To: Toadman
A vote for the lesser of two evils is still a vote for evil.
No Wiilard vote. Ever.
10 posted on
04/27/2012 7:04:58 PM PDT by
Keith in Iowa
(Willard Romney, purveyor of the world's finest bullmitt. | FR Class of 1998 |)
To: Keith in Iowa
I don’t think there’s any danger of scum sucker Romney defeating scumbag Obama.
I’m too old for this stupid game of pretending that we’ll get a conservative candidate in 4 years. That’s just a scam to keep the slaves on the Grand Old Plantation. We have to make a stand at some point and I ain’t getting any younger.
15 posted on
04/27/2012 7:10:32 PM PDT by
cripplecreek
(What does it profit a man if he gains the whole world but loses his soul?)
To: Keith in Iowa
A vote for the lesser of two evils is still a vote for evil. Yes, but how did that work for us with Perot in 92. By not voting for the lesser evil, the greater evil was elected with less than 50% of the popular vote.
That said, let's give Goode a look before giving up and voting ABO.
21 posted on
04/27/2012 7:12:57 PM PDT by
TwelveOfTwenty
(With choices like Palin, Cain, and Bachmann, what could go wrong? Now we know.)
To: Keith in Iowa
So, you logic:
Hitler vs. Mitt.
Now Wiilard vote. ever.
Brilliant.
81 posted on
04/27/2012 8:35:27 PM PDT by
Pigsley
To: Keith in Iowa
What if Romney adds Palin as VP . Anyone can croak you know . Then we'll have President Palin now or in a few years down the road anyway as people would be exposed to the real Palin not the false Palin the big media satanically created to destroy her.
164 posted on
04/28/2012 2:49:25 AM PDT by
rurgan
(Sunset all laws at 3 years. China makes everything taking U.S. ability to manufacture)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson