Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Denial ain't just a river in Egypt - Republican conservatives can't handle the truth about Romney
Tom Hoefling for President 2012 ^ | April 27, 2012 | Tom Hoefling

Posted on 04/27/2012 6:57:39 AM PDT by EternalVigilance

Tom Hoefling

April 27, 2012

I deal on a regular daily basis with self-identified conservatives all across America who are addicted to the Republican Party. And when it comes to the impending nomination by their party of the most liberal governor in U.S. history, Mitt Romney, their reactions are overwhelmingly in line with the classic symptoms described below. We can't make them face reality, of course. All we can do is to keep pointing it out to them, in the sincere hope that they will recover in time to help save the country. 

-----

From Wikipedia :

Denial (also called abnegation) is a defense mechanism postulated by Sigmund Freud, in which a person is faced with a fact that is too uncomfortable to accept and rejects it instead, insisting that it is not true despite what may be overwhelming evidence. The subject may use:

The concept of denial is particularly important to the study of addiction. The theory of denial was first researched seriously by Anna Freud. She classified denial as a mechanism of the immature mind, because it conflicts with the ability to learn from and cope with reality. Where denial occurs in mature minds, it is most often associated with death, dying and rape.

Denial of fact

In this form of denial, someone avoids a fact by lying. This lying can take the form of an outright falsehood (commission), leaving out certain details to tailor a story (omission), or by falsely agreeing to something (assent, also referred to as "yessing" behavior). Someone who is in denial of fact is typically using lies to avoid facts they think may be painful to themselves or others.

Denial of responsibility

This form of denial involves avoiding personal responsibility by:

Someone using denial of responsibility is usually attempting to avoid potential harm or pain by shifting attention away from themselves.

For example: Troy breaks up with his girlfriend because he is unable to control his anger, and then blames her for everything that ever happened.

Denial of impact

Denial of impact involves a person's avoiding thinking about or understanding the harms of his or her behavior has caused to self or others, i.e. denial of the consequences. Doing this enables that person to avoid feeling a sense of guilt and it can prevent him or her from developing remorse or empathy for others. Denial of impact reduces or eliminates a sense of pain or harm from poor decisions.

Denial of awareness

This type of denial is best discussed by looking at the concept of state dependent learning. People using this type of denial will avoid pain and harm by stating they were in a different state of awareness (such as alcohol or drug intoxication or on occasion mental health related). This type of denial often overlaps with denial of responsibility.

Denial of cycle

Many who use this type of denial will say things such as, "it just happened". Denial of cycle is where a person avoids looking at their decisions leading up to an event or does not consider their pattern of decision making and how harmful behavior is repeated. The pain and harm being avoided by this type of denial is more of the effort needed to change the focus from a singular event to looking at preceding events. It can also serve as a way to blame or justify behavior (see above).

Denial of denial

This can be a difficult concept for many people to identify with in themselves, but is a major barrier to changing hurtful behaviors. Denial of denial involves thoughts, actions and behaviors which bolster confidence that nothing needs to be changed in one's personal behavior. This form of denial typically overlaps with all of the other forms of denial, but involves more self-delusion. Denial at this level can have significant consequences both personally and at a societal level.

DARVO

Harassment covers a wide range of offensive behaviour. It is commonly understood as behaviour intended to disturb or upset. In the legal sense, it is behaviour which is found threatening or disturbing.

DARVO is an acronym to describe a common strategy of abusers: Deny the abuse, then Attack the victim for attempting to make them accountable for their offense, thereby Reversing Victim and Offender.

Psychologist Jennifer Freyd writes:

...I have observed that actual abusers threaten, bully and make a nightmare for anyone who holds them accountable or asks them to change their abusive behavior. This attack, intended to chill and terrify, typically includes threats of law suits, overt and covert attacks on the whistle-blower's credibility, and so on. The attack will often take the form of focusing on ridiculing the person who attempts to hold the offender accountable. [...] [T]he offender rapidly creates the impression that the abuser is the wronged one, while the victim or concerned observer is the offender. Figure and ground are completely reversed. [...] The offender is on the offense and the person attempting to hold the offender accountable is put on the defense.




