Posted on 10/11/2007 5:04:00 PM PDT by Victory111
But the scenario is a Rudy vs. Hillary election. I wouldn't be happy about that, but if that's the scenario ... well, Rudy is by far the lesser of two evils.
And since NOBODY except the R and D candidates has a chance of winning, a "I'll never vote for Rudy" vote corresponds to "I don't care if Hillary wins."
It's dumb.
Have you given up on that fruitcake Ron Paul?
At this point a vote for Ron Paul is a vote for Rudy, which is a betrayal of the pro-life position and thus, a vote for Hillary.
Republicans must think hard before casting their votes in the primary. With a field of nutcakes and losers, like Ron Paul, Rudy can take the nomination with less than 30% of the primary vote.
Terrorists don’t recognize any “Right To Life” of any non-Muslim regardless of age or date of conception.
Without a strong position against the terrorists of the world, Right To Life issues will no longer surface.
Look harder at the main problem. Solve the rest later when the Radicals are totally defeated and eradicated.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
That's what I've been wondering. I simply don't remember.
I know in the general election that most states give all electoral delegates to the candidate who wins that state. There are a few states that appportion them based on percentage of vote for any candidate. Either method is constitutional.
However, the primaries are not a constitutional issue. They are a party issue.
Does each states convention delegates all go to the candidate who wins that state? or are they apportioned by percentage?
I do believe that most of the big states have adopted a “winner takes all” approach to the primary elections.
By Feb 5, Super Tuesday, there will have already been 1381 delegates up for grabs.
The winner "could" be crowned by Feb 5 and after only 28 states have had their primaries.
Duncan Hunter must stay in this race and try to become his state's favorite son, if for no other reason than to prevent this from being decided too early.
Of those 28 states, 13 are traditionally Rino Republican states, imho.
If a conservative is to emerge, he must do so quickly. Otherwise, the only way to stop the anti-life candidate will be with Romney.
Stick to making spitwads in the sandbox. Okie Dokie, OKIEDOC?
Comment:
I am making spit wads as I write.
If you want to control and censure what is said on FR as do many on the kook fringe liberal left, then you can always buy the web site and name.
That way you and a few other Freepers can have the site all to yourselves.
When a person argues with a closed mind, nothing is gained.
When you could no longer support your debate your tactics changed to that of a debaser and Nitpicker.
Most Nitpickers are liberal but we do have several on FR and your Third Grade remarks certainly qualify for the designation.
By the way spell checker can be your friend.
BTW:
You claim to be a Christian but your extreme remarks on this thread will do nothing more than drive most nonbelievers away from Christ.
Have a good day:)
No it doesn't. We can still always vote for a third party candidate or not vote at all.
But unless Rudy gets the nomination (and I think that is less likely every day), this evangelical will likely vote for whoever DOES get the nomination.
LOL Nothing like a little hysteria. Calm down, honey. The big bad 'religious zealots' aren't going to hurt you.
Or is it that those who refuse to vote Rudy at any cost are responsible for electing Hillary!
Personally, I haven't made up my mind, and I don't have to because I don't live in a state that will decide on the Republican candidate. But whomever it is, I will help them campaign, and I will vote for them, because to do anything else guarantees Hillary! will win.
The biggest question I have is how many Democrat trolls are running around in FR stirring up a split in the Republican party over such issues, knowing Hillary! will benefit either way.
Yes, there are obvious differences between slavery [extending the right of liberty] and abortion [extending the right to life], but from the Government’s perspective, it is not that much different. The reason why the rights were not extended in both cases was due to political expediency. We fought a civil war over one of those rights, with ~200k dead as a result. The dead from abortion is 200X higher.
I appreciate your analysis of what’s going on with Hunter. If the evangelical leaders don’t get behind him, they’ll end up with Fred “I won’t dance to your tune” Thompson, or the nightmare Rudy. I can accept Fred, but Duncan is better and the biggest group that could have made it happen was these evangelical leaders. They are cooking their own goose.
I’ve been on FR since 1998, and my views match those of many Christian conservatives on this site.
We will not violate our allegiance to God just so Rudy can get a better shot at the presidency.
It won’t happen.
All of that has been asked & answered on the bugzapper thread. Freepers lost their posting privileges for supporting this scumbag socialist using the same techniques of untenable argumentation.
Any republican who supports such a divisive candidate is, as you call it, dumb.
The main reason why people continue to support tootyfruityrudy is that they agree with him. They do not support the founding principles of this social conservative forum, which is NOT a GOP website. Basically, anyone defending tootyfruityrudy on this website after they’ve been notified of the bugzapper thread is a troll.
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.