Posted on 02/02/2008 11:15:28 AM PST by TheLion
Romney, the former Massachusetts governor, had 59% of the vote with 3% of the towns holding caucuses reporting. Ron Paul trailed with 19%, John McCain had 18%, and Mike Huckabee and undecided votes each had about 2%.
(Excerpt) Read more at kjct8.com ...
No, but it may have been an honest misrepresentation of what I said. What you described were sleepers. What I described were recently registered spam-bots who don't participate in the forum in any meaningful way.
The ground covered by hundreds of posts over several hours can still be covered pretty quickly with a couple of mouse clicks.
I know, I know, the Zogby poll. We were just talking about it. He can still win but everyone has to stop all this defeatist talk.
That is FAR superior to anything McCain or Obama and Hillary will offer, you are correct. : )
Great chart Jane, thankyou! : )
MITT is this you?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9c3xJdFbJGw&NR=1
Is Your real name Willard? Just checking the facts.
Oh by the way prove it...
Amazing, a liberal state like maine voting for the conservative.
Maybe there is hope!
Nope.
"and can see that Romney’s soul is gone..."
Yup.
"...you are one judgemental person."
We all judge. You're judging me.
"Romney’s family speaks alot for the good job he has done as a father."
A presumption for which you have no idea. I say he has lost his soul in the pursuit of power. His actions, his record, and his lack of character and ethics are a testament to that.
Obviously pro-life now ? Baloney. You're a fool if you believe ANY of his "conversions." If this guy were a Democrat with the exact same record, would you be blindly accepting his stances ?
"He also wants to lower taxes and eliminate the capitol gains and death tax."
More worthless promises from a master liar.
"Ummmm, looks like a good deal to me."
Like that bridge he wants to sell you in Brooklyn.
"Maybe I will still have my soul after I vote for Mitt, what do you think?"
You're the one trying to convince yourself that he is a Conservative, even though there is nothing in his record to prove it. You're just fooling yourself.
"Forget it, I believe you are lost in your thinking, that’s your problem. Lost in thought so you can’t see your quiet commonsense."
Facts tell me the man is a chronic and pathological liar who will say and do anything to get elected. I submit that you are the one lacking in any sense or thinking in pretending the mountain of evidence demonstrating that fact (and review the thousands and thousands of posts as proof -- they're all over FR) simply doesn't exist. You need to grow up and smell the baloney.
There is, additionally, an even greater difference between stating criticisms about a candidate's past/present record and wishing ill on the candidate (i.e., "I hope he falls flat on his face")...apparently, it's okay if people are "ripped to shreds" because they state valid criticisms/post information and it's justifiable to state that one hopes a candidate falls flat on his face, as long as those things are coming from a particular side.
I happen to disagree with your perspectives, not only on the best candidate to support, but also on the people you think are most guilty of "ripping to shreds" posters, whether posted directly to them or posted to others about them.
The true Republicans will wait till the results are in, Coulter is pandering to crowd for media dollars, and the liberal dems are in here pushing Romney.
He has very little credible Republicans behind him, Huckabee has more as you will se on Tuesday.
Romney is showing only 17% support among the Republican base.
As reported this mornig on Fox News.
Thanks for the info. It is all so complicated.
From your first post: check the sign-up date and look at their posting history. You'll find that most of these people have never been active here, don't participate in any other discussions and show all the signs of being paid political operatives.
What I understand you to mean, from the above post, is your description of both sleeper cells ("most of these people have never been active here" by definition would mean "sleeper cells" and NOT include NEW signups) and new signups (because you used the word "and" to connect all of your thoughts, and you did not use the word "or" to separate the posters, it cannot necessarily be inferred that you were intending to mean NEW signups; however later comment of yours I believe altered your comment).
And no, this type of thing really isn't worth the amount of time necessary to continue looking for your clarification of what you posted subsequent to post #176. It all comes down to quibbling over what you said and what you later said you meant.
I maintain that I fairly represented what you posted, as was posted in #176, from the get go, that being: Your intimation was that some people are only here to post as bots, trolls, or shills against a particular candidate, and in particular, Romney [whether or not they are sleeper cells OR new sign ups]. I earlier have addressed your comment several times and I think we even agreed on particular points you later made.
Your welcome.
The Maine Caucus To Pick Who’s Unpledged
Maine’s Republicans are voting today. And tomorrow and Sunday. They’re caucusing up there.
Only Republicans and previously unregistered can vote:
Any registered voter enrolled in the Republican Party may participate in the town in which they are registered.
If you are new to town and haven’t registered to vote or if you’re registering to vote for the very first time, you may do so 30 minutes before the caucus at the location of the caucus.
If you are registered to vote but not enrolled in ANY party (you are listed as “Unenrolled” on our towns voter list), you can enroll as Republican 30 minutes before the caucus at the location of the caucus.
If you are enrolled as a Democrat or Green Independent and you wish to participate in the Republican Caucus, you CANNOT switch parties at the caucus; you must change your enrollment at least 15 days prior to the caucus at your town office.
As usual, because it’s a caucus, there are bizarre rules. Among them, apparently all of Maine’s delegates are supposed to be unpledged, no matter what happens:
6 district delegates are elected by caucus participants from each of Maine’s 2 Congressional districts. These delegates will attend the Republican National Convention officially “Unpledged”. [The Rules of the Maine Republican Party as Adopted at Convention on May 5, 2006. Rule 32-A.]
CD 1: 3
CD 2: 3
12 delegates are elected by the Maine State Convention as a whole. These delegates will attend the Republican National Convention officially “Unpledged”.
3 party leaders, the National Committeeman, the National Committeewoman, and the chairman of the Maine’s Republican Party, will attend the convention as unpledged delegates by virtue of their position.
Having said that, there’s unpledged, and then there’s “unpledged.” Those delegates have to vote for somebody when they get to the Republican National Convention.
Just my take of it.
:)
I think if romney was the republican candidate in the race vs...say...obama alot of these ‘romney is the worst thing ever grrrr’ people would begin to slowly realize that obama (or hillary) is actually much worse and come round.
I really don’t like the anti-romney attitudes towards the people who would rather see him in than the other three. It is petty and sulky. It also takes out anger on people who are actually other conservatives not liberals. Its really quite lame.
as for me i am voting for the guy with the most conservative platform on tuesday and hoping for the best. Because sometimes you cannot have just what you want have to make do with what you have.
So in fact to date there are no new delegates in MITT ROMNEYS column today.
Your metaphor doesn't work as you think it does, at least not at this time in this country where we try hard to treat both brain cancer and AIDS:
5 year survival of brain cancer: 34% source: 2007 ACS stats (from table 13 on page 65 of the downloadable PDF)
3 year survival of AIDS (after US DX in 2001): 84% source: CDC
Yes, I'm comparing 5 and 3 year survival rates. The latter was the best I could pull out of the mountain of CDC's AIDS stats in the amount of search time you merited. I believe the 5 and 5 year comparison data would look much the same. Speaking as a physician, AIDS in the US is now a chronic disease, compatible with a normal life expectancy, if the patient is just smart enough to seek medical help and comply with it. Of course if the "patients" were really smart they wouldn't have gotten it in the first place as it's nearly 100% preventable by "good" behavior. There are some long term survivors with brain cancer, I have a friend who is one. There are some kinds of brain cancer that can be cured, a claim that can't be made for AIDS. But overall, statistically, AIDS is a more survivable label with which to be tagged than "brain cancer."
Thus, by your metaphor, if "McCain is brain cancer and Romney is AIDs," then we should be voting for Romney!
Your metaphor sadly still could be right in one way. McCain could literally become "brain cancer." I've seen a lower risk facial melanoma than his summer 2000 one recur as brain metastases seven years later. He was my patient and the uncle of a friend and died in a couple months. Treatment for such mets hasn't improved in the 23 years since.
This is starting to resemble McCain’s misrepresentation of Romney’s position on the surge. It’s beyond silly at this point.
I know what I said, I know what I meant, and I know I addressed the matter of “established posters” in another separate post... not the one you’re misrepresenting.
But really, anyone bored enough to care can check the string and decide for themselves.
fofl. Now I'm "misrepresenting" you by posting your actual post....but I'm supposed to keep track of where you clarified what you said first so that if I happen to not state the "right" quote the "exact" way I'm misrepresenting your own paraphrase. Exactly why I said I did a fairly good job representing what you meant, in context if not in spirit, because, contrary to what you just stated early, it's really NOT such a simple matter to go back through the threads and find the EXACT quote you would have me use. It's long been beyond silly that you felt the need to even initially state that I misrepresented your meaning. I got the gist of it.
An interesting take, but I look at it from this perspective: Some, if not many, can be treated and recover from cancer. It is not in itself an instant death sentence. But with AIDS, while one can stave off some aspects of the symptoms with treatment, that ultimately is a death sentence (since there is no known cure for any virus). But having either ones as metaphors for the 2 leading candidates is quite damning. I support, of course, neither.
I stated on several other occasions that I don’t expect McCain, if elected, to survive to the end of his term. Setting aside the cancer, the long term physical damage he endured in a VC prison camp, a man of his age who never had to battle serious illness or torture would be reaching his normal, natural life expectancy shortly (and add to that the stressful and demanding job of the Presidency — we saw how much it aged both Clinton and Dubya, both some 2 to 2 1/2 decades younger at the start of their terms, at 46 and 54, respectively). He is now older than his father, Admiral McCain, Jr., was when he died. So from a morbid perspective, going with McCain if he selects a Conservative (Fred Thompson or Mark Sanford) as a running mate, we would get our Conservative President before long. Something we won’t get with Romney.
No, you simply read something into my initial post that wasn't there. If you put the full quote of what I said next to what you paraphrased, they're not the same thing. It isn't complicated. You added your own two-cents about "much older join dates" and attributed it to me. For what purpose, I'm not entirely sure.
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.