TOPICS: Editorial; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: blogpimp; denial; romney
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 151-200201-250251-300 ... 351-396 next last
To: D-fendr

Those aren’t facts. Those are your projections.

I mean, unless you’re a bonafide prophet of God. Are you?

The facts about Romney, of which so many Republicans remain in denial, concern his record of liberalism and his obvious continued lying about it.


201 posted on 04/27/2012 4:30:00 PM PDT by EternalVigilance (Romney Republicanism. Even Jimmy Carter can be comfortable with it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 200 | View Replies]

To: Baynative

I’ve already proven to you a vote for Mitt is a vote for Obama. If you think Bush 43 was a failure wait until Mitt takes the reigns. He’ll be an even bigger failure.

I’m not voting for Obomney end of story. The elites, who are Leftists, made sure it would come down to Romney and Obama, both of which are Progressives. Why do I need to vote for either of these collectivists?

Just keep drinking the Flavor-Aid.


202 posted on 04/27/2012 4:34:41 PM PDT by Jack Hydrazine (It's the end of the world as we know it and I feel fine!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 199 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

I think you are in denial or reality then. But, I think there may be a way to snap you out of it.

:)

How about this:

- I’ll give you 1000 to 1 odds that either Obama or Romney will be the next president.

or...

- I’ll give you $100 for each electoral vote you get if you’ll give me ten cents for every one you don’t.

Deal? Or am I closer to seeing reality than you?


203 posted on 04/27/2012 4:54:33 PM PDT by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 201 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

Sorry, S/B:

I think you are in denial *of* reality then.


204 posted on 04/27/2012 4:55:48 PM PDT by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 201 | View Replies]

To: D-fendr

Personally, I’m sick of political bookie-ism. It’s a major part of why we’re in the mess we’re in.

Perhaps someday you might try simply doing the right thing and leaving the results to God.


205 posted on 04/27/2012 5:01:19 PM PDT by EternalVigilance (Romney Republicanism. Even Jimmy Carter can be comfortable with it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 203 | View Replies]

To: D-fendr
"If you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed, if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not so costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no chance of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves."

-- Winston Churchill


206 posted on 04/27/2012 5:04:40 PM PDT by EternalVigilance (Romney Republicanism. Even Jimmy Carter can be comfortable with it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 203 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

The topic was denial, not bookie-ism, not whether you thought you were doing the right thing. The bet offers were just a check to see if you were in touch with reality.

Your response indicates you are.

My point is the reality is your efforts are not wisely directed and will have little to no effect. Your responses indicate you agree.

Doing the right thing does not necessarily exclude doing so wisely with regard to the results and outcome.

This, again, is my point.


207 posted on 04/27/2012 5:09:49 PM PDT by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 205 | View Replies]

To: Revolting cat!
"Home Depot has good prices on bits."

I never did find my bit! Checking there next....

208 posted on 04/27/2012 5:27:34 PM PDT by CatherineofAragon (Time for a write-in campaign...Darryl Dixon for President)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 184 | View Replies]

To: D-fendr

But the Obama or Romney routes are not possible for those who cannot in good conscience support evil.

So, the odds you proffer are moot.

Which means those of good conscience must find another way.

Are you aware of one other than the one I’m offering?


209 posted on 04/27/2012 5:34:37 PM PDT by EternalVigilance (Romney Republicanism. Even Jimmy Carter can be comfortable with it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 207 | View Replies]

To: netmilsmom
"Facts...

Fair enough. (You had to give me a source with a picture of that creepy Romney grin, didn't you, LOL)?

More facts:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2844593/posts

For some reason I can't get this link to work, so it will have to be copied and pasted. In effect, Romney said that Islam is not inherently violent and jihad is not a part of Islam.

