Free Republic
Browse · Search
GOP Club
Topics · Post Article

To: Does so; Norm Lenhart; All
Excuse me.

I wish some "Homer" could see that Obama is truly Evil—and Romney was not.

Romney was okay with using government to force adoption agencies to cooperate with would-be homosexual adoptive "parents" on the pretense that it would be immoral not to -- discrimination, don't you see, at a time when NO ONE is clamoring for laws outlawing homosexuals from adopting kids -- Romney is evil enough to advocate for laws that outlaw rejecting open homosexuality freely and civilly, by telling it to go somewhere else.

Romney endorsed and praised, as Governor, "Gay Youth Pride" school outreach to kids as young as 12, and even younger.

Homosexuality is only a sin. EVIL is using the force of government to insist that you and yours go along with it and pretend that it's just fine. THAT is evil. Romney and Obama were BOTH very bad news, big mistakes, amoral tyrants. Voting for one was as nuts as voting for the other.

President Reagan would not have approved of staying home.

You got that one correct. I'm decently informed politically and therefore have a moral duty to vote because people shed blood for me to have that right. If I was politically ignorant, I'd have the moral duty to stay home and refrain from voting.

So in 2012, for the first time in 40-plus years of voting straight Republican, I viewed it as my MORAL duty to vote third party and use what little power I had to make sure that whichever evil amoral government abuser and tyrant won, would have just that much less of a mandate.

If you're going to have an amoral pro-government tyrant of either Republican or Democrat persuasion, he ought to go in with the minimum of votes as a brand that the balance of Americans told him to go to hell. The media claimed Clinton was "popular," but a majority of American voters opposed him both times he was elected. He got hammered by the Republican Revolution, and then impeached. He was weak because of the plurality, and that was a good thing.

So yep -- President Reagan would not have approved of staying home. He would also have been disgusted at informed Republicans gullible enough to be cowed into voting FOR tyranny, and tricked into voting for the Republican party to turn hard left. He would have been mad as hell.

63 posted on 05/26/2015 5:54:39 PM PDT by Finny (Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path. -- Psalm 119:105)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies ]


To: Finny
If you're going to have an amoral pro-government tyrant of either Republican or Democrat persuasion, he ought to go in with the minimum of votes as a brand that the balance of Americans told him to go to hell.

We know today that President Obama created ISIS for the Muslim Brotherhood—the most brutal regime in my lifetime.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/world-news/asia/item/20943-u-s-intel-obama-coalition-supported-islamic-state-in-syria

Voting third party or staying home to spite Romney has affected thousands of Middle-Eastern Christians—particularly in the beheadings of Christian children. Would Romney have brought millions of Middle-Easterners here posing as "refugees"?

I think I'm right about Reagan's overall view of "White-Hat" Americans.

72 posted on 05/26/2015 6:29:37 PM PDT by Does so (SCOTUS Newbies Will Imperil America...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
GOP Club
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson