Romney takes bribes.
Posted on 08/31/2009 8:38:40 PM PDT by Extremely Extreme Extremist
BOSTON, Aug. 30 (UPI) -- Republican former U.S. presidential hopeful Mitt Romney is quietly raising millions of dollars as he prepares for the 2012 campaign, analysts say.
Observers say that since he lost the GOP presidential primaries last year, the former Massachusetts governor has shown his usual competitiveness and discipline in keeping his presidential aspirations in play, The Boston Globe reported Sunday.
"He lost a tough race," New Hampshire state Sen. Jeb Bradley, a Republican former member of the U.S. House, told the newspaper. "After that, Mitt could have done anything he wanted with his life: back to the non-profit world or start a new business. But what has he been doing? He's kept at it. He's been busting his butt since losing more than anyone I have ever seen."
(Excerpt) Read more at upi.com ...
Despite your defense of the indefensible actions of
reprehensible Willard “I-am-Myth” Romney, there is
a lot of evidence, which supports fieldmarshaldj’s use
of bold.
Post #85, which is the ‘tip of the iceberg’ (want more?)
shows that many people observed this, in a timely-fashion
(ie. Team Romney was exposed).
Shame on the RomneyBOTs who attacked Gov. Palin and her
children, to throw Election2008, and on RomneyBOTs
who try to ‘spin’ history to cover it up.
C’mon, Charles, that’s a dumb comment. You know full well if I’m quoting from someone else in my post, I use boldface to distinguish my remarks from theirs regardless of subject matter. If I wrote in CAPS, then you’d have a point. As for the rest, the evidence is there, I’ve seen the guy in action for 15 years, I’ve battled with his paid agents since 2006. There is a whole psychological element to this guy that pervades everything he does, and that it is harmful to everyone else (I submit he was the most psychologically unfit man of the major candidates on the “R” side to run for President). Just because you disagree or refuse to see the obvious evidence doesn’t make it any less so.
I’m frankly disturbed that while you proclaim yourself a Conservative, you profess a certain level of glee that you’d like to see the rest of our reactions - “heads explode” - were he to lie, cheat, steal, and buy his way into the nomination in ‘12, all the while knowing everything this man has done in a harmful, negative way, and knowing the likely consequences of such a nomination (the reelection of the current regime). That calls into question what your own personal agenda and motives are, Charles.
Actually, I had no idea you were quoting someone else. There were no quotes, no link, no name of who you were quoting, and it wasn’t from the linked comment.
If there had been any of these things, I wouldn’t have made the joke. I actually figured you were thinking about quoting, left the bold, but didn’t quote, and was just making fun of that.
First, it's only a few people who it would be fun to see their reaction.
Second, I don't believe he has lied, cheated, or bought his way into anything yet; and other than the basic and meaningless argument that ANY candidate with money could be considered as "buying" his way if he uses his own money in his campaign -- if the person was beloved, such a move would be treated as a great sign of individual responsibility.
Third, I don't believe Romney would be a disaster as President, either for the Country or for the party. I know some people do, but if I did, I wouldn't have ever supported him as one of my candidates.
Fourth, I don't believe all the stories told by people with agendas claiming harmful acts by Romney; I believe there is some kernel of truth to some stories, and others are fabrications.
You had no idea ? That was your quote at the start of the post. Are you going to tell me you’re unaware of what you wrote right after you wrote it ?
The entire GOP field appears a bit weak, but it is too early to tell. Who would have predicted two years ago that some hard left first term senator would take the White House?
Charles, most of us wonder who is this mythical person you seem to believe Slick Willard is, this harmless fuzzball. Most of us know who he is, what he is, and what he has done, and what he will do, yet you (willfully ?) choose to ignore it all (or play it down), despite the mountains of evidence, links, articles, personal experiences and the like. Again, I ask, why ?
Of course I know that is my quote. You also put it in quotes, and it appeared in the comment you were replying to.
That was really an insane attempt by you to confuse the issue.
We were discussing the BOLD part of your comment, which I joked about being bold, which you now assert is a QUOTE of someone else, but have yet to explain who.
It wasn’t MY quote. It wasn’t a quote from the thread, so far as I can tell. It didn’t have quotation marks, or a reference. So yes, I was unable to ascertain what was in your head.
Remember, I’ve never pretended to be a mind-reader, like so many others here.
THere is a vocal minority here that seems to “know” all about this mythic Mitt Romney, who has the power to do just about anything evil you can think of.
Most of us, including a sizeable minority of the conservatives that make up the Republican party, never saw Romney the way you did. We read all the posts, looked through the links, heard the arguments, but were not persuaded.
This includes not only a fair number of Freepers, who while not supporting Romney as their first choice, were ready to vote for him if necessary, and said so in Freeper polls. This includes Rush Limbaugh, who NEVER would have supported people voting for Romney if he saw Romney the way you did.
This includes public officials who are conservatives who supported Romney. While other people’s endorsements are not particularly persuasive to prove anything, they certainly would NOT have supported Romney if he was the devil incarnate that the few here at FR paint him to be.
This includes some heavy-hitting conservatives, some think tanks, some organizations that again, may have been mistaken, but would never have supported a candidate who was anything like what the few here painted Romney to be.
Now, every one of us could be dead wrong. Romney could in fact be the diabolical person described here. But there are simply too many people who reject the claims made by the few here for you to argue that it is US that are willfully ignorant of the truth.
The opponents of Romney have had to burn down a fair amount of the conservative support structure to keep up their mythos of the uber-evil genius; because in order to keep their facade that only fools couldn’t see this “truth”, they have had to label as fools many people who otherwise are solidly on the conservative side and have been persuasive advocates for our positions.