210 posted on 04/27/2012 5:35:24 PM PDT by CatherineofAragon (Time for a write-in campaign...Darryl Dixon for President)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies]

To: A. Patriot

Here we go again. Stop with the “not voting” meme. I will vote, but not for the person you think I should vote for.

You don’t need to give me Obama’s Marxist resume. I’ve been here the past four years, just like you. I know what he is. I also know that Romney is an abortion-enabling, homosexual-loving, gun-grabbing, tax-raising, global-warming supporting, socialized medicine-creating, lying, underhanded, vicious liberal. If I choose that for my nation’s leader, I am giving him my seal of approval.

Not happening.


211 posted on 04/27/2012 5:41:41 PM PDT by CatherineofAragon (Time for a write-in campaign...Darryl Dixon for President)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 198 | View Replies]

To: Jim Scott
I spent most of my life in Connecticut. I was Reagan's state chair when he challenged Ford in 1976. Some of us delivered the Senate seat of Lowell Weicker to Joe Lieberman and would do that each and every time. Considering Romney's track record and the way he, like Weicker, is justly loathed by anyone who is conservative, you don't really think he will carry Connecticut, do you? That's the Connecticut of Danell Malloy and of Richard Blumenthal and soon of Chris Murphy, etc., etc., etc. I really don't imagine the Massachusetts mushball carrying Illinois either.

The GOP Senate caucus in DC has loads of Weickers: McCain, Graham, Collins, Alexander, Nancyboy Kirk, Corker, Cornyn, McConnell, Murkowski, and many more. The only thing they would hold Romney to is the maximum squandering of money on their respective states and pals. You are kidding yourself.

212 posted on 04/27/2012 5:49:29 PM PDT by BlackElk ( Dean of Discipline ,Tomas de Torquemada Gentlemen's Society. Burn 'em Bright!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

We disagree on some fundamentals. Among them, I believe you underestimate the damage to the republic that the next Obama regime will do.

And you, likely, believe I underestimate the damage a Romney administration will do.

Based on this fundamental disagreement, you think you are doing what’s right, I think your actions - to the extent you are successful - increase harm; i.e., are wrong.

We disagree on this, and we disagree in that I don’t believe your disagreement constitutes a psychological defense mechanism, but rather an error or lack in knowledge and/or wisdom.

;)


213 posted on 04/27/2012 6:02:40 PM PDT by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 209 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

That’s a great article. I tip my hat to you, Sir or Madam!

Too many people think that good can be created from evil. Romney has no good in him and so he must be eliminated as an ingredient for good.

I trust God will show us a better way.


214 posted on 04/27/2012 6:08:45 PM PDT by Tau Food
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tau Food

Thank you!


215 posted on 04/27/2012 6:13:32 PM PDT by EternalVigilance (Romney Republicanism. Even Jimmy Carter can be comfortable with it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 214 | View Replies]

To: D-fendr
Among them, I believe you underestimate the damage to the republic that the next Obama regime will do.

Can you point to even one piece of evidence that I "underestimate the damage to the republic that the next Obama regime will do"?

Refusal to support the most liberal governor in the history of the republic does not count.

216 posted on 04/27/2012 6:19:24 PM PDT by EternalVigilance (Romney Republicanism. Even Jimmy Carter can be comfortable with it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 213 | View Replies]

To: Jack Hydrazine

I’m sorry to inform you that while you’ve assumed a lot, you have ‘proven’ nothing.


217 posted on 04/27/2012 7:37:48 PM PDT by Baynative (Please check this out - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fFIcZkEzc8I)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 202 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
Can you point to even one piece of evidence that I "underestimate the damage to the republic that the next Obama regime will do"?

I think it a given we're talking about a relative factor: Romney vs. Obama. IF one thinks one or the other is a huge amount more harmful, the action becomes obvious. The less difference (in harm) one perceives, the opposite is true.

It's the difference that matters. If you see them as near equally harmful, one result and vice versa.

So we disagree on this gap. The gap can be increased in one of two ways. Either decrease the view of harm Romney will do or increase the harm Obama will do.

I believe the amount of harm Obama will do makes defeating him the most critical mission for the republic in this election. Obviously you don't. This is evidence, therefore, logically, you do not estimate the damage the same as I; and that would be in the underestimate direction - in my opinion.

218 posted on 04/27/2012 8:39:45 PM PDT by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 216 | View Replies]

To: D-fendr

The “gap” is the difference between a bullet to the brain and a bullet to the heart. So to speak.


219 posted on 04/27/2012 9:36:23 PM PDT by EternalVigilance (Romney Republicanism. Even Jimmy Carter can be comfortable with it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 218 | View Replies]

To: D-fendr

As a moral conservative and a Christian, I don’t buy into utilitarian or morally relativistic arguments.

They’re the broad way to hell.


220 posted on 04/27/2012 9:38:19 PM PDT by EternalVigilance (Romney Republicanism. Even Jimmy Carter can be comfortable with it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 218 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

Most of us know that the Establishment has given us a lemon for a candidate. Romney is a political chamelion who has no core beliefs other than his own ambition. My home state has a primary on May 8 and I won’t be voting for him in the primary. I still haven’t given up on a brokered convention.


221 posted on 04/27/2012 9:40:22 PM PDT by Clintonfatigued (A liberal's compassion is limited to the size of other peoples' paychecks)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Baynative

Assumed what???


222 posted on 04/27/2012 9:45:22 PM PDT by Jack Hydrazine (It's the end of the world as we know it and I feel fine!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 217 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
The “gap” is..

I think your statement here illustrates or exemplifies my point.

223 posted on 04/27/2012 9:50:05 PM PDT by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 219 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
morally relativistic arguments.

I don't argue for moral relativism as I believe it is a false position, philosophicalyl and metaphysically. Moral relativistism is a term with a quite different meaning than you use in this context; and I believe, is therefore a non sequitur in response to our debate here.

224 posted on 04/27/2012 9:54:58 PM PDT by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 220 | View Replies]

To: D-fendr

Your belief that one candidate’s obvious bad traits justify voting for another candidate with obviously bad traits, illustrates mine.

One other thing: I’ve been involved in campaigns for a couple of decades, and I can say with a high level of certainty that a candidate whose supporters have to admit every five seconds that he stinks to high heaven probably isn’t going to fare well in the election.

Which sort of moots your whole argument, you know?


225 posted on 04/27/2012 9:58:19 PM PDT by EternalVigilance (Romney Republicanism. Even Jimmy Carter can be comfortable with it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 223 | View Replies]

To: D-fendr

Lesser of two evils arguments are the epitome of moral relativism.


226 posted on 04/27/2012 9:59:28 PM PDT by EternalVigilance (Romney Republicanism. Even Jimmy Carter can be comfortable with it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 224 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

No, look up moral relativism.

All things in relation to each other are relative. But moral relativism is quite a different meaning and concept.


227 posted on 04/27/2012 10:10:53 PM PDT by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 226 | View Replies]

To: D-fendr
Let me restate my position:

I do not believe this free republic can possibly be saved until and unless conservatives return to a principled position, one based solely on the nation's founding moral premises, and refuse to any longer compromise them for anyone, or for any perceived politically expedient reasons.

"If, to please the people, we offer what we ourselves disprove, how can we afterwards defend our work? Let us raise a standard to which the wise and the honest can repair. The event is in the hand of God."

-- George Washington

A vote for Mitt Romney is the exact opposite of that.

And it isn't just that it empowers that lying socialist. It's that it corrupts those who have compromised to support him.

With his impending nomination, we're already seeing that corruption showing up all over the place. Including FR.

Nutritionally you are what you eat. Politically you are who and what you endorse. There's no avoiding it.

228 posted on 04/27/2012 10:13:18 PM PDT by EternalVigilance (Romney Republicanism. Even Jimmy Carter can be comfortable with it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 224 | View Replies]

To: D-fendr

A distinction without a difference. It amounts to exactly the same thing: the denial of self-evident truth, the destruction of reason, the abandonment of moral principle.


