Skip to comments.Opus Time
Posted on 04/17/2012 4:47:30 PM PDT by Williams
click here to read article
A few here - and that’s just one thread.
There have been many!
That is false. There will be many choices.
But when you tell a conservative, on a conservative site, saying they will vote conservative, that they are responsible for electing a Marxist... that's over the top.
Edit “How does my post for Newt, not Mitt, increase Obama’s vote count by one.
If you think Obama is a "liberal" you're delusional.
That is about freaking retarded. Disgusting regardless of why. I truly hope he was venting.
What lie? WTF are you taking about? I don’t lie.
How very Commie of you.
Today, I see little to no difference between liberal and marxist. They are interchangeable. 10 years ago there was. Today, none I’m aware of.
Oh yes I am a conservative. And in voting for Obama the GOP will be destroyed, and then?
Maybe then you will have enough back bone to form a genuine conservative party, and back it, instead of attempting to prevent the revenge of Conservatives against the GOP. The GOP deserves it.
Just like a Vote for Perot ended up being a Vote for Clinton?
Just like a Vote for Nader ended up being a Vote for Bush?
I used to consider escape to Panama or similar place. However I am convinced that the world will follow where America goes.
Well for starters you can direct me to your post explaining how one can vote for a person like Romney/a man with his record on abortion/gays/mandates/global warming et all, without giving up everything a conservative ‘IS’. A classic impossible task.
Otherwise, I maintain you did not answer my question.
Personally, I don't care who they vote for, but trying to convince us to vote for someone who is the opposite of our beliefs is wrong.
Its already being done on other threads. We would have to lie to ourselves and avoid the facts in order to support Romney. I have seen threads where anything critical of a Romney positions is said to be pro-Obama.
That is deliriously stupid.
OK, so I read your entire comment, and here was the SINGLE question you asked:
Now will you address my questions or will this turn, yet again into a multi page exercise in avoidance?
See, I answered the question.
Before I go back to re-answer your PREVIOUS questions, I will point out that you have drawn a restrictive and false hypothesis to try to make your argument sound better than it was. The "party platform" is drawn up by a small committee of elected delegates at a presidential convention once every 4 years -- the same elected delegates who then choose the nominee to represent the party. To argue that the "platform" defines what "republican" is, and the chosen nominee could be a "not republican" is illogical.
Here was your previous question, lacking a question mark but still a question:
As a matter of logic and principle Charles, please explain in detail how voting for a Republican candidate who opposes the Republican party platform does not make both of you RINOS by the accepted definition of the term.
I answered that in detail. I can't help your inability to understand or discuss or refute that answer.
My answer was detailed and covered your question thoroughly.
I refuted the premise of your question, the structure of your question, and then answered your question showing how both by definition, logic, and application your assertion by question was faulty.
I will again point out that your PREMISE would make Newt Gingrich a RINO, since endorsing a candidate is a stronger act than simply voting for the candidate, and by any measure Dede was opposed to the national Republican party platform, and he endorsed her. But by the "accepted definition" here at FR, Newt is not a RINO.
So says the guy who considers himself 100% Batman according to his profile page.
Do you also consider Bammy to be a superhero?
Except for the niggling little detail that those votes were cast for Perot and Nader. Clinton nor Gore received any of those votes.
They WERE cast by their respective voters FOR P/N afterall. And counted FOR P/N.
Look at some of the posts on this thread.
We will soon have to stop being pro-life, anti-gay agenda, pro-gun and all that to keep the Romneybots happy. Any and all critical comments about him or positions he might be associated with will make them mad.
And Obama was a danger in 2008. McCain was the hero? And Bill Clinton was a danger in 1992, a reason to go hold hog on Bush 41 after four years of being played? Frankly, I’d take Clinton now with a true conservative GOP Congress as we had in 1995.
Bush 43 was the least conservative candidate in 2000 so I have to accept that fact because Gore was worse? And Bush barely won being a “compassionate conservative” so you are arguing the margins.
Kerry was such a caricature it shouldn’t have been close either but it was. Again, enjoy living on the margins that make the GOP cave to Dem ideas as Bush (both of them) did. W couldn’t even get a tax rate cut through Congress because of the RINO’s you now say to support like McCain and others that demanded, with the Dems, a deadline on those rates. Then Obama gets to hammer the new GOP House majority, in a lame duck session, over the head and win the day on preserving those rates but demanded concesssions.
How again are your RINO’s helping us go forward? Seems to me it’s like begging to tread water. Sooner or later the tide will take you.
Oh, I forgot. This time Romney supposedly comes with a guarantee that conservatives, like those you listed, are going to “hold his feet to the fire”. Yeah, right. The only victories with Bush were Harriet Myers and shoving amnesty back down their throats but only after being called, by your RINO buddies, all kinds of names. Especially from McCain and Graham.
Oh, but I’m supposed to just jump right back in line and shut the hell up. Your list are politicians and party elected party members so I understand their stance. Nugent, I don’t understand. I would have thought he would have been stronger.
That being said, I don’t know if he supported any other candidate in the primary. But now that Romney is going to get the nomination he wants to jump on the wagon. I don’t.
Occasionally, Norm doesn’t like answers, so he pretends you didn’t actually answer his questions. Then he sometimes re-words his questions and acts like they are the same question, and keeps asking until you give up, and then claims you won’t answer his questions.
I know he’s a smart guy, so I keep answering his questions anyway because i figure after he finishes posturing for the thread he might actually understand the answer.
Charles, you did not answer because you COULD not. I asked a series of impossible questions. We go through this every couple months, you and I. Last time it was the border fence where we pro border fencers were told that constructing such was impossible. When that failed, the pro-illegal faction of FR resorted to claiming we wanted dead Mexican children BBQd on an electric fence.
Here, we are told that contrary to reality, voting for Newt means a vote for Obama, that the world will end otherwise and that maintaining ones principles is NOT conservative, but abandoning them advances the conservative cause.
I learned my lesson last time. Arguing with you yields no positive result since you cannot stipulate to the most basic facts of the discussion.
So have the last word.
And what does a reference to Batman have to do with you listing some percentages of some test you obviously took online (but didn't list) that you self identify, in reality, with being liberal 25% of the time on some issues?
I saw Ann Romney say that she and her husband will never support embryonic stem cell research. Now, she could be lying and they could turn right around and change that position, but I'll take her promise over Obama who over-turned the Bush policy on stem cell research almost immediately after taking office.
Not saying Romney's stellar by any stretch but here's just a couple of significant differences between the two IMO.
IF Mitt is last man standing (I haven't given up on Newt) I will have to take a leap of faith and pray that NOW that Mitt says he is anti-abortion, he's telling the truth. Same answer for gays/mandates/global warming et al.
So IF Mitt is the last man standing verses the OMarxist, my conservativism will be exercised by voting AGAINST Obama - who DESPISES my country.
Has that answered your question?
Batman isn’t real just like your logic isn’t real.
So stop with the personal attacks if you want to be taken seriously.
I don't think voting against Obama to avoid seeing Michelle triumphantly get power over me again is abandoning my principles.
My bank account can't afford another 4 years of Obama...my savings account is a big principle with me.
You will take what they say over their lifelong love of abortion by action?
"Romney is a pathological compulsive liar. Lie after lie papered over with more lies. Doesnt even flinch when caught in bald faced lies, simply tells another big whopper to cover up or dodge the issue. He cannot lie his way out of his decades long record of support for abortion, Roe v Wade, planned parenthood,..."
Not to mention $50 taxpayer funded abortions in MassCare. There's your pro-life guy.
Things are going to get really hot in this country the next couple of years.
We're all going to live in interesting times.
BTW what do you have against stuff online, since you are in fact participating in this online forum.
If not for Perot, there would have been no President Clinton.
I could say the same about Nader, but with no President Clinton there probably would have been a different GOP Nominee in 2000.
It's that Space Time Continuum thingy, or is it that Butterfly Effect thingy? Glad you're here Norm. You keep my Blood Pressure up and I think I do the same for you. LOL I love the internet.
Especially this early in the process. A lot can happen in 6 months.
It said a lot about why you will but not one word about how exactly, as I asked you can do so without abandoning your conservatism.
A conservative, by definition is a person of principle. If he abandons those principles, then his conservative beliefs are gone. They have nothing to support them.
Faith in Romney, prayer et all, is not sticking to what you believe. If it was, why would you have to resort to faith/prayer to begin with? You are abandoning what you believe and have faith/prayer that turns out well.
Again, How do you keep the conservatism and vote Romney? You are talking all around the issue, again ‘why’ you will vote for him, but not remotely addressing it.
|4||Gay State Conservative||7.5y||3||4||1.3|
|19||true believer forever||1.9y||2||1||0.5|
|29||The KG9 Kid||14.1y||2||0||0.0|
|39||E. Pluribus Unum||13.4y||1||0||0.0|
|56||Born to Conserve||10.6y||1||0||0.0|
|68||VRWC For Truth||12.2y||9||4||0.4|
|82||Political Junkie Too||11.4y||5||0||0.0|
|86||right way right||11.5y||1||0||0.0|
Good night everybody
Without the GOP pushing their guy that lied to us and expected us to vote for him again, there would have been no Perot.
The Perot votes gave us Clinton.
We would have done better without a Clinton.
No Travelgate, No Monicagate, No Waco, and I believe no 9/11 because the first WTC bombing would have been pursued vigorously under Bush and Saddam would have been handled much earlier as well.
Bill and Hillary did much more damage than a Bush 2nd term IMO and because of it we today still have Madame Hillary wreaking havoc and she will not let go of the power voters gave her and her husband.
The Perot voters messed that one up bigtime IMO.
I can ask you the same question I asked another freeper. If we are to fight “all evil”, should the USA have not allied with Russia to stop Germany?
I guess because of how you worded your statement, you could argue that there was a 3rd way such that we could assure a victory over Germany without being allied with Russia.
Of course, all men are evil — it’s in that book you referenced. So any person you vote for is evil. You could argue that a Christian in good standing with God is not “evil” because of the blood of Jesus, but that would still mean you couldn’t ever vote for anybody who wasn’t a good Christian. Maybe that is how you vote.
There are many people who I respect who do not share your opinion of the “evil” of a particular candidate, but we do not argue that point here.
I have seen few politicians who actually performed abortions. If you pay your taxes, some of those taxes are paying for abortions. You have a choice — you could refuse to pay taxes, and go to jail rather than “supporting abortion”. If I choose to pay my taxes, does that mean I’m guilty of abortion because I’d rather be out of prison than to keep one dime of my money from paying for an abortion?
Are you personally guilty of cutting up babies because you do not refuse to pay taxes? Because you haven’t personally blockaded an abortion clinic? Haven’t used force to stop murder? At what point do you get to claim that you are innocent of the blood of the children?
If I work for a company who gives some of their profits to planned parenthood, since I am responsible for generating those profits, does that make me guilty? If I gave money to united way, and it turned out some of that money went to planned parenthood, am I now evil?
I ask because you said we have to fight “all” evil, but we must define “evil”, and since we are “all evil”, that definition isn’t helpful, so I want to know practically how you define evil and how you apply your fight against “evil” to voting for candidates who are fundamentally flawed in various ways.
I am not sure what that is but it looks cool. heh
You’ve done it now. Now that I know you’re a statistician with HTML skills I’ll be recruiting you for projects regularly. LOL
No, I get the point. But you are making the wrong point. My point is that to say “A vote for X is really a vote for Y” is a false premise. But people keep saying it over and over. Clinton benefited by Perot’s votes because of the dynamics of the race - IE Perot split the vote. That is not arguable. But to say ‘A vote for...’ is incorrect and is an incorrect excuse people waste time bandying around.
Semantics? No, just fact. Clinton would never gotten any of the Perot votes.
If the GOP hadn't pushed the guy that lied to us with 'Read my lips', there would have been no Perot. The GOP didn't take the hint then. They just need to be obliterated as a party, now. For the sake of conservatism. Unless they put up a conservative.
Their present position on stem-cell research is vastly better than Obama's.
I have no proof yet that Ann Romney is a compulsive liar. She is far better than First Wookie so far anyway who is absolutely guaranteed to continue doing tremendous damage.
I was speaking only of his stem-cell position.
Good thinking, Shabazz!
At least you get that crumb. Good thing Romney never lies or flip-flops. /s