[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]

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.