Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-42 next last
To: libertarian neocon
Is it better to be stabbed in the chest or stabbed in the back?
2 posted on
02/02/2012 9:24:32 AM PST by
ArcadeQuarters
(Stuck with a local RINO? Regardless of who you vote for, donate $$$ to a different district.)
To: libertarian neocon
Either way we feed the beast that needs to be starved.....
Starve the beast....eventually the beast will submit.
The beast being big gooberment of course.
To: libertarian neocon
Wrong question. The real question is which would be worse for the USA.
As another poster wrote, “would you rather be stabbed in the front of the chest or in the back?”
6 posted on
02/02/2012 9:26:49 AM PST by
Jemian
To: libertarian neocon
RINOmney is Obama lite.
Period.
7 posted on
02/02/2012 9:27:07 AM PST by
Da Coyote
To: libertarian neocon
No, just the fact that he’s Obama-lite shows that he would be better than the real Obama-heavy.
8 posted on
02/02/2012 9:28:15 AM PST by
stuartcr
("In this election year of 12, how deep into their closets will we delve?")
To: libertarian neocon
A Romney presidency says that we aren’t serious about solving Americas problems. It says that, just like the dhimmicrats, we are more concerned with appearances than we are with results.
He would functionally be better than the ruinous Øbozo, but the best he could ever do (being a liberal and all) is retard our decline, not arrest it. The question is like pretending that you can pick up a turd by the “clean end”.
9 posted on
02/02/2012 9:29:15 AM PST by
rockrr
(Everything is different now...)
To: libertarian neocon
10 posted on
02/02/2012 9:29:15 AM PST by
joe fonebone
(Project Gunwalker, this will make watergate look like the warm up band......)
To: libertarian neocon
. . .extremist conservative, be it Gingrich or Santorum. . .Extremist? Really?
13 posted on
02/02/2012 9:30:04 AM PST by
MEGoody
(Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.)
To: libertarian neocon
. . .extremist conservative, be it Gingrich or Santorum. . .Extremist? Really?
14 posted on
02/02/2012 9:30:11 AM PST by
MEGoody
(Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.)
To: libertarian neocon
No, for one reason: Supreme Court.
16 posted on
02/02/2012 9:31:09 AM PST by
PjhCPA
(Game On!)
To: libertarian neocon
17 posted on
02/02/2012 9:32:52 AM PST by
kosciusko51
(Enough of "Who is John Galt?" Who is Patrick Henry?)
To: libertarian neocon
Would a Romney Presidency Be Worse for the Conservative Cause Than a Second Term for Obama? According to Sen. Jim DeMint, no, it would not. He's said that Rombama's win in FL proves that the Tea Party can support Rombama. Ugghh :(
18 posted on
02/02/2012 9:33:41 AM PST by
Jane Long
(Soli Deo Gloria!)
To: libertarian neocon
If Obama wins, we get 4 more years of Socialism with hope for 2016. If Romney wins, We get 4 years of Socialism, and in 2016 we have him running for reelection as the Republican nominee, the Dem nominee, and a 3rd party.
19 posted on
02/02/2012 9:34:37 AM PST by
birdsman
(NAAWP)
To: libertarian neocon
It would be worse from my perspective simply because I don’t know if I could take another two years of the brown-nosing I’ve seen in the freshly-uncovered establishment media. Romney worship is spreading like a cancer over everything I used to enjoy listening to.
I don’t think you’ll have to wait until 2014 for a group of Tea Party renegades like yours truly to branch off into a third party, though. Any success of Romney’s candidacy spells the end of the GOP.
21 posted on
02/02/2012 9:36:31 AM PST by
Cato in PA
(1/26/12: Bloody Thursday)
To: libertarian neocon
Given the opportunity, Obama will appoint another leftist radical to the Supreme Court. And then, another. Would Romney do the same? I think the answer is worth pondering. I can think of only one compelling reason to ever consider voting for Romney as opposed to staying home, and this is it.
22 posted on
02/02/2012 9:37:02 AM PST by
andy58-in-nh
(America does not need to be organized: it needs to be liberated.)
To: libertarian neocon
CA would've been better off had RINO Arnold Schwarzenegger lost the governorship to Cruz Bustamonte.
He didn't do a damn thing to change the state's destructive glide path. What he did do was quiet the popular outcry against the state careening leftward, because now we had a republican in charge.
23 posted on
02/02/2012 9:37:19 AM PST by
skeeter
To: libertarian neocon
With Obama in, Republicans in Congress would be more united in opposing him.
With Romney in, Republicans in Congress would be divided in opposing any pro-socialism initiatives from him. Romney+RINOs+Democrats beats conservatives.
25 posted on
02/02/2012 9:38:29 AM PST by
PapaBear3625
(I'd agree with you, but then we would both be wrong.)
To: libertarian neocon
To: libertarian neocon
I have said many times if it is Romney and Obama, I will vote for Obama. Even though I have been a staunch Republican for over 40 years I will not be a hypocrite or liar. If I have the choice voting for a liberal or a Republican who is lying when he says he is not like Obama, I will vote for the liberal who is being honest. Romney is worse than Obama Lite, he is Obama wannabee and I will vote for the actual one.
DAMN, DAMN, DAMN.
To: libertarian neocon
Now just think about what having a Republican like that will do to the conservative cause in 2014 and beyond. Time and again, when Republicans start acting like 80%-ers (or RINO's, Democrat-Lites, etc.) the base stays home and the Republicans get decimated at the ballot box. After all, what is the point of voting for Republicans if they act like Democrats?
Yes. Precisely. Well argued. Great post. Thank you.
34 posted on
02/02/2012 9:56:59 AM PST by
Timaeus
(Willard Mitt Romney Delenda Est)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-42 next last
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson