove abortion as an issue in 2003 and 2004, as part of your anti-social conservative work here at FR.”
What ?
your either making stuff up now or just ignorant because you lost an argument.
I swear you must be a dem plant... it is obvious that this story stretching and spinning is a dem tactic used on all their opponents.
That coupled with the fact that you still haven’t said one bad thing about Obama.....
Keep it coming.... you are digging a hole.
Actually, I mentioned much more than just your pro-abortion postings as you troll for social liberalism.
I see that you are an old time Romney supporter from 2007, and a long time Palin hater, even right now, since Romney lost, you are going after Palin with a new vigor, this is where we see your agenda, advance and defend Romney’s liberalism, fight and denigrate Palin and tea party conservatism.
Yeah, quite a little strategy you you work with year after year.
“”I wouldn’t be surprised to see that tactic again - “let’s paint the conservative as a moderate so all the conservatives stay home.”, anybody looking at your posting history sees the same, soft massaging, always to the left, including the old ‘I’m personally pro-life, but let’s drop it from the party’ type line.
You were anti-Palin and pro-Romney in 2009, and 2011.
You were wanting to remove abortion as an issue in 2003 and 2004, as part of your anti-social conservative work here at FR.
LOL, you really are dedicated to the guy and his liberalism.
Are you hoping that Romney runs again in 2016, or are you just going to fight to keep his liberal politics alive, and front and center until you can get someone like Christie or whoever your next Romney will be?
You were wanting to take abortion off the table when you were promoting Condoleeza Rice as your favorite in 2004 and at other times, including this thread, it seems to be a strong part of your agenda.
Wow, pro-Romney, pro-Condoleeza Rice, pro-Christie, but anti-Palin and social issues. God, you liked Harriet Miers’s conservatism.
Post after post, year after year of you complaining that conservatives were “eating their own” which, when it is a constant 10 year message you have been pounding here at FR, translates to ‘leave the rinos alone’.
You even do that thing over and over where you accuse the people who are conservatives, of being democrats, I suppose that you think that is some kind of spooky trick to fool people reading your posts.
Just copying and pasting postings doesn’t make the falsehoods any more true .... it is very lazy of you, Ansel.
Come on, trolls from other countries need to work a little harder if they are going to have any credibility.
And calling everyone else a troll just doesn’t make sense.
And yes we all know you have a crush on Sarah.... I like Sarah too, but probably not as much as you.
Now, get out of basement and go upstairs - your Mom has some nice Jello for you.
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.