Interestingly, I have seen your group using selective amnesia now, because I think you all understand the insanity of burning down the village to save it. So Rush Limbaugh gets a pass, as do other well-known and popular conservative pundits. Elected officials running for office now who were Romney endorsers, active in his campaign, are now given a pass for their “indescretion”.
But you still need bogeymen, so the rediculous attacks continue on people who supported Romney but who otherwise have no real power or authority. Who knows how many good conservative workers have been turned off by the childish tactics — not me of course, because as I’ve said many times I won’t judge my values based on anonymous internet postings.
But I know strong conservatives who are sick of it, and have left. And I’ve seen the “glee” in the posts of the few here who celebrate the destruction of their own in the name of their ill-conceived purity.
Romney could be everything you claim him to be, but people who know him personally, and who I have spoken to personally, and who are seen as impeccable conservatives, disagree vehemently with your anonymous postings.
So forgive me if I give more credence to the people I see, who I can look into the eyes of, people of KNOWN character.
BTW, to illustrate the problems I have with the Romney stories here, it still amazes me that so many freepers give any credence to the absurd notion that Romney could have stopped Gay Marriage in Massachusetts. This concept, pushed by an organization but which has no legal or logical basis, demeans those who believe it, and weakens any arguments they may try to make about Romney, or really anything else.
Anyway...
You can post lots of links, but if they are all to people who have no idea what they are talking about, it doesn’t help your argument.
I love the links with titles like “experts”, when the people who are talking are obviously not experts.
We’ve been through this, so you know the argument, and since I’ve seen you occasionally act in an intelligent fashion I have to assume that in this case your agenda is worth more to you than your reputation for logical thought.
Because anybody who looks at the actual history here in the real world will know that the arguments made in your links is stupid and indefensible.
We have a large contingent of highly trained lawyers who are opposed to gay marraige and are fighting it around the country.
Not a single one of those lawyers took any action to implement the absurd argument made about Romney in this matter. None of them signed on to the argument. None of the contemporary writings on the court case gave a hint at the absurd claims made later.
We were all alive and reading the news the day the Supreme Court of Massachussetts legalized gay marriage.
And every one of us understood that this is what happened. Heck, there are even archives on FR about the ruling, and what it really meant.
The argument made months later by an anti-Romney group that somehow the entire world was wrong, that the court in fact has no power, and that we were all hysterical about nothing is an argument that gives arguments a bad name.
In summary — the argument being made by the anti-Romney folks is that the left spent millions of dollars to win a court case that did absolutely nothing, that the court’s rulings have absolutely no effect, and that the entire nation was wrong when it said that the court legalized gay marriage.
"THere is a vocal minority here that seems to “know” all about this mythic Mitt Romney, who has the power to do just about anything evil you can think of."
Of course you are being cheeky here. A full majority of Free Republic recognizes him for what he is. :-)
"Most of us, including a sizeable minority of the conservatives that make up the Republican party, never saw Romney the way you did."
That's because they refused to see what was plain as day, or had the audacity and stunning stupidity to take a renowned pathological liar at his word. Too many just chose to look the other way because McCain was so bad and Huckster, too (although with only modest exceptions, Huckster and Slick Willard were like two peas in a pod).
"We read all the posts, looked through the links, heard the arguments, but were not persuaded."
Nonsense, Charles, nonsense. I will state with 100% certainty, speaking to the brigades on FR, that no posts were read, no links were looked at, and no arguments listened to. How so ? Because after these same individuals were informed as to the truth, they carried on with the same repeating of lies, propaganda, and filthy attacks - and those just on the people that dared speak the truth. I should know, I was at the forefront of the receiving end.
"This includes not only a fair number of Freepers, who while not supporting Romney as their first choice, were ready to vote for him if necessary, and said so in Freeper polls."
See above, that had to do with the unfounded fear that McCain was worse than he. He wasn't (but, yes, McCain was still bad -- the last 3 primary leaders were all very bad).
"This includes Rush Limbaugh, who NEVER would have supported people voting for Romney if he saw Romney the way you did."
Charles, Charles, Charles. You should know better than to repeat that lie. You're reading right off the talking points page of the Slick Willardbot manual. That ranks almost right up there with the "you hate/oppose Slick Willard because he's a Mormon."
"This includes public officials who are conservatives who supported Romney."
Every time one of those "endorsements" came out, we personally reviewed them. Virtually all were suspicious.
"While other people’s endorsements are not particularly persuasive to prove anything, they certainly would NOT have supported Romney if he was the devil incarnate that the few here at FR paint him to be."
I always said, "follow the money." It always leads to the truth.
"This includes some heavy-hitting conservatives, some think tanks, some organizations that again, may have been mistaken, but would never have supported a candidate who was anything like what the few here painted Romney to be."
Again, Charles, follow the money. We were here all the time going over those one by one, every day, picking them apart. Where were you ?
"Now, every one of us could be dead wrong. Romney could in fact be the diabolical person described here. But there are simply too many people who reject the claims made by the few here for you to argue that it is US that are willfully ignorant of the truth."
Again, these aren't "claims" made by "few." This is the stated belief and knowledge that this man was attempting to purchase through fraud and deception, the 2008 Republican Presidential nomination. Majority belief, Charles. The belief of the owner of this website, Charles, who made his position clear. This was based upon a close scrutiny of the individual in question. So, yes, Charles, every one of you were dead wrong. People of good conscience could not merely sit by and allow this to happen, and thank heavens we raised enough awareness to put a stop to it. After-the-fact statements of "Oh, I guess you were right after all" are absolutely worthless after the damage was done. I was just as adamant 6 years ago stopping Ah-nold from becoming Governor of California, and everything