Posted on 07/04/2012 1:16:13 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
What I know is that what ever evidence is presented to you about Romney: video, written (his own words or accounts) you dismiss them with a string of “its not true or distorted or not relevant or I don’t beleive it or whatever comes to your mind that day”.
I will say it again since you and I live in California your vote for Romney means nothing, just as my non vote for Romney means nothing.
As I’ve said earlier on this thread ... there’s no need for “deep conspiracies” here ... LOL.
It’s as simple — as — I knew (and know) Quix personally online, had discussed things with him and am able to tell others about him from my own personal and on-going experience. And THAT QUALIFIES me to be able to say things about about “Quix” on a thread which is - “about Quix”.
Now, see ... no need for deep conspiracies here ... :-)
If you didn’t think that the untruth and nonsense that you post here would contribute to Romney’s defeat then you wouldn’t post it.
“I know. I keep telling my kids to STOP CALLING ME DUDE!!”
DUDE! Chill! ;)
I have NEVER posted an untruth about Romney, you refuse to see it.
He’s descended to “neener neener” style debate. He has nothing. And he looks all the more fool for it.
Mr. Romney nominated 36 judges while governor, just nine of whom were Republicans. What he says of this record today is that the Massachusetts Governor's Council had to confirm the nominees, and the members of the council were all Democrats. So his answer was to nominate persons palatable to Democrats.
But this all-Democratic Governor's Council is effectively no different from the U.S. Senate. Even if, as I expect, Republicans gain a majority of the Senate this year, so long as Democrats have at least 41 members, they will be able to block by filibuster the confirmation of any Supreme Court nominee (or other federal judicial nomination, for that matter).
There is no evidence that Mr. Romney ever fought for a conservative nominee.
Well ... HELLO ... marbren. I just happened in on this thread about Quix, by accident and I see it’s quite interesting ... :-)
But, you’re EXACTLY RIGHT ... the day of the Lord Jesus Christ (i.e,. the Messiah of Israel) is at hand ... and he’s not coming to Salt Lake City! Guaranteed!
He’ll be coming to Jerusalem to set up his kingdom here on this earth and rule and reign over the nations (and they’ll be the nations we currently see here today - as it’s not too far ahead of us - in the lifetimes of many of us here).
Nice seeing you again!
Well, fancy that, conservatives at a conservative website are campaigning against a liberal Republican nominee as is the founder of the website. How shocking that conservatives would refuse to support a liberal of either party.
Actually, the only thing shocking about it is that a greater percentage here aren't opposing Romney.
The fact is that Romney had 100% control over who was nominated. He refused to even nominate moderate judges.
Tell us how things are going to be any different if Democrats control the Senate or if they threaten to filibuster. Romney doesn't have conviction or courage to fight for conservative nominees. He won't even waste political capital trying.
Okay, this really goes to the heart of the disagreement. You guys seem to be saying that the best course is to "whether the storm" under Obama, let the Democrats get the blame, and come back strong in 2016 with a truly conservative GOP candidate.
I think that is too late. ObamaCare is the 4th major entitlement program this country cannot afford, and if it is not repealed before it goes fully into effect in 2014, it will never be repealed. And by 2016, we will be too far down the road of fiscal irresponsibility/socialism for even the second coming of Ronald Reagan to save us.
Obama has shown that he will use executive orders, refusal of the Justice Department and ICE to enforce the laws, and every other dirty trick in the book to expand his power. By 2016, he likely will have crafted immigration and election policies that make election of a conservative impossible. We will be a permanent electoral minority.
On top of that, the fiscal cliff he is sending us over, the expansion of a new dependent class via ObamaCare, and the faceplant into Medicare insolvency will be too far gone to be reversed.
2016 is too late. Romney is certainly a risk, but given that he has at least promised to support Ryan's budget, opposes Obama's immigration moves, and supports repealing ObamaCare and making it a state issue, there is at least a chance that we can at least hold serve with him. We can halt the downward trajectory, and perhaps apply political pressure to him to make him hew as closely as possible to conservative values.certain loss on every one of those issues if Obama is reelected.
So there is a our fundamental disagreement. You think the country can weather the Obama storm until 2016, and I don't. So, my only option is to roll the dice with the guy who may do things differently.
I'd rather play Russian roulette with one chamber empty, than all of them loaded.
Correct. FR is a Conservative site. mitt and obie are liberals. Conservatives vote for Conservatives. Sometimes Conservatives are barely Conservative, but close enough. mitt isn't even close. He's a masshole liberal to the core. obie is a Chicago liberal to the core.
Why are you cheerleading for liberals on “America’s premier conservative web forum”?
The Evangelicals of today are in a long and historical line of Christians who have upheld the truth of the Scriptures as having the only binding authority upon the believer and no others (no churches or priests or pastors or leaders).
That’s also why I mentioned earlier the “basis” for - and the “grounding of” this faith of Christianity that they carry today. That was the posting I made regarding the “Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy”. That’s a foundational document for understanding their position on the Bible and what it means.
Here that reference is that I posted earlier ...
