Free Republic

I think it will give us much more pull and influence (”control”, if you will) knowing that he would want a Congress (with many conservative Republicans) to actually originate and move legislation forward. You know, actually do something to help the country.

If he is not sufficiently responsive, he faces what Obama has in Congress now—rebellion within his own ranks. That is not a good formula for reelection.

Further, I think that we are likely to get much better political appointees, Cabinet members, and Justices nominated (and actually confirmed).

Those are my primary reasons. I do not consider him a Palin or Cain or Gingrich, but he is not the Anti-Christ or an idiot, either.

Your thoughts?

Hey, I’ll not make an exception—even for you.

You may have heard this directed your way in the past: “Don’t bother arguing with an _____; all you’ll do is annoy the ___, and frustrate yourself”.

Yeah, come on now, you’ve heard that before; I’m even letting you fill in the blank.

Did you not see (my) Post #499? You must have missed it. So, rather than have you revert to any conspiricies lodging in your heart, let me reproduce it below:
________________________________________

To: Osage Orange

Please excuse me. I intended my comment to be to BuddhaBrown, and I misfired.

See, I told you that I was tired!
________________________________________

Now, wanna get your knickers out of their perpetual knot?

Please excuse me. I intended my comment to be to BuddhaBrown, and I misfired.

See, I told you that I was tired!

Oh, my! Isn’t it wonderful to be appreciated. And admired.

Seriously, your posts seemed modest and unassuming to me, but it seems that some people are on about a 2 second standby to General Quarters!

However, perpetual DEFCON 4 makes effective preemption/sustained reaction impossible. Is too fatiguing. In fact, think I will go watch Bill O’Reilly!

‘Night, all.

Exactly.

Isn’t it good that we BOTH know that and have responded appropriately?

Yaaaaaawnnnn!

Have more constructive things to do than attempt to discuss something reasonably with anyone who seems to have little interest in doing so.

Excellent comments. While it is true that I would be a reluctant supporter of Romney (have several others I strongly prefer to him), I would vote for him.

And the reason is that—in my mind—he/and owning the WH would be much preferable to a Democrat ensconced there.

If nothing else, you would think that those so vehemently opposed to him would “keep their friends close, and their enemies closer”, wouldn’t you?

“Our narrow path is for the righteous few”

A little confused, there. Indeed, in Matthew 7:13 & 14 Jesus talks of the narrow road and the narrow gate.

However, He went where the sinners were to preach and spread His glorious message. HE DID NOT confine himself to the Temple(s). In fact, He considered them to be CORRUPT places!

What Jesus did was welcome and sacrifice Himself FOR ALL who believed in Him. His arms were open wide TO ALL who accepted His Lordship and holiness.

For my part, I much prefer a reformed and converted sinner who has come to see the light and who gets it, to someone flintily convinced of his own righteousness.

It’s not uncommon—people often see what they want to see or what they expect to see.

I am not promoting or attacking “the middle way” (do you mean Romney?). I am not promoting or attacking your or other people’s choice. In fact, I have posted comments which will all me (and others) the duty/right/opportunity to DISCUSS their preferences.

Unfortunately, so many seem to default to the simpler (and more satisfying in a less-than-mature way to some) response of name-calling.

That’s all; but it is more than sufficient to have some posters limber up their fingers and pound away on the keyboard. Evidently, they think that is more convincing than reasonable discussion.

Haven’t we beaten this horse to death?

“From your (MarineDadNavyVet) FR profile page:”

“Along with inalienable rights, God gave us a brain and a backbone . . . let’s use them both!”

Life and Liberty are inalienable rights along with the rights to bear arms, right to free speech, free press, freedom of ASSOCIATION, freedom to promote like-minded candidates and to oppose those you wish to oppose and to control the use, content and direction of your own personal private property and electronic printing press, i.e., freerepublic.com in this case.

Romney’s record shows that he tramples on all of my inalienable rights. I therefore use my brain, my backbone and my inalienable rights to openly, fully and completely oppose him.

I have my God-given inalienable rights, brain, and backbone and I use them to the utmost. Have done so all my life and have no intention of changing, despite the wailing and gnashing of the teeth, and hand-wringing of some of our weaker brothers and sisters. Thankyouverymuch, newbie.

Now if you wish to support liberal progressive RINO Romney, be my guest. But you’ll have to do it elsewhere.

Karl Rove and the elite GOP establishment political whores can shove RINO Romney up their wazoos!”

My response—

Something get under your skin?

Is that an invitation? To leave? If so, only say the word. . . .

Of course, you are only making the point MORE CLEARLY THAN I HAVE (with my thoughtful commentary) that effective persuasion and (self) controlled expression are both more difficult and more scarce than “my way or the highway” self-righteousness.

And, ultimately, less successful and less satisfying.

What? Cerebral/thoughtful posts? No name-calling?

Darn . . . where might this end up?

Absolutely right! We must not waste any (more) time discussing the positives and negatives of having control of THE WHITE HOUSE and Congress (and good appointees to the Supreme Court and others).

Naw, there are many more important things to spend our time on . . . .

Now, where were we? Oh yeah, engaging in erudite polemics regarding some potential President’s (of our own party) being a “Commie”, or a “libtard”, or some other kind of human waste material.

Geeesh!

OK, but PapaNew’s point above is good.

And if “non-believers” are not permitted, then all this site will become is one that preaches to the choir—an INBRED, GENETICALLY DECLINING GROUP. (Reminds me of what my bro-in-law says of many of the residents of his unnamed state!).

Thanks for the info. Guess I am naive—it simply wouldn’t occur to me to do those sorts of things.

Spam and plagarism both are worthy of “preemption”.

Agree. Thanks for adding some light.

Remember him in that GEICO commercial, as a psychiatrist? One of my absolute favorites! As with any good humor, there was more than a grain of truth in it.

Oh, my son (2LT, USMC) returned from “the ‘stan” a few weeks ago.

LOVE IT when you talk that way!!!

Not a long-time poster. Am a political and social and religious “conservative”.

Evidently, your decision is applauded by the majority of posters. But not by me. And not that Romney is close to my first choice.

However, I believe that: 1) We are all better off hearing and reading, thinking over, and deciding based upon thorough information. Information that survives examination and analysis as factual and sensible, and 2) simply giving a loud Bronx cheer does nothing to enlighten any discussion, except to resemble some of the Columbia University students and others when any speaker addresses them with an unpopular thought. Their hostility—and idiocy—precludes any positive result, and only reinforces mindlessness.

Sad to say, sometimes that kind of blind rage is put forth here as acceptable argumentation.

Don’t understand what you are saying.