Posted on 06/23/2012 3:07:09 PM PDT by rightjb
BTW, you need to read this book by Eric Kostler ~ it's an old one, by a former commie ~ he called it 'The god that failed" ~ the principles and errors he discusses are probably quite familiar to you.
I would agree, but this headline reads like it was written by an 8 year old. But my favorite is: Boy Recovering At Home After Fatal Crash.
see the citations in:
AMICUS BRIEF – Georgia POTUS Eligibility Cases.
http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2012/01/23/amicus-brief-georgia-potus-eligibility-cases/
Boy Recovering At Home After Fatal Crash.
What are you ?
Now you’re calling me a Mittbot ?
And yes I do think their will always be a couple of those folks on the right that are on the extreme right - just like the kooks on the extreme left - so your ideal candidate is someone more conservative.
Obama isn’t going to beat himself - do you remember 4 years ago?
If you want Obama to win just say so.... as for me ANYONE BUT OBAMA.
Yet, here we all are.
I agree. It will be Pawlenty.
However, we can’t vote for him either.
We don’t vote for V.P.’s
Apparently you don't, so how many babies will you tolerate your candidate being responsible for killing before you hang up on him?
Obviously none - I’m an avid RTLer... which is another reason I see no reason whatsoever to support a president that has no hope in even on Late Term Abortions.
But again I suppose you are ok with Obama’s stance since you are willing to allow him to be your next president. You are willing to knowingly tolerate the killing of innocent life by not even caring to vote against someone with his track record on a national and international scale.
Best for Romney to just step aside. He does not fit in. He is, in effect, the candidate of a minority party.
Do you think the framers just threw those extra words in for nothing and they have no meaning?
I've heard the arguments that the Constitution does not define NBC. The obvious reason is it was assumed the definition was very clear and unambiguous. Many terms used in the constitution are not defined. Read Vattel, there has been no question as to the meaning of NBC until we had Obama.
Now we have a real problem because some people want to argue what the meaning of is is.
You don’t seem to understand the time scale of what you are trying to do - if changing the Republicans to go even more right is your goal.
I applaud your seemly lofty goals but the more you insist on trying to change the world the more the world moves past you and you make no impact as an outsider - to extreme to be taken seriously. In the end disenfranchised voters like yourself are exactly what the left would like to see.... the more folks they can disenfranchise the stronger they get.... which is how we got Obama in the first place.
The goal is to disenfranchise the left to keep them home. Each one of us can nudge the system to the right but no one voice will have a lasting impact. So you can be part of the system to effect change or you can stay home and be part of the system that contributes the left.
The system is bigger than one president... but having a person more to the right is a start.
I suspect you lied on purpose, because I think you are capable of reading. I said "Of course, she didn't do an "endorsement"."
Maybe you don't know what "she didn't do an endorsement" means, and thought it meant she did an endorsement.
"didn't" is one of those contraction words, short for "did not".
Smear conservatives all you want, but sooner or later, you'll both run out of conservatives you can support.
Maybe you could reveal the name of a single conservative who specifically turned down a campaign contribution from Romney's PAC. Maybe there are some somewhere.
Meanwhile, you claimed no conservative would vote for Romney. I gave you a link with a quote from Sarah Palin saying she would vote for Romney.
So, show some courage -- ping the Palin list and tell them you don't think Palin is a conservative.
IN YOUR post #152 you implied FALSELY that Gov. Palin
endorsed her BACKSTABBER from 2008 (and at other times).
You lied, and as a RomneyBot USED me in a your lie
for your chosen (loser) liar.
Shame on YOU. Shame on RomnEY-the-Backstabbing-CHEATER
who is the SUPREME RINO — and the AUTHOR of DEATH PANELS.
Team Brown and Team Black are already going for Obama, so nominating Mark the Tan will not help offset the Miquetaost Ticket.
Then you and your ilk have clearly decided that the Republican party needs to turn hard left.
Because no matter how you try to ratinionalize and justify your vote, that is what you will be voting for.
There is not voting "against," no matter what your intention. There is only voting FOR.
Spoken by a FReeper who is here trying to get FReepers vote for turning the Republican party hard left.
You can vote FOR Obama, you can vote FOR Romney, or you can vote FOR weakening whichever bastard wins.
There is no such thing as voting "against," no matter what you want to believe. It is materially impossible for you or for me to vote "against" Obama or Romney. If you vote for Romney, you mean it to be a vote "against" Obama, but you will be badly mistaken, and rudely surprised if Romney wins, especially if he wins in a landslide. You would RUE THE DAY you realized that Romney twisted your anti-Obama vote into a pro-Romney mandate.
Obama is very weak in the polls, so a third party vote is hardly "handint it to Obama." On the contrary, a third party vote will help prevent just as big a disaster -- statist authoritarian Romney winning in a landslide. You had BETTER PONDER THE CONSEQUENCES of a Romney win and STOP obsessing over Obama.
If conservatives and Americans sick of government vote the way their common sense tells them -- that is, that both Obama and Romney are bad for America -- they will vote third party and if one in three Americans do that, then whichever guys wins will only have about one third of the popular vote, which will make him weak in office. That is what I will be voting FOR. If Romney wins, that would be bad; if Obama wins in a scenario where nearly two in three Americans rejected him at the ballot box, he would be a mockery. HE IS A SCARECROW. Grow a pair, please.
You, on the other hand, will be voting to make the Republican party turn hard left.
Total poppycock. There's only ONE WAY to vote for Obama, and that's to mark his name on the ballot. You think that an Independent who voted for Obama last time who votes third party this time, is voting for Obama, which is absurd. Only an entitlement mentality says "no vote for Romney is a vote for Obama." It is pure entitlement thinking.
1. Obama is so low in the polls, held in such low regard, that there is virtually zero chance he could get a majority, let alone a landslide.
2. About 98% of Romney's appeal is based on FEAR of Obama. In other words, people don't think of their vote as being "for" Romney, they are thinking of it STRICTLY in terms of being "against" Obama, and there is no such thing as voting "against" candidates. It is materially impossible. This is not a yes-or-no vote on a proposition, where you actually can vote against something. You voting for Romney is you voting FOR turning the Republican party hard left.
3. Because of Obama's low standing in the polls and the fact that many who voted for him last time will refuse to do so this time, an official on-the-ballot, third-party vote (not an easily invalidated write-in) has exceptional potential of making it so whichever bad guy wins -- and BOTH Obama and Romney are BAD for America -- gets in on such a stinking, humiliating plurality that nearly two in three voted against him, and that president would be made WEAK, defensive, and vulnerable. If Obama won in such a way, he would become a laughingstock.
You will be voting for making the Republican party as liberal as the Democrat party. That won't be your intention, but it WOULD be the reality.
I will be voting the only way I can -- I will be voting FOR weakening whichever guy wins, so I will be voting third party. Because I understand that voting "against" is a fallacy.
Yep. Equally simple is that you will be voting FOR making the Republican party turn hard left.
I, on the other hand, will be voting FOR making a weak mockery of whichever bastard wins.
Because there is no such thing as voting "against."
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.