— — —
Background
The “Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy” was produced at an international Summit Conference of evangelical leaders, held at the Hyatt Regency O’Hare in Chicago in the fall of 1978. This congress was sponsored by the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy. The Chicago Statement was signed by nearly 300 noted evangelical scholars, including James Boice, Norman L. Geisler, John Gerstner, Carl F. H. Henry, Kenneth Kantzer, Harold Lindsell, John Warwick Montgomery, Roger Nicole, J. I. Packer, Robert Preus, Earl Radmacher, Francis Schaeffer, R. C. Sproul, and John Wenham.
The ICBI disbanded in 1988 after producing three major statements: one on biblical inerrancy in 1978, one on biblical hermeneutics in 1982, and one on biblical application in 1986.
The following text, containing the “Preface” by the ICBI draft committee, plus the “Short Statement,” “Articles of Affirmation and Denial,” and an accompanying “Exposition,” was published in toto by Carl F. H. Henry in God, Revelation And Authority, vol. 4 (Waco, Tx.: Word Books, 1979), on pp. 211-219.
The nineteen Articles of Affirmation and Denial, with a brief introduction, also appear in A General Introduction to the Bible, by Norman L. Geisler and William E. Nix (Chicago: Moody Press, rev. 1986), at pp. 181-185. An official commentary on these articles was written by R. C. Sproul in Explaining Inerrancy: A Commentary (Oakland, Calif.: ICBI, 1980), and Norman Geisler edited the major addresses from the 1978 conference, in Inerrancy (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1980).
Clarification of some of the language used in this Statement may be found in the 1982 Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics
http://www.bible-researcher.com/chicago1.html
— — —
And with that (i.e., the Bible) as the BASIS for understanding and teaching the historic and basic Christianity of the ages - that’s why you have these Christian (who believe in the Bible as the Word of God) criticizing very vocally the doctrines and teachings of the false institutions of Mormonism and Catholicism.
They represent in Biblical and Christian terms the ABSOLUTE LOSS OF ONE’S SOUL and (as the Bible explicitly says) - “eternal damnation”.
You are simply incapable of discussing ideas rationally.
We were talking about who Romney would appoint.
Now the subject is Democratic filibuster?
It would be up to the GOP Senate caucus to manage the Senate approval process of Romney’s judicial appointments, IF Romney is elected President, and IF we get GOP control of the Senate.
It is Romney’s job to keep his word as to who he’d appoint.
Try to post a little more coherently, m’kay?
I’ll have to sign up over there and talk to him, then. I never heard him say that while he was here, even privately - so this is news to me. But, I can find out since I’ve talked to him many times before. If so ... then I wouldn’t agree with it - but - from his perspective, I’ve seen him talking about the “new world order” (not 9/11 Truthers, though) where he correlates that with the world government of Satan, per the Bible, during the Tribulation time. That time is coming and it’s exactly what the Bible says, so I think some people confuse that idea in the Bible with 9/11 Truthers, sometimes. I’ll check it out and see if that’s what it is.
It figures you'd claim that because you can't refute the points I'm making.
You want to live a fantasy world and believe Romney is something he isn't or ever will be.
It's like Charlie Brown, Lucy and the football. You never learn that electing liberal Republicans doesn't work.
Why do you ask the same questions over and over and over again?
Is this a rational and honest and conservative thing to do?
Okay, this really goes to the heart of the disagreement. You guys seem to be saying that the best course is to "whether the storm" under Obama, let the Democrats get the blame, and come back strong in 2016 with a truly conservative GOP candidate.
I think that is too late. ObamaCare is the 4th major entitlement program this country cannot afford, and if it is not repealed before it goes fully into effect in 2014, it will never be repealed. And by 2016, we will be too far down the road of fiscal irresponsibility/socialism for even the second coming of Ronald Reagan to save us.
Obama has shown that he will use executive orders, refusal of the Justice Department and ICE to enforce the laws, and every other dirty trick in the book to expand his power. By 2016, he likely will have crafted immigration and election policies that make election of a conservative impossible. We will be a permanent electoral minority.
On top of that, the fiscal cliff he is sending us over, the expansion of a new dependent class via ObamaCare, and the faceplant into Medicare insolvency will be too far gone to be reversed.
2016 is too late. Romney is certainly a risk, but given that he has at least promised to support Ryan's budget, opposes Obama's immigration moves, and supports repealing ObamaCare and making it a state issue, there is at least a chance that we can at least hold serve with him. We can halt the downward trajectory, and perhaps apply political pressure to him to make him hew as closely as possible to conservative values.certain loss on every one of those issues if Obama is reelected.
So there is a our fundamental disagreement. You think the country can weather the Obama storm until 2016, and I don't. So, my only option is to roll the dice with the guy who may do things differently.
I'd rather play Russian roulette with one chamber empty, than all of them loaded.
A Republican President can pick a fight with with Senate democrats over nominations because he has a real chance of winning. There is a strong tradition of giving Presidents some discretion absent strong grounds to the contrary. There is also the threat of the a GOP majority to use the "nuclear option" to bypass a filibuster. That's how Bush got through Alito and Roberts.
But a GOP governor in Mass has no such leverage. He's not only facing an overwhelmingly Democrat board that must approve all his nominations, but an overwhelmingly Democratic electorate that is just not going to side with him on disputes over judicial nominees. In other words, and GOP President has a lot of leverage. A GOP governor of Mass has zero.
You lie. I did refute them.
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.