Posted on 07/04/2012 1:16:13 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
Can you point to items in his record to support that? Because all the looking I've done at his record, I can't find even 10% of what I've agreed with. As for believing in capitalism, his RomneyCare directly contradicts that assumption. His statement once that we can be environmentally "responsible" (i.e., enact onerous regulation to "protect the environment" on energy and food production and consumption) without negative affect on free markets, is another thing that proves the lie that Romney "believes in capitalism." What the guy (he is not a man in my estimation) says and what he does are different from each other.
Plurality? I assume you mean in the popular vote, because the electoral college is going to have a majority for one or the other.
Yep. I mean the popular vote.
If every single Freeper voted 3rd party, that's what, 60,000 or so votes? Millions vote third party in every election, so the "statement" being made by an additional 60,000 votes is meaningless. Nobody will care.
Really? Gosh, thank you so much for telling me something I'd never have figured out on my own. *rolls eyes* Hello, BCC, the ripples from a drop in the water at FR extend beyond its membership and even beyond its readership. All of us who are posting ideas, opinions, thought-out strategies, are planting seeds that have the potential of taking root far outside FR. And also, many of us repeat the things we say here in other venues, such as message boards, comments sections, and letters to the editor.
In any case, Bubba was elected with a plurality, and it didn't seem to phase him.
So you think that Clinton, who won on a 43% plurality, where fully 57% of the popular vote was against him, wasn't made vulnerable by that? You think the Republican Revolution would have happened if he'd won on a majority or if HW had been re-elected?
And consider that Clinton was relatively popular and he was new to Americans -- he was a blank slate. Obama's support is failing, people know how who and what he is, and he is becoming more and more despised (just read comments on MSM sources where a pro Obama story appears, and just listen to your Democrat friends and acquaintances when they talk politics). We are at an unusual time in history where Obama is held in such low regard by so many of his former supporters, that there is virtually zero risk that a third party vote instead of for the GOP would result in a majority victory for Obama. This is a God-given opportunity, a rare convergence to conservatives' advantage.
Bruce, NO GUTS, NO GLORY.
If one in three voters, regardless of who they voted for last time, are so disgusted with this Obama vs Obamalite charade that they vote third party -- and of all years in history, this is ONE YEAR where that could actually happen -- then the guy who wins, guaranteed to be a liberal statist government authoritarian, will be on defensive because in the popular vote, nearly two in three voted against him.
You are too timid to take that risk, and instead vote for the assured, certain liberalization of the Republican party. See, there is no risk in voting for Romney to win; it is certain that liberalism would increase and grow stronger in both parties.
On the other hand, while there's a risk that Obama just might be the all powerful Oz everyone thinks he is, odds are that he actually IS a scarecrow and that in an environment where a) two in three voted against him, a humiliating and embarassing referendum, and b) Congress is stronger than ever in terms of conservative opposition not only because more were elected to it in 2012, but moderate Republicans realized that they had better turn right or face the same fate and rejection as Romney -- that in such an environment, conservatives could dominate Obama.
EITHER WAY, a third-party vote completely abandons any say in whether Obama or Romney wins; that is the real gamble in making it, because it forfeits any voice whatsover in the outcome of that contest. A third party vote leaves it entirely up to God and those willing to sanction either Obama or Romney. The pay-off, however, is that a third party vote counts toward weakening the victory of whichever big-government anti-conservative wins, and conservatives will need all the help they can get in that department.
This can’t really be from Quix. THERE ARE NOT ENOUGH CAPS IN HIS POST AND NONE OF THEM ARE IN 36 POINT WITH VARIOUS COLORS FOR EMPHASIS! Plus, he never mentioned UFOs.
That said, if he’s really and truly gone, yea!
Disclaimer: I’m posting this before reading every single reply.
Sorry to disappoint you, but I have no revenues from “religion” or “Christianity” or this discussion or this subject.
What we’re talking about here is simply Salvation -or- with the false doctrines and false teachings (that I was referring to) the loss of Salvation and, as the Bible calls it - “eternal damnation”.
No thanks. From what I've seen of your posts here, discussion isn't your aim, (From your posting history you have nearly two full pages of verbiage which nobody reads on this thread alone.) just building your own ego.
I see now why you didn't start a thread, you jumped on an active thread here hoping to get an audience.
ph
“This can’t really be from Quix. THERE ARE NOT ENOUGH CAPS IN HIS POST AND NONE OF THEM ARE IN 36 POINT WITH VARIOUS COLORS FOR EMPHASIS! Plus, he never mentioned UFOs.
I miss the overwrought reaching for multiple words that are excessively, most weightily, HUMUNGOUSly, ........point to Quix’ vacuously open, inner-space-like, waste of bandwidth, densely soft, colorfully void words...hidden behind a facade of closeted 911 Truther and UFO angel beliefs.
Just sayin. But I wish him well.
For some things, sure. Judicial appointments, for starters. The system in Massachusetts was rigged to give maximum power to an extremely liberal, elected board to approve all judicial nominations. Romney created a new body that essentially made it more likely that nominations would be confirmed on a non-partisan basis. In an overwhelmingly liberal state in which Republicans/conservatives normally would have absolutely no chance at all, he gave them a better chance. I also like the folks he's retained to be his advisors on legal issues.
He also balanced the budget in Massachusetts, something Obama wouldn't even dream of at the federal level. So that's another plus.
Other than that, I don't care too much about his record in Massachusetts because he was dealing with state-level issues. If he is a believer in federalism, then I could care less about RomneyCare, because a federalist as President won't try to force it on the rest of us.
I understand those who want to keep all the emphasis on his time as governor of Mass. But I don't agree with that. Mass is/was the most liberal state in the country. The reality is that you can't get elected there without pandering to the left, and that's what I think he did. But if he really was a lefty at heart, there was no reason for him to ever be a Republican, nor is there any reason for him to have moved to the right after leaving office. He could have stayed right where he pandered. But he didn't.
Moreover, I think we are in fundamentally different times than we were in during the mid-2000's. Spending, the deficit, tax policy, and the overall burden of government and the trajectory going forward are well to the left of where we were. It is perfectly plausible to me that someone who is a moderate at heart could look at where we are and conclude that it is just too much. That whatever might be nice social policy during a time of relative plenty, that's not where we are now, and a different course is necessary.
I think Romney knows we are on the wrong course. He is not a stupid man, and knows what it takes to balance both corporate and governmental budgets. I do not think he is a true conservative at heart, but I also think he believes we are truly on an extremist course right now, and he wants to stop it. And whatever he may believe in terms of desireable social policies during times of plenty, I also think he believes that the private sector is the true engine of job creation, and that we need to be focusing on that rather than on expanding government employment.
In any case, Romney has come out in favor of Ryan's budget plan, and I support Ryan's plan. He's also come out in favor of repealing ObamaCare, so I support him on that as well. I figure that's likely to be more than 50% of the major issues he addresses.
I know there are few Republicans in the MA legislature -- actually there were more when Mitt came in than when he left. I'm guessing Mitt was invited by the MA GOP to run when Jane Swift was obviously going to be a washout; at any rate, she just folded her tent and slipped silently off into the night, and there was no primary.
All the (justified) complaints here on FR about the national GOP-e have been true of the MA GOP for years, no doubt why Mitt was such a good fit for them. I don't think the MA GOP has been conservative since the days of Calvin Coolidge! Actually, it's within living memory that there were many Dems in MA who were more conservative than the GOP. Ed King was our last conservative governor (1979-1983).
Roman catholicism is the essence of Antichrist in the Revelation.
Protestants are protesting Antichrist.
A man calling himself a priest is antichrist. Calling that man “Father” is antichrist.
Bowing to the Mary/Ishtar proxy is antichrist.
Reciting a prayer from a book, rather than from your heart is antichrist.
Reciting of creeds that mix truth with untruth is antichrist.
False.
Protestants are protesting Antichrist
False.
A man calling himself a priest is antichrist. Calling that man “Father” is antichrist.
False.
Bowing to the Mary/Ishtar proxy is antichrist.
True, but irrelevant. Catholics do not bow to a "Mary/Ishtar proxy".
Reciting a prayer from a book, rather than from your heart is antichrist.
False dichotomy, and false even as written.
Reciting of creeds that mix truth with untruth is antichrist.
True, but irrelevant. Neither the Nicene Creed nor the Apolstles' Creed, nor the Athanasian Creed contain even a single iota of untruth.
Clearly "Editor-SurveyorISM" (I have no idea what faith you profess, other than it's apparently not Christianity in any form) is a religion wallowing in falsehood.
Falsehood, by definition, is Anti Christ.
In all sincerity, I think you are deluding yourself here regarding our influence. There is absolutely no way you are going to convince even double digits of the population to vote third party just to send a message. At a minimum, there is a core 40-45% that is going to vote for Obama no matter what. And there are more than enough others in fear of the guy's reelection that they are going to vote ABO. I suppose the proof in the pudding will be seen in November, when we'll see if your theory of mass protest votes actually occurs. If you want to check back then to see which of us is right, I'm in.
Bruce, NO GUTS, NO GLORY.
Let's be really clear about what you mean by "guts and glory" here. You are asking the rest of us to take actions knowing they will result in the reelection of Barack Obama. To me, that is a sure loser, no win scenario. The Ryan budget will be DOA. ObamaCare will have zero chance of being repealed. We will definitely get more extremely liberal justices. It is a certain no-win. Where's the guts or glory in that? It's the political equivalent of the Judean People's Front Suicide Squad in Monty Python's Life of Brian.
The real risk, the real "guts and glory", is rolling the dice with Romney. He may piss us off, and he may betray what he's said during the campaign. But there's at least a decent chance that he won't. I'd much rather roll the dice and have a chance at winning, then make a symbolic statement that guarantees a loss.
Save it for the Religion threads.
This is about UFO’s and intergalactic conspiracies of 911 Trutherisms. .lol.
There are enormous, important differences between the Massachusetts state system for choosing Supreme Court justices and the federal system. Also the Massachusetts legislature has a very different political composition than does the U.S. Congress. Finally, the population of MA skews much more to the left as compared to the US population as a whole.
If you have a sincere interest in understanding what sort of justices a Pres. Romney might appoint, it would be a good idea to learn something about these differences.
You can find this information right here on Free Republic. It has all been explained here time, and time, and time again.
Yet for some reason it is still quite common to find FReepers who assume that what happened in Massachusetts will happen again nationally if Romney is elected President. The reason for this discrepancy remains officially unexplained.
LOL.
His 4th point “Mary/Ishtar” is smack in the middle of the UFO/LGM/Intergalactic Conspiracy thing ... I would never have known, until joining FR.
I agree that Howie is shilling for Mitt; probably for the same reason that I will support him. We know that whatever he is, he’s not even 1% as bad as Obama.
I live in a swing state (NH) and don’t want to conceive of another 4 years of Obama.
Mitt may not be Reagan, but he’s far more conservative than Obama, or John McCain for that matter. IMHO he’s to the right of GWB as well.
The alternative is Obama. I suggest that if you don’t live in a swing state, go ahead and send a message. If you do live in a swing state, do us all a favor and vote for the Republican.
Enjoy your embrace of darkness; its pointless to shine light on a pile of 1500 year old coal.
This is some pretty crazy stuff you got goin' here, gal!
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.