Posted on 08/03/2014 3:30:16 PM PDT by Plummz
Wrong. Romney is a Trojan Horse who attacked Gov. Palin
in 2008, and gave up in 2012.
The Rat Romney is the reason Obamacare, gay marriage,
and one of the reasons bad government, and support of liars,
exist, in the first place.
Dude, putting an apostrophe in front of that word does not make it cool.
Santorum has a major flaw....... he is a loser
I agree, that’s why I said it was sad. Horrible choices. Cain was interesting, but not ready for prime time.
First Authority, you’re a 2010 sign-up. Fieldmarshalldj has been around here since 2001. His political assessments are pretty damned accurate, and his opinion is well-respected.
You started in with the vitriol at post 24, continued with Post 27.
This is a discussion forum, where you should expect people to have a different opionion than yours.
Courtesy goes a long way towards longevity around here.
Mr. Cain was attacked by the Marriott company.
Hmmmm. Who would THAT be for?
Romney is responsible for ObamaCARE and Obama.
This is some wild thread, imagine what it will be like HERE NEXT year.
Not looking it forward to it!!!!! This is bringing up some bad memories.
I’m gonna be more laid back this time around!!!
Conservatives should NOT place their faith in Red Hampshire.
I see you got scolded here for voting for Republicans, while FM was scolded for NOT voting for Republicans, LOL
“...This is some wild thread, imagine what it will be like HERE NEXT year...”
There’s been worse. People are on edge because so much is at stake.
Folks need to remember who the enemy is, that’s all. Sometimes, we can be our own worst enemies, and instead of learning from it...well, we get McCain.
Patrick Henry said it best in his St. John’s speech:
“....But different men often see the same subject in different lights; and, therefore, I hope it will not be thought disrespectful to those gentlemen if, entertaining as I do, opinions of a character very opposite to theirs, I shall speak forth my sentiments freely, and without reserve. ..”
Why things dissolve into vitriol and name-calling... well, I think there’s a few different explanations for it.
There’s emotions, obviously; there are folks who have a parallax viewpoint - the difference in perspective of the same object when viewed from different angles.
There’s also trolls and disinformatziya folks who look to start trouble.
It is what it is. That’s why there are Admin Mods. Let them deal with it when it gets out of hand.
2008 I recall Huckabee, Romney and McCain as candidates.
And talk radio begging that actor Fred Thomson to jump in and save us.
In 2012, I don't even want to list our choices there, and talk radio was begging Palin to jump in and save us.
McCain and Romney got the campaign $$$ from Chamber types, it was over before the primary reached my state. I dont know I bother voting anyway.
“...I dont know I bother voting anyway...”
Because maybe you still believe in the System, that’s why. Same as most folks do.
To change the candidates, we have to change the Party, and thereby change the leadership.
Right now, both parties are the “Good Ol’ Boy club”. That’s why BOTH of them hate the Tea Party mentality - it’s messing with the status quo.
And that’s a good thing.
__________________
A few years ago, Father Frank Pavone (longtime head of Priests for Life) wrote about what a voter should do when faced with two imperfect candidates. While he was writing specifically about the abortion issue, his teaching on what we should do when faced with the reality of an imperfect world is a sound lesson for all contexts:
“I’m often asked what a voter can morally do if two opposing candidates both support abortion. I recommend asking a simple question: Which of the two candidates will do less harm to unborn children if elected?
For example, is either of the candidates willing at least to ban partial-birth abortion? Is either of them willing to put up some roadblocks to free and easy abortion? Will either support parental notification, or parental consent, or waiting periods? Has either of them expressed a desire to ban late-term abortion, or to support pregnancy assistance centers? How about stricter regulation of abortion facilities? Has either candidate expressed support for that idea? Nobody is saying that’s the final goal. But ask these questions just to see whether you can see any benefit of one of the candidates above the other.
One of the two of them will be elected; there is no question about that. So you are not free right now, in this race, to really choose the candidate you want. Forces beyond your control have already limited your choices. Whichever way the election goes, the one elected will not have the position we want elected officials to have on abortion.
In this case, it is morally acceptable to vote for the candidate who will do less harm. This is not “choosing the lesser of two evils.” We may never choose evil. But in the case described above, you would not be choosing evil. Why? Because in choosing to limit an evil, you are choosing a good.
You can have a clear conscience in this instance, because you know that no law can legitimize even a single abortion, ever. If the candidate thinks some abortion is justified, you don’t agree. Moreover, you are doing the most you can to advance the protection of life.
By your vote, you can keep the worse person out. And trying to do that is not only legitimate, but good. Some may think it’s not the best strategy. But it is morally permissible.
Cardinal John O’Connor, in a special booklet on abortion, once wrote about this problem, “Suppose all candidates support ‘abortion rights’? … One could try to determine whether the position of one candidate is less supportive of abortion than that of another. Other things being equal, one might then morally vote for a less supportive position.” (1990, “Abortion: Questions and Answers”).
What if there’s a third candidate who does not have a strong base of support but does have the right position? Of course, we should work like crazy to build up that person’s base of support to make him or her electable. But that is not done on Election Day. That takes years of work, which should start now.
Meanwhile, remember that your vote is not a vote for canonization. It is a transfer of power. We can vote for a less than perfect candidate because we aren’t using our vote to make a statement, but to help bring about the most acceptable results under the circumstances.”
http://priestsforlife.org/columns/columns2006/06-10-23choosingevil.htm
I shoulda realized something was amiss with First Authority when after I corrected him on Willard’s performance in NH he insisted he was “right.” The guy also made some really nasty posts about Southerners elsewhere. FR profile says he supports the Tea Party but suffers from Cruz Derangement Syndrome and tosses in a racial slur and the debunked birtherism talking point ? Given that Cruz IS the Tea Party in the U.S. Senate, it makes no sense.
Good to see he got the ZOT (and I didn’t even ask for it !).
I didn't read his comments till this morning and then I checked to see if his profile gave that (banned) message, and it didn't yet when I checked.
I couldn't think of anything I wanted to say to him, I figured anyone promoting Romney and calling Cruz names will make lots of *friends* fast here, they don't need my two cents.
Because in choosing a LESSER evil, you are choosing an evil, to be sure.
DAMN the people who only give us EVIL from which to choose!
Bull!
We ARE making a statement!!!
...but to bring about the least evil results under the circumstances.”
Wow, you read a nine-paragraph explanation from a theologian about how choosing to reduce evil is choosing to increase good, and you reply with some unthinking bromide. Sorry for having attempted to start an intelligent conversation.
“We ARE making a statement!!!”
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.