Romney haters, did you cry to your parents when u lost growing up

Threads | 7/14/2012 | Self

[shoedog]

I have to wonder if all the Romney haters on this site were the same people who ran home to mom when they lost at games as kids. I did not vote for Romney in the primaries. If you asked anyone that knows me, they would say I am right of Reagan. What I don't understand is all of you that love this country,which I truly believe you do, that are willing to not vote for Romney and potentially allow this country to fail by re-electing Obama!, how does that make sense?

[COBOL2Java]

Well, we will all be looking forward to the 3 Supreme Court Justices that Obama appoints.

I don’t think anybody is considering the magnitude of Obama’s second term.

If people believe that Political Correctness has run amok, just wait.

If people think that attacks on Religion, worship and God have run amok, just wait.

"You appear to be suffering from a severe case of self-induced Obamahysteria. My prescription for you is to practice this mental exercise: imaginine a lame duck president heavily restrained by a sturdy GOP House and Senate. Either that or drink heavily between now and November - your choice."

[MHGinTN]

Ah, but what you characterize as a ‘sturdy GOP House and Senate’ suddenly becomes wimps and yes men if Romney is int he White House. So how ‘sturdy’ could these mythical GOP representatives actually be if they become linguini spined wehn Obama is evicted? ... Or do you have magic thinking that Romney is actually that capable of herding these ‘sturdy’ men and women?

[CodeToad]

“You on the other hand appear to be voting for him “

Your reading comprehension needs work.

I WILL NOT BE VOTING FOR ROMNEY!!! PERIOD!!!

Just because he is a registered Republican does not mean he is a Republican or a conservative. If the vote was between Democrat Obama and Democrat Romney no Republican would claim to be voting for him, yet, because he has an (R) next to his name people think he is better than Obama. Perhaps in some ways he is, still, as I said during the 1996 and 2008 election, if voting in a President, any President, dooms this country then we are soo weak as to need to vote in that person and let’s get things going while I am still young enough to do something about it and enjoy the results.

I am tired of holding off doom just one more election. I don’t want to be 75 years old and find myself in a nasty situation. I do not see in any way any trend that says voting is going to fix things. I have been voting for 30 years to get things fixed and things only get worse and worse. It is time to try something else because voting isn’t working. Romney isn’t going to make things any better, either.

[COBOL2Java]

Ah, but what you characterize as a ‘sturdy GOP House and Senate’ suddenly becomes wimps and yes men if Romney is in the White House.

Absolutely correct. Which is why a Romney win would be more of a disaster than an Obama win. Republicans in the House and Senate would be extremely disinclined to go against the leader of their party, as he drags us further towards our Greek economic destiny.

A Romney Presidency? Hang on, Thelma! Here goes America! Wheee!

[Finny]

Nobody- NOTHING could be worse than the Marxist/Muslim usurper sob sitting in the White House and systematically destroying America.

That is pure, blind hysteria, Pat-08, and it pains me to say it.

We have no choice but to vote for the Republican candidate.

Wrong. We face (unless there's a miracle) no other outcome than seeing either Obama or Romney get the White house, but we have MANY choices of how to vote at the top of the ticket.

Those staying home, doing a write-in or voting third party are helping to keep Omuslim in office.

False, materially and mathematically false. A third party vote favors neither Obama nor Romney. IT'S MATH. Failing to register your vote in the presidential contest serves only to distort the relative percentage win of the victor. It's why I urge every disillusioned conservative to resist the urge to sit it out, and instead resist and stand strong by voting third party in order to weaken the popular mandate of whichever statist, Obama or Romney, wins. Every vote does indeed COUNT, and every third party vote, whether it's a Democrat making it, or an Independent, or a wacko Green Knothead, or a conservative like me, every third party vote will serve to weaken the popular mandate of the next president, who is guaranteed to be an agent of government tyranny no matter whether the Republican or Democrat wins.

We must go to the polls and vote not for Romney but AGAINST Obama.

