[trisham]

Pretty sad, and to think Jim called for a truce.

********************************

Maybe it's just me, but I am reluctant to believe that Jim's reason for calling a truce was to allow Romney supporters the opportunity to insult those who decline to vote for him. I also find it difficult to believe that Jim's expectation was that the truce would allow Romney supporters to accuse them of being Obama supporters because they find Romney to be an unacceptable candidate.

[driftdiver]

Was the intent of the truce to allow a free insults toward the ABO crowd?

An insult coated in candy is still an insult.

[Finny]

The real irony is that so many folks here who are earnestly, if sometimes angrily (and IMO that anger is perfectly understandable and human), trying to convince people to vote for Romney, stating they they plan to vote for him, and angrily calling those who won't vote for Romney "Obama supporters," become incredibly agitated and offended when a reply poster refers to Romney as "your guy" or describes them as "Romney supporters." They go ballistic!

In trying to justify voting for Romney, driftdiver points out that Reagan signed a bill that allowed for abortion in certain instances, and afterward that exception was used to justify all kinds of abortion (Reagan quickly regretted signing the bill). So, driftdriver reasons, Reagan was an abortion supporter -- therefore conservatives who object to Romney because of his abortion record are being hypocrites.

His exact words: "Signing a bill which allows abortion is a move which supports abortion, otherwise you wouldn’t sign the bill."

Fine, then. Declaring that you plan to vote for a candidate and urging others to vote for that candidate, is a move of a candidate's SUPPORTER ... otherwise you wouldn't be planning to vote for the guy and you wouldn't be urging others to join you in voting for him.

But Romney is so repellent even to folks who plan to vote for him and want me to vote for him, that we see the phenomenon of them denying that Romney is "their candidate," we see them working hard to morally distance themselves from him.

That phenomenon is a HUGE RED FLAG alerting us that no matter what scary pictures we conjure up of Obama, ROMNEY WOULD BE AS BIG A MISTAKE. Many of us think the risk is enormous that he would in fact be a bigger mistake, as conservatives would have a hard time battling their own party's defacto "leader" in the most powerful office in the nation, a defacto "leader" who is, for example, head-over-heels in love with the environmentalist agenda. Read the posted responses at that link at Forbe's Magazine, on this recent article about Romney -- one of the posts is very chilling, from what looks to be a moderate Republican who notes that Republicans "have long supported green energy," and who thinks conservative opposition to it is cynicism combined with sympathy for the greedy energy companies.

Now, that may not be Obama, but a few months into 2014 when Romney and "green-responsible" moderate Republicans reach across the aisle for noble bipartisan efforts to "save the planet" and therefore subject America's food production and energy consumption and production to the UN global body -- PEOPLE, THINK ABOUT THE REAL RISKS OF ROMNEY.

Regardless of what Obama is and regardless of the ceaseless mantra "We cannot survive another four years of Obama! We cannot survive another four years of Obama! We cannot survive another four years of Obama! We cannot survive another four years of Obama! We cannot survive another four years of Obama!" -- ROMNEY IS BAD NEWS FOR EVERYBODY. And furthermore, the mantra "We cannot survive another four years of Obama!" is rooted in a form of mass hysteria.

It is a fact of human nature that fear and desperation make people do things they regret later. Romney would be just such a mistake.