229 posted on 04/27/2012 10:15:50 PM PDT by EternalVigilance (Romney Republicanism. Even Jimmy Carter can be comfortable with it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 227 | View Replies]

To: fieldmarshaldj; EternalVigilance
The sole reason, as you cited, is the Constitution Party’s unfortunate prior paleo/libertarian stance on foreign policy/defense, but I think with Goode’s nomination, it moves it away from that to a more reasonable and sensible stance.

I sure hope so, but from the sound of this statement right here, Goode may have changed his stances at least somewhat to accommodate them. Quote: "Goode says that he regrets his vote for the Patriot Act and now wants it repealed. He also wants to withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan." http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2012/04/virgil-goode-speech-on-c-span/


230 posted on 04/27/2012 10:26:51 PM PDT by Galactic Overlord-In-Chief (Our Joe Wilson can take the Dems' Joe Wilson any day of the week)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 190 | View Replies]

To: Shery

We did start a conservative party. It is the Republican Party. Help us get/keep control of it, and get more conservative candidates in the House and Senate (and various state offices), please.


231 posted on 04/27/2012 10:40:01 PM PDT by donmeaker (Blunderbuss: A short weapon, ... now superceded in civilized countries by more advanced weaponry.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: netmilsmom
When the anti-mormon posters come in, I’m out.

Why is that?


  "Both Catholics and Protestants are nothing less than the 'whore of Babylon' whom the Lord denounces by the mouth of John the Revelator as having corrupted all the earth by their fornications and wickedness. Any person who shall be so corrupt as to receive a holy ordinance of the Gospel from the ministers of any of these apostate churches will be sent down to hell with them, unless they repent"
 
 (The Seer, p. 255  Orson Pratt )

232 posted on 04/28/2012 4:34:42 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 175 | View Replies]

To: Tarantulas
A Republican President, even one with many imperfections, would be infinitely better than a second Obama term. Possibly; but would he be ETERNALLY better?
233 posted on 04/28/2012 4:36:17 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 178 | View Replies]

To: Idaho_Cowboy
If the facts are wrong please refute them.

Good luck with THIS!

234 posted on 04/28/2012 4:37:36 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 179 | View Replies]

To: Idaho_Cowboy
New campaign strategy: Vote Mitt because he could be worse.
After all, he's not Vlad the Impaler, Genghis Khan, or Hitler.

Vote Mitt - he could always be worse.


Logical fallacies hide the truth, so pointing them out is very useful.
 
1. Ad Hominem - Attacking the individual instead of the argument.
Example: You are so stupid your argument couldn't possibly be true.
Example: I figured that you couldn't possibly get it right, so I ignored your comment.
 
2. Appeal to Force - Telling the hearer that something bad will happen to him if he does not accept the argument.
Example: If you don't want to get beaten up, you will agree with what I say.
Example: Convert or die.
 
3. Appeal to Pity - Urging the hearer to accept the argument based upon an appeal to emotions, sympathy, etc.
Example: You owe me big time because I really stuck my neck out for you.
Example: Oh come on, I've been sick. That's why I missed the deadline.
 
4. Appeal to the Popular - Urging the hearer to accept a position because a majority of people hold to it.
Example: The majority of people like soda. Therefore, soda is good.
Example: Everyone else is doing it. Why shouldn't you?
 
5. Appeal to Tradition - Trying to get someone to accept something because it has been done or believed for a long time.
Example: This is the way we've always done it. Therefore, it is the right way.
Example: The Catholic church's tradition demonstrates that this doctrine is true.
 
6. Begging the Question - Assuming the thing to be true that you are trying to prove. It is circular.
Example: God exists because the Bible says so. The Bible is inspired. Therefore, we know that God exists.
Example: I am a good worker because Frank says so. How can we trust Frank? Simple: I will vouch for him.
 
