Posted on 08/11/2012 4:42:48 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
Except for his unfortunate go along to get along support of TARP, bailouts, stimulus spending and the increased credit limit, etc, Ryan is a pretty good choice. Probably the best choice of the RINOS that were on Romney's short list. I support Ryan for the vice presidency. Wish he were at the top of the ticket, though.
But I still cannot and will not support the grand father of ObamaCare. Romney still loves and brags about his bastard brainchild, RomneyCare, even today when he knows what an anti-liberty socialist POS it is.
And the fact that he advocated that abortion should be safe and legal in America for over three decades of his adult lifetime and even advocated that Roe v Wade should be supported and sustained as settled law precludes any consideration whatsoever by this pro-life Christian for Myth Romney for the presidency.
And the fact that he boasted that he would be better for "gay rights" than Ted Kennedy, and proved it just increases my resistance.
That, and his penchant for gun control, his continuing support for global warming, gays in the scouts, gays in the military, and his record of appointing liberal judges makes it all but impossible for me to support him.
Lastly, we're having a bit of changeover on our moderator staff. At least two moderators resigned this afternoon after I flatly refused to rein in a so-called anti-Mormon "bigot" on FR. Well, if being in opposition to false prophets and false prophecy makes a Christian believer a bigot, then I guess I'm a bigot. I've posted before that I flat do not believe that the Book of Mormon is the true word of God. Nor do I believe that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God. The Christian bible warns us to be weary of false prophets and that I am. Romney being the presumptive Republican nominee does not change that fact.
When Sarah Palin declined,
***There’s a whole story there for conservatism, isn’t there? It’s not like she knew the GOP would have her back; in fact, she knew the GOP would actively sabotage her. Rush Limbaugh commented on that even today.
Today, the GOP is among the enemies of conservatism.
Let’s not hope that the puzzling, waffling Mitt Romney will beat Obama’s pants off, but let’s certainly hope that a gaggle of Congress critters with a nominal (R) will find the collective moxie to impeach Obama afterwards. (At which point we get President Biden and lose none of the apparatchiks! ‘Swonderful, as Gershwin would have put it.)
Has any broken into the tens of thousands of comments?
***The last time we had this many CINOs in an uproar was the bugzapper thread. more than 18,000 posts
If it weren’t so durn immoral, it would have actually served better if Sarah Palin had been a bull dyke. No Democrat would dare cross her.
Then you'll be the very first Mittens supporter to so state, calmly and in a straightforward manner.
That should make you feel proud. That should also make you feel appalled.
Your pictorial analogy of the voting tally is not entirely accurate.
For those of us, regrettably, presently locked into residence in unalterably blue states (or, I suppose, unalterably red ones, as well) -- which, obviously, is my particular point of reference: yes. Yes, it absolutely is.
So I'll say this now, and probably not again: If one is willing and able to abandon one's conservative principles to indirectly support Obama
Once again, #3401: Once you've finally managed to define "conservative" downwards to the point where all it means -- literally, the ONLY thing it still means -- is "Not Obama": then you're no longer part of any coherent, principled or intellectually defensible political ideology.
Period. End of sentence. End of paragraph.
I would say as others have said: My vote was, “IN EFFECT”, “for” Obama or I “INDIRECTLY” enabled Obama to win. So, when one or both of these caveats (the ones in quotes and capitalized in the previous sentence) are employed, when describing the third party “protest vote”, it is correctly stated. IMO.
***I’ve heard that right now there are democrap party aparatchiks browbeating democrats by saying that a vote for a third party librul is a vote for Romney. By that same reasoning, a vote for a third party conservative, we are constantly told, is a vote for 0bama. That means that a vote for a third party is worth 2 votes. That’s how all this fuzzy math ends up in the crapper where it belongs.
I'm not here 24/7/365.25 and could possibly have missed it but miss it 9 times? I seriously doubt it.
On the other hand, I'm the "World's Greatest Grandpa" and I have a coffee cup to prove it!
Flourine! How nice to meet you. I didn’t know that I was meeting Resettozero in Amarillo. I thought the North Texans were coming from Ft. Worth.
But it is all right if Hubby and I do meet him. I hope you’re there too.
I’m going to have a pretty new g u n, and I’m looking forward to using it at the TCMS in Corpus Christi.
Do you adhere to the Noahide laws?
***Name one person who does. Name one law that Jesus broke. Jesus fulfilled the law so that we christians don’t have to.
Oh; missed that; guess I moved on, too quickly. . .
You needn’t miss me, dear. You can always ping me, and if I’m around, you’ll certainly get an answer.
Perhaps Jim is a bit busy right now with the FReepathon and can’t get to cleaning up just yet. I_be_tc (courtesy ping) had a great idea for raising the balance of the goal, and the ‘thon team has been busy celebrating it.
Now, don’t be mean to our turkey buzzards. They do their bit for Mother Nature out there. ;-)
I’d try to stay on topic here, but I forget what the topic is... [giggles]
There was a vote? When did it happen?
Are we talking about Elsie? Then I vote YES!!
Does he get a trip to Disneyland? A bottle of wine and a basket of cheeses?
You had to avoid answering those questions, as did all the others.
And yet here you are, right in the middle of thread.....so that makes you?
The lunatics took over the asylum
***That’s how you view FR? Then why even post here?
the minute they decided
***JimRob is the one who ‘decided’ — the brouhaha is over the last paragraph in his article at the beginning of this thread. And it was people like you who got into an uproar over mormonism being called a cult, even though there have been mormonism threads on FR for a decade. Where were you when these threads were posted?
to make this about anti-Mormons
***First, they aren’t anti-mormon, they’re anti-mormonism. Second, if it were the lunatics who made it about anti-mormons, that makes you folks the lunatics.
and not politics, turning this site into a laughing stock and fodder for opposition in Congressional races.
***Your concern is duly noted, although your absence on mormonism threads is also duly noted. That makes you a thread troll.
You’re 2 fries short of a Happy Meal
Aw... [::scuffs toe of shoe in the dirt::] ... I don't wanna go around pestering you, is all. You've got... like... you know... important SITE-related things going on all the time, and stuff. ;)
I’d try to stay on topic here, but I forget what the topic is... [giggles]
From what little I can make out of the indecipherable aural goulash of trollish chitterings going on, hereabouts: "U NO VOTE ROMNEE Y U H8TE MORMUNS *Grrrrrrrrrrrr* yelp!" ;)
I’m sorry I do not know any North Tesans or how much their fort is worth. I’m just paid to answer his messages when he forwards his calls to me here in Guatemala City. I don’t even know what he looks like since he didn’t send me a picture when I asked. I’m sorry to hear that you have TCMS in Corpus Christi. Perhaps you can take some medication for that. Flourine
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.