Voting "against" is a popular sophistry. At any ballot box, ever, you cannot vote "against," you can only vote FOR. Even with propositions, you can only vote FOR passing it, or FOR rejecting it. You may intend your vote to be "against" Obama, but the reality is that it would be FOR Romney.

My vote will be FOR denying a mandate to whichever statist wins.

[MHGinTN]

So you admit that this ‘sturdy’ is an inaccuracy used to tip the scales of reasoning but not reasonable in the final analysis? Got it. About what one expects in these discussions between polarized factions.

[MHGinTN]

Pure sophistry. You are planning to aid and abet democrat vote fraud to win a s they always try in a close election result because they can hide their fraud more easily. And you’re trying to drag many freepers along with your flawed reasoning because it sounds ‘so plausible’ to the casual reader and those with a hate on for the faux melchizedek high priestly Rominy. Be honest, shill, you want us to believe you are more than willing to sacrifice the last days of the Republic in order to punish the GOPe.

[COBOL2Java]

Finny, I’ve been watching FreeRepublic pretty closely, and I have yet to see one regular poster indicate that he or she is NOT going to vote. To submit posts arguing that there are people on FreeRepublic who are going to sit out this election is pure sophistry.

[COBOL2Java]

I’m not sure where our differences lie in the discussion. Do you find fault in my use of the word “sturdy”? Perhaps I should have used “conservative” instead. The point I was trying to make was that a solidly conservative House and Senate would go far towards severely restraining a second Obama term. Had we had that these last two years I think he would have gotten away with a lot less than he did.

[Slings and Arrows]

Would that some posters put as much energy into fighting the Left as they do fighting their fellow FReepers.

[Finny]

Wrong on two counts. Romney's record on judicial appointments is one of activist pro-abortion liberals, mostly Democrats. Roberts was a Bush appointee -- Romney would most assuredly nominate judges to the left of Roberts.

Yes, people have considered the "magnitude" of Obama's second term, but doing it aware of how hysteria and panic have inflated Obama's Oz-like qualities and absolutely ignored the power a Republican/conservative empowered Congress would have to expose and foil Obama Oz. They have ALSO considered the long-term consequences of a Romney win.

[rbmillerjr]

“Romney’s record on judicial appointments is one of activist pro-abortion liberals, mostly Democrats.”

True. But, you didn’t factor in two realities. One, you have to consider the context to Mass. and pressure on Romney to appoint more conservative judges as President. Two, Obama’s will be to the far Left and Radical in comparison to Romney’s picks for SCourt.

“They have ALSO considered the long-term consequences of a Romney win.”

So, you desire a Romney loss and thus an Obama win?

[rbmillerjr]

“Romney’s record on judicial appointments is one of activist pro-abortion liberals, mostly Democrats.”

True. But, you didn’t factor in two realities. One, you have to consider the context to Mass. and pressure on Romney to appoint more conservative judges as President. Two, Obama’s will be to the far Left and Radical in comparison to Romney’s picks for SCourt.

“They have ALSO considered the long-term consequences of a Romney win.”

So, you desire a Romney loss and thus an Obama win?

[rbmillerjr]

“Romney’s record on judicial appointments is one of activist pro-abortion liberals, mostly Democrats.”

True. But, you didn’t factor in two realities. One, you have to consider the context to Mass. and pressure on Romney to appoint more conservative judges as President. Two, Obama’s will be to the far Left and Radical in comparison to Romney’s picks for SCourt.

“They have ALSO considered the long-term consequences of a Romney win.”

So, you desire a Romney loss and thus an Obama win?

[rbmillerjr]

“Romney’s record on judicial appointments is one of activist pro-abortion liberals, mostly Democrats.”

True. But, you didn’t factor in two realities. One, you have to consider the context to Mass. and pressure on Romney to appoint more conservative judges as President. Two, Obama’s will be to the far Left and Radical in comparison to Romney’s picks for SCourt.