7. Cause and Effect - Assuming that the effect is related to a cause because the events occur together.
Example: When the rooster crows, the sun rises. Therefore, the rooster causes the sun to rise.
Example: When the fuel light goes on in my car, I soon run out of gas. Therefore, the fuel light causes my car to run out of gas.
 
8. Circular Argument - See Begging the Question
Fallacy of Division - Assuming that what is true of the whole is true for the parts.
Example: That car is blue. Therefore, its engine is blue.
Example: Your family is weird. That means that you are weird too.
 
9. Fallacy of Equivocation - Using the same term in an argument in different places but the word has different meanings.
Example: A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. Therefore, a bird is worth more than President Bush.
Example: Evolution states that one species can change into another. We see that cars have evolved into different styles. Therefore, since evolution is a fact in cars, it is true in species.
 
10. False Dilemma - Giving two choices when in actuality there could be more choices possible.
Example: You either did knock the glass over or you did not. Which is it? (Someone else could have knocked the glass over)
Example: Do you still beat your wife?
 
11. Genetic Fallacy - Attempting to endorse or disqualify a claim because of the origin or irrelevant history of the claim.
Example: The Nazi regime developed the Volkswagen Beetle. Therefore, you should not buy a VW Beetle because of who started it.
Example: Frank just got out of jail last year; since it was his idea to start the hardware store, I can't trust him.
 
12. Guilt by Association - Rejecting an argument or claim because the person proposing it likes someone whom is disliked by another.
Example: Hitler liked dogs. Therefore dogs are bad.
Example: Your friend is a thief. Therefore, I cannot trust you.
 
13. Non Sequitur - Comments or information that do not logically follow from a premise or the conclusion.
Example: We know why it rained today: because I washed my car.
Example: I don't care what you say. We don't need any more bookshelves. As long as the carpet is clean, we are fine.
 
14. Poisoning the Well - Presenting negative information about a person before he/she speaks so as to discredit the person's argument.
Example: Frank is pompous, arrogant, and thinks he knows everything. So, let's hear what Frank has to say about the subject.
Example: Don't listen to him because he is a loser.
 
15. Red Herring - Introducing a topic not related to the subject at hand.
Example: I know your car isn't working right. But, if you had gone to the store one day earlier, you'd not be having problems.
Example: I know I forgot to deposit the check into the bank yesterday. But, nothing I do pleases you.
 
16. Special Pleading (double standard) - Applying a standard to another that is different from a standard applied to oneself.
Example: You can't possibly understand menopause because you are a man.
Example: Those rules don't apply to me since I am older than you.
 
17. Straw Man Argument - Producing an argument about a weaker representation of the truth and attacking it.
Example: The government doesn't take care of the poor because it doesn't have a tax specifically to support the poor.
Example: We know that evolution is false because we did not evolve from monkeys.
 
18. Category Mistake - Attributing a property to something that could not possibly have that property. Attributing facts of one kind are attributed to another kind. Attributing to one category that which can only be properly attributed to another.
Example: Blue sleeps faster than Wednesday.
Example: Saying logic is transcendental is like saying cars would exist if matter didn't.

235 posted on 04/28/2012 4:39:03 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 179 | View Replies]

To: El Gato
Do you also propose an IQ test for voters?

So many vote their EMOTIONS instead of their LOGIC.

Just like Saturday horse race bettors.

236 posted on 04/28/2012 4:41:07 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 181 | View Replies]

To: fieldmarshaldj
Yeah, I was worried you wouldn’t get the humor.

This happens to me all the time.

Both as sender and recipient.

237 posted on 04/28/2012 4:43:35 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 190 | View Replies]

To: fieldmarshaldj
Really, how many times is this red herring argument gonna be thrown out ?

Until reply #235...

238 posted on 04/28/2012 4:47:22 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 194 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

You have a bumper sticker here!


239 posted on 04/28/2012 4:48:47 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 197 | View Replies]

To: A. Patriot
Maybe Romney is just further judgment on our nation from God which we mightily deserve IMHO.

INDEED!

240 posted on 04/28/2012 4:50:02 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 198 | View Replies]

To: D-fendr

#10


241 posted on 04/28/2012 4:51:36 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 200 | View Replies]

To: CatherineofAragon

I got it straight from the horse’s mouth...


242 posted on 04/28/2012 4:53:20 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 208 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

mark


243 posted on 04/28/2012 4:55:52 AM PDT by sport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Clintonfatigued
I still haven’t given up on a brokered convention.

AMEN!

It's along way to Nov 6th.

244 posted on 04/28/2012 4:57:10 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 221 | View Replies]

To: D-fendr

245 posted on 04/28/2012 4:58:14 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 223 | View Replies]

To: D-fendr

246 posted on 04/28/2012 4:58:32 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 223 | View Replies]

To: CatherineofAragon; Jim Robinson
Funny how we as conservatives love talking about God, but when it comes down to a hard, unpopular decision, suddenly standing with Him becomes “naive”, a “fantasy.” That’s very interesting to me. You’re free to align yourself with an abortionist-homosexual lover. Don’t try to tell me I must,

I don't know why I haven't thought of it before now, but reading your post suddenly reminded me of all those Conservative Christians who signed the Manhatten Declaration -A Call for Christian Conscience who are now endorsing Romney for President. So far as I know Jim Robinson is the only national leader who stuck to his guns.

247 posted on 04/28/2012 5:05:18 AM PDT by .30Carbine (God bless you with the spirit of wisdom and understanding)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: .30Carbine
the Manhatten Declaration

Personally, I rejected that document, first and foremost because it contained a blatant lie about how "gay marriage" was instituted in Massachusetts.

Besides, the PR flack running the whole thing was and is a major Romney funder and supporter. It appears to me that all they were doing was collecting names for the Romney lists.

248 posted on 04/28/2012 5:12:14 AM PDT by EternalVigilance (Romney Republicanism. Even Jimmy Carter can be comfortable with it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 247 | View Replies]

To: Elsie

>>Why is that?<<

Because the rude, sarcastic, unChristian posts from you and the rest of the “flying imams” are classless and make me regurgitate my breakfast. I like my breakfast and want to keep it.

Most of you, I have blocked. You, however can be clever on other threads so I just ignore your Anti-Mormon delight.


249 posted on 04/28/2012 5:12:33 AM PDT by netmilsmom (I am Breitbart)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 232 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
Our system was not set up as a party system. In fact, George Washington spoke out strongly against such a thing - as he was going out the door, as a final warning to the country he loved.

This of course, has become a truism; a cliché. No matter what Washington said then, we live in a Two-Party System now, and indeed have since 1860 and earlier. How do you propose to end it?

The "independent" voters have been chanting the mantra for years. "I vote for the man, not the party!" Of course, those who are elected by taking the "independent" vote immediately join with, support, and vote with a political party ... usually the Democrat Party!

Washington's Constitution has been amended. For instance the runner-up in national elections no longer becomes VP. Senators are popularly elected (One of the great tragedies of the Constitutional History of the country, IMNSVHO)

I think also that it is too easy for the anti-Obama camps to merely tell us how bad Obama is, w/o offering their own tactical PROGRAM, and the PLAN to IMPLEMENT IT, and the LEADERSHIP necessary to get agreement to it. This is true of EVERY candidate so far, and you are no exception.

So, while I may agree with your ideological platform, I find it far from pragmatic. You are nobly seeking Leadership by offering systemic reform in one election. But the first challenge is getting elected without a Program and Plan. In fact, this is one election removed from the 53% victory of the Democrats with Obama, and they still hold the Senate.

250 posted on 04/28/2012 5:14:27 AM PDT by Kenny Bunk (So, Scalia, Alito, Thomas, and Roberts can't figure out if Obama is a Natural Born Citizen?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 196 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 151-200201-250251-300 ... 351-396 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson