Posted on 06/19/2014 3:36:50 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Good job! You’re staying in the good graces of the Romney/Bush haters.
Flame on, I’m listening to Rush and spending my day off at the grocery store.
Remember, Dick Cheney knew......it’s a shame you didn’t.
ABSOLUTELY!!!
“If you didn’t mean what you implied, maybe you should word your posts more carefully.”
My wording is not the problem.
LOL!! Perfect! Ground Hog Day!!
WRONG. We can cast our votes for a limited government "third" (actually, SECOND) party candidate and THEREBY reduce the mandate of whichever leftist collectivist wins, Bush/Romney/Christie/other GOPe nightmare or Hillary/other Dem nightmare. Nixon was elected on a plurality with ZERO mandate, and he ended up resigning; Clinton was elected on a plurality, with ZERO mandate, and even though the MSM loved him, Clinton was steamrolled by the Republican revolution and then he was IMPEACHED. That is a fact.
You can vote TO WEAKEN the victory of the leftist Republican or Democrat who wins. Or you can vote to STRENGTHEN the mandate of that leftist winner. A vote for a leftist collectivist Republican in the general will STRENGTHEN leftism all around; a vote for a limited government conservative will WEAKEN leftism all around, even if it "wins."
Wrong. Since this IS "the premiere conservative website," those guys are EXACTLY and rightly in our sites. This is a conservative website. You mistake it for a Republican one.
You also ignore the "for" component in your vote. You ONLY think in terms of what your candidate is not. But when your candidate gets in office, the ONLY things that count is what he is. It's physics.
The election process in this country is well known. IF you want a certain candidate to be elected, get going, start working for that candidate!
Yes -- and dream on if you think the entrenched GOP primary protocol is going to be so drastically overhauled in a matter of 24 months -- it is well known that liberal north-eastern voters kick-off for an extremely collectivist statist politician who is in the Republican party, and cripple severely at the gate any candidate in the primary who represents the alternative, of getting government OUT of things, of using government sparingly -- that is, of using government conservatively because it is a "dangerous servant" that is also, and ONLY, a force.
When you cast a vote for a collectivist like Romney or Jeb, especially when you would rather vote for SHRINKING government as opposed to expanding it, when you vote for a politician who advances it, you have voted to give government more forceful authority over all of us.
All of you who are anti Romney and anti Bush should be meeting to prop up your perfect conservative, the one who will defeat Hillary. By the way, who is that person?
Palin isn't perfect. Cruz isn't perfect. Newt Gingrich is very, very FAR from perfect. But there are THREE - not just one, but THREE -- people I WOULD vote for regardless of ticket in the 2016 general.
Mitt Romney is a serial liar, a lifelong pro-abort, the father of Romneycare and grandfather of Obozocare, an absolutely enthusiastic supporter of homosexual perversion posing as "marriage." Want more? There is plenty more where that came from. Mitt's father was a pro-abort. Mitt's mother ran for the US Senate as a pro-abort. The family excuse? Mitt had a cousin who became pregnant and did not want to leave college and had an illegal abortion in about 1963. She did not want her life spoiled by an unwanted pregnancy. Instead, she bled out, and lost her life to a botched abortion. We may sympathize with her predicament but it was no excuse for Clan Romney to simultaneously claim moral authority in their church while advocating the murder of the unborn.
Want more? Available on request!
The point? There is nothing about clueless, money-obsessed, absolutely horrible, non-conforming, non-conservative, brainless radical, two-faced SOB Mitt Romney that suggests that he is "good, decent people."
As to Clan Bush, I voted for the old man twice (holding my nose because he wasn't Dukakis or Slick Willie) and I voted for Bush the Younger twice since he wasn't Algore or John (Did you know he served in Vietnam but for which side?) Kerry. Jebbie is probably the best of the three but he carries a huge burden as a Bush and as the son of his mother, an absolutely militant pro-abort. On the plus side, he is a member of the Knights of Columbus and believably pro-life and therefore trustworthy on big judgeships. Jeb is no true believer but Floridians should tell us about him as governor. OTOH, he is far too cozy with the GOP-E who need to be politically exterminated. Jeb also supports Common Core and unrestrained illegal immigration.
Beating Hillary is a nice to have. Nominating and electing a non-elite Republican who can restore the Reagan coalition and our military and our nation and our SCOTUS and lower courts and end abortion and stop the fudgepacker juggernaut and defend the 2nd Amendment RTKBA, end bureaucratic tyranny, slash non-defense spending, etc., etc., etc., is the must have. Electing a ruling class unprincipled greed monkey is a must NOT have.
Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, Scott Walker. Not Rand Paul.
Not now and not ever: Chris Christie, Mitt Romney, Mitch McConnell, John Boehner, and their collective ilk.
LOL!! {^) ROFLMAO! Very good!!!
Oh, very, very good! “Please tell me more about how voting for evil works.”
What planet do you live on?
Leftists elected Obama by casting votes, and indeed, if you want to get down to brass tacks, fake people tipped the balance to elect him via assorted vote ginning, manipulation, multiple, dead, harvested, and outright fraudulent votes.
Conservatives had no one, zero, zip, to elect.
In YOUR emotional, angry take, that translates as "to stay home and elect," a sophistry literally and figuratively. You are very confused, and so is your political thinking.
Looks about right to me. Bush, Perry, and certainly pro-minimum wage, pro government "compassion" Santorum, are very comfortable with the Democrat ground rules. Voting for any of them would be voting to strengthen the force of government.
My vote will go to a candidate whose entire reason for being, his whole purpose, is to REDUCE THE FORCE OF GOVERNMENT, starting with the Feds. If that candidate is in a party other than Republican or Democrat, he/she may not win, but my vote for him/her WILL reduce the voter mandate of the leftist who wins, Republican or Democrat.
Your vote, presuming it would go to a government-embracing Republican collectivist solely because it wasn't Hillary (or whoever the Dem nightmare is), would accomplish ONE THING, and one thing only: endorse a mandate for leftism.
*sigh*
So you understand what a sophistry is? Look it up.
I told you already: ME!
No; it isn't.
Any fool (this includes me) can actually READ the Book and find out true teaching.
WELL SAID!!!
I have not muzzled them. They may type whatever they want.
So may you.
What I've perceived from you is an 'any religion is ok; as long as it ain't pushy' kind of guy.
Since they are probably obsessed with $$$$, they might develop a website of their own. I offer them the name GOP Hackerama.com and, if they connect with Mittens' Wall Street, K Street, Chamber of Crony Commerce and leftist friends, they can probably make an absolute fortune in ad money and stop wasting the time of conservatives. It worked for their soulmate Arianna Huffington. It could work for the linguini-spined of the GOP-E to chat among themselves.
That's too bad.
Wanna try History instead?
Having undertaken, for the Glory of God, and advancements of the Christian faith and honor of our King and Country, a voyage to plant the first colony in the Northern parts of Virginia, do by these presents, solemnly and mutually, in the presence of God, and one another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil body politic; for our better ordering, and preservation and furtherance of the ends aforesaid; and by virtue hereof to enact, constitute, and frame, such just and equal laws, ordinances, acts, constitutions, and offices, from time to time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the general good of the colony; unto which we promise all due submission and obedience.In witness whereof we have hereunto subscribed our names at Cape Cod the 11th of November, in the year of the reign of our Sovereign Lord King James, of England, France, and Ireland, the eighteenth, and of Scotland the fifty-fourth, 1620.
No; we don't.
We can CHANGE it.
Won’t it ALWAYS be ‘the lesser of the two’?
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.