“They have ALSO considered the long-term consequences of a Romney win.”

So, you desire a Romney loss and thus an Obama win?

[rbmillerjr]

“Romney’s record on judicial appointments is one of activist pro-abortion liberals, mostly Democrats.”

True. But, you didn’t factor in two realities. One, you have to consider the context to Mass. and pressure on Romney to appoint more conservative judges as President. Two, Obama’s will be to the far Left and Radical in comparison to Romney’s picks for SCourt.

“They have ALSO considered the long-term consequences of a Romney win.”

So, you desire a Romney loss and thus an Obama win?

[rbmillerjr]

“You appear to be suffering from a severe case of self-induced Obamahysteria. “

...and you appear unable to delineate between Romney bad and Obama bad. Sort of like the driver swerving to avoid the deer and having a deadly head-on collision with a Mack truck.

[COBOL2Java]

Sort of like the driver swerving to avoid the deer and having a deadly head-on collision with a Mack truck.

LOL. An apt analogy for our election choices in November.

[Ingtar]

The point you are missing is that the group who he had to slip them past all served at his pleasure. It appears that any good judges who slipped in, slipped past Romney as well.

[Servant of the Cross]

... imaginine a lame duck president heavily restrained by a sturdy GOP House and Senate.

First, I hope you are right about the "heavy restraint" of a "sturdy" GOP House and Senate.

Second, imagine a lame duck president using a veto pen to continually strike down the 0bamacare repeals passed by that sane sturdy congress and naming a couple more kagansototmayers.

[raccoonnookkeeper]

Romney never, ever would even win a honorable mention in a conservative beauty show. This is abundantly clear. He is only “conservative” in any sense relative to Barack Obama. Barack truly came out of nothingness, while Mitt has been busy governing — we know far, far more about Mitt.

I think people, consternated at the very poor choice available this November (if things go as expected in Tampa), are confusing two issues. Which of two bad politicians, each of which have more than a snowball’s chance of winning, is going to pose the least difficulty to America’s recovering some sense of what it used to be, the spirit in which it was founded. I think the vital question is being mischaracterized from that to the question of what would be the best way for America’s conservative side to keep its short term dignity intact.

[Darksheare]

So, hater of Conservatives.
Let me know how well telling us you moderates don’t need us and then bullying us about it works out for you.
If you don’t need Conservatives, I’m sure your plan of going further left will work out for you, right?

[Nik Naym]

“Principles in the voting booth are for children! “

Are you freakin’ goofy or did you forget the sarcasm tag????

[onyx]

GREAT!
Keep praying.
God bless and keep you, dear pal!

[TheOldLady]

Indeed.

Look at us! We never fight. Much... ;-)

[raccoonnookkeeper]

Funny, but Romney did the exact same things that Obama did, but Romney did them first. Obama simply followed the path laid out and made possible by by Romney, now our “last hope.”

I'd like to address this specifically, confessing I don't truly understand how that could be. Romney was busy giving lefty Massachusetts more or less what it had asked for. Obama didn't then proceed to beam into Massachusetts and give them more; he wished these kinds of things, largely extra-constitutionally (meaning outside the constitution) on the entire Ewe Essay, under the cover of a party-owned Senate which would never, ever be willing to convict him under an impeachment. Massachusetts didn't play any role in making any of the other 49 more willing to dork around with such things, as far as I can see.

And to call Romney a "last hope" mischaracterizes what is under consideration and debate here. He's a smaller hole in the boat than Obama. Given that bailers are needed no matter what, why not at least make their job less difficult. Give the real "last hopes" a better chance.

[Rides_A_Red_Horse]

Do you think that beating up on me is going to change my mind?

---

Are you saying that pre-pubescent, sophmoric school yard bully tactics won’t sway support for a gun grabbing, baby killing RINO?

The author of this thread is gonna be mighty disappointed!

[raccoonnookkeeper]

‘dog is a real old timer, which is probably the only reason why he hasn’t gotten zotted for this attack which sounds a lot like something with which one juvenile delinquent might taunt another one. Such an attitude is filled, of course, with hypocrisy. No matter what question it was about, even if it was whether the sky is blue or orange.

But it still managed to raise discussion that, perhaps, can help two camps of Freepers come to at least civil terms with one another even if they don’t agree on what to do about Mitt.

[Jim Robinson]

B/S. RomneyCare was Romney’s brainchild. He still brags about it today!! Blinded by a socialist saviour is no way to go through life.

[maryz]

Romney was governor of liberal Massachusetts with a Democratic legislature.

IIRC, he had to move back here to run here . . . do you suppose there's a reason he found MA such a congenial state to run in?

[Jim Robinson]

Goodbye, you lying statist troll!

[Darksheare]

I will personally NEVER enter into discussion with the CLownPosse, they have NOTHING to add to any discussion.

[Finny]

So, you desire a Romney loss and thus an Obama win?

No more than you desire the Republican party to move hard left.

[Finny]

So, you desire a Romney loss and thus an Obama win?

No more than you desire the Republican party to move hard left.

[HiTech RedNeck]

Looks like you hit the bridge too far with Mr. Jim and ran his patience out, ‘coon.

It’s well documented that Mitt bragged about Romneycare, that it ought to be a pattern for the rest of the country. If the other 49 (or even a lot of them) followed suit, this would of course kill the golden goose of American medical care, a golden goose that was not just enriching America but the whole world.

It’s also true that once Obamacare became Federal law, Mitt soon condemned it. I think he recognized a Frankenstein’s monster when one was created. But he’s never apologized for Massachusetts. Who knows what his alternate plan might be, and he’s been hinting about one. It wouldn’t help a whole lot to abolish Obamacare only to put in place some ungodly Federal incentive for states to mimic Romneycare.

[Rides_A_Red_Horse]

which sounds a lot like something with which one juvenile delinquent might taunt another one. Such an attitude is filled, of course, with hypocrisy.

---

Perhaps instead of taunting those not in lockstep with the establishment, such energies would better serve if focused on voter fraud.

The city of my birth consistantly enjoys over 100% voter turn out and overwhelmingly supports the left.

While serving overseas, I learned the democrats released a trifold pamphlet describing ways to disallow overseas military ballots.

More recently, we’ve had cowardly racist thugs intimidating voters at polling places.

Did the GOP establisment take any actions to oppose these practices? I’ve heard of efforts at the local level, such as Florida trying to purge the dead and imprisoned from the rolls. Unfortunately, the GOP elite won’t risk offending their friends across the aisle.

Perhaps shoedog would gain more support if he aimed his vitriol at his RINO masters.

[Jim Robinson]

Your trolling FR with throwaway accounts is not appreciated. I wouldn’t try it again if I were you, you freaking socialist pushing, lying, two-bit troll.

[HiTech RedNeck]

A publication about how to neuter the military vote... while this is certainly understandable from the raw unprincipled political point of view (far fewer servicemen vote Rat than Pub) it would be dynamite shame on the Rats for the GOP to release a copy of that nationally. A bit expurgated, of course, so as not to reveal the actual tricks.

[norwaypinesavage]

"The point you are missing is that the group who he had to slip them past all served at his pleasure."

The Democrat controlled congress in Mass. served at Romney's pleasure? What planet did you just arrive from?

[EDINVA]

” ...Party elites who will only give us RINO candidates ...

Party elites don’t give us a thing. We do it to ourselves.

There were several viable conservative options in the 2012 GOP primary season. Conservative voters could not or would not find a single conservative candidate to rally around. And no single conservative candidate was willing to step aside to allow those voters to coalesce around another conservative candidate.

We split our votes. GOP-e took full advantage of that. But no one can say conservatives didn’t bring it on ourselves.

[Kevmo]

Romney is the weakest possible candidate!
***Not if you’re anti-conservative, like so many RINOs, CINOs, republicans and even many freepers have shown themselves to be.

[Kevmo]

Romney is Wile E. Coyote Obama is more like Yosemite Sam.
***Both are looney tune libruls

[Future Snake Eater]

So who do we vote for?

[Kevmo]

What part of Romney’s godless liberal progessivism, abortionism, homosexualism, statism, gun grabbing, big government socialism is less evil than Obama’s?
***The part where he has an R beside his name. Why don’t you just bend to the will of the Republican party and start calling this website Free Republican dot com?

[Darksheare]

Somebody used the Hannah Montana Raccoon Repellent on you.

[onyx]

Romney is the weakest possible candidate! ***Not if you’re anti-conservative, like so many RINOs, CINOs, republicans and even many freepers have shown themselves to be.

Yep. I knew that Romney would meet the standards of the "party firsters," but I had no idea they would include so many FReepers.

Actually, I understand all the reasons (excuses) given for voting for Romney, but they're voting on "hope" and a lot of prayer, given his unconscionable record and his very own words which prove he's not a conservative at all.

In fact, he's the polar opposite. I can't find much difference between him and the Marxist, except I don't think Romney hates America, but he sure doesn't have any or much respect for our Constitution.

[HiTech RedNeck]

Poor ‘Coon can’t nibble no more

[Rides_A_Red_Horse]

We aim to please! (-;

Thumbs up to your tagline.

[HiTech RedNeck]

Nobody dare complain (too much) that such retorts are mischaracterizations. That may risk drawing the Official Ire.

Is He Whose Name Must Not Be Mentioned a logical means to a better end than Barack is, given all circumstances. Or would a protest vote even at the cost of losing viable opposition to Obama, be a more logical means to a better end. To avoid drawing Official Ire I shall refrain from opining on the choice. But if one were of the latter persuasion, it might make sense to at least make a little bitty bid at agreeing on how the protest vote should be made. Goode, since he’s likely to be on most ballots? Write in a Freeper? Write in Sarah Palin? Leave it blank?

I wonder if this whole thread is being kept alive as a kind of honey pot to sniff and snuff out those who want to influence opinions to be friendlier towards He Whose Name Must Not Be Mentioned. Otherwise shoedog (and I don’t know if that is an alter ego — it’s awful old) would have gotten zot, this thread would have turned into cute picture filled banter about Viking Kitties, and that would be that.

Ah, politics. One of the things that should never be discussed at dinner.

I’m gonna be running along, now. Ciao.

[combat_boots]

I have not wandered into these discussions. I am not interested in attacking other FReepers. No one signs up and posts for free, only to be attacked and otherwise maligned. Or booted off. I don’t like what’s gone on here, but I know people are actually really frightened of the traitors to this country and what they have and are doing.

I will go one further regarding your post. I’ve not done this yet. Romney wasn’t my guy. Mostly, still isn’t. But it is likely many FReepers, if not most, will be on the list if 0bama is reelected. The corruption itself, 0bamaDeathTax-’Care.’ and all things pro-Islamic washing over the US will simply destroy this nation. God Almighty himself will make plain why the US is not in the Bible, and we shall fall through the elevator shaft to 3rd world, 1000- years-of-darkness chithole Barackanization (cf Balkanization).

There will be nowhere to run. Nowhere. We were born in this country and have trod in steps made with the blood of Patriots. The time is now.

Anybody but 0bama. He must be defeated with the sound of thunder and the resounding Amens of America’s millions. We are the amber waves of grain, the free, open air, the eagle eyes of freedom’s last stand. Ours is the will of purple granite mountains. We are the fruit of our forebears. We have tasted liberty.

No totalitarian communist is entitled to our labor. None. Let us not give him or them the splendor of our deep-rooted heritage and beliefs. They are not his. He can not have them. Not now, Not in November.

Anybody but 0bama. If that is Romney, come August, we must train our political sights to come about and prepare to send whatever broadsides we can load to fight to the last man for this earth and country we love.