Posted on 12/15/2006 7:22:32 PM PST by FarRockaway
To: The Republican Party
I am a Christian conservative or social conservative. I am Pro-Life. I vote.
Rudy Giuliani is pro-gay, pro-gun control, and pro-abortion.
For these reasons and others, I state very firmly that I will not vote for Rudy Giuliani for President of the United States under any circumstances.
Senator John McCain has waffled on human cloning, has supported experimentation on human embryos, and has attacked prominent Christian clergy because of the, "evil influence that they exercise." John McCain has said of Pro-Life voters, on a public broadcast radio show, that they are, "otherwise intelligent people who say that that's the only issue that will determine their vote." McCain told the San Francisco Chronicle, "I would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade."
For these reasons and others, I state very firmly that I will not vote for John McCain for President of the United States under any circumstances.
Sincerely,
lol!
Your opinion about me, is worthless and of absolutely NO import to me.
Walter Martin? Who falsely claimed to be an ordained minister of the Southern Baptist Convention, even though his ordination was revoked in 1953? Who called himself Doctor even though he bought his degree from a diploma mill?
Can you believe this thread? I can't recall wasting so much time, but I could stop laughing.
Well, not voting is an option, but not the only one. You CAN vote for a third-party candidate or write-in a candidate. Of course, someone will say that's throwing your vote away. Maybe. Maybe not.
While I will do all I can to support the most conservative possible candidate thru the primaries, I will, if necessary "hold my nose" and vote for the eventual candidate knowing that I and the country are incrementally better off if our party is in control. If the next couple of years don't make my point, it will only be because the left is in hiding pending the next election, which I doubt will happen.
I'm sorry, but I'm not going to vote for somebody just because they have an (R) next to their name. Sometimes, things have to get worse before they get better. I can accept that. I recall as a kid being led to believe that it was the end of the world when Jimmy Carter was elected. Well, OK, it nearly was. LOL Seriously, if Ford had beaten Carter, I doubt Reagan would have even been the nominee in 1980, much less elected. Reagan probably would have never been president if the nation wasn't so soured on "Jimmah". If history must repeat itself, so be it.
Hitlery simply ain't on the list, either as a notional 'woman' or as a potential President. Combination of Xantippe, Madame Defarge, and any random Gorgon as far as I'm concerned.
In 1988, I supported the late (and lamented) Ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick for president, but, sadly, the fact of the matter is that she wasn't very interested in the job. So, we ended up with a resume running against a Marxist and the resume won. Yawn. I suppose that was 'good'. Yawn.
I would cheerfully support Secretary Rice for president, ignoring some fairly serious disagreements with her on policy, but -- frankly -- she's TOO smart. She wants a better job; Commissioner of the NFL...and I'm not being facetious in the slightest.
Bottom line with me: if Hitlery is the 'Rat candidate, and McLame is NOT the 'Pubblie candidate, I'll vote for the 'Pubbie, probably holding my nose. There is no conceivable circumstance on this planet that will make or allow me to vote for McLame. I said above, and I meant every word, that, in a Hitlery-McLame contest, I'd write in Vladimir Ilych Ulyanov, and I wan't joking in the slightest.
If, contrarily, the 'Rats get smart and nominate someone who SOUNDS reasonable -- say, Bayh, just to have an example -- the game is going to get very, VERY interesting.
Happy Christmas to you and yours!
This thread is actually where it belongs and your posts are partly responsible for it being where it is.
I know....I start feeling giddy. Or maybe it's delirium...
You said (to another poster) -- "You're just mad because she outed you for FR mailing anti-Mormon stuff."
Now, I don't know exactly what it was that this other poster sent. But, if what was sent were the *facts* about the Mormon religion -- in contrast to the Christian faith (as espoused by the Bible and the historic tenets of the faith, given over the centuries and agreed upon by many Christian denominations) -- then I say *Bravo* that some *truth* was sent.
What you're saying is exactly like the CAIR apologists for the Islamic terrorists -- when they cry "Foul" -- when someone "speaks the truth" about the evil nature of Islam.
You're falling into that "PC trap" in which you cannot dispute or say anything which contradicts the other person or it will make them "feel bad" -- oh boo-hoo!
The facts of what makes Mormonism a cult religion is well documented in Christian circles.
So, don't become the "CAIR" of Mormonism. Let the *facts* get out and be spoken.
Regards,
Star Traveler
As always and ever. :-(
Oooooooooooooooooooo....now THAT is going to leave a mark! LOL
"Your opinion about me, is worthless and of absolutely NO import to me."
Gee, don't you think I feel exactly the same way?
I'm done on this thread.
I'm here until my daughter and her boyfriend (who's visting from TX) go to bed.......... yawn.......
This is the Smoky Backroom, not Chat.
Chat is for Oprah, Paris Hilton and the Bush Twins.
You said -- "I am not interested in Mormonism or your anti-Mormon posts."
Well, maybe not you, but I'm sure that there are others who are, who are sitting there, simply reading and finding out new information that they didn't know before.
Your words are posted in this public forum and they're open for any comment or dispute or correction or agreement. If you don't want comments, just don't post. You won't get any.
Thus far, all of what I've posted is simply the truth -- although, admittedly, some may not like the truth (just like we hear from CAIR [the Islamic terrorist apologists], who doesn't like the truth, either).
Regards,
Star Traveler
Thats talking about Roberts and Alito...
I never looked it at that way. I wouldnt pick a judge based on whether I knew or didnt know their position on choice. Id pick a judge based on their overall record, how intellectually powerful are they, how accomplished are they, are they going to be fair.
Thats Rudy talking to chrissy "the Spitter" mathews.
I didn't look. Don't care.
Run away, run away, by all means, runs away! But the next time you appear, maybe you'll tell us why you prefer napkins to tampons.
I have tired of the "excitement" so I will say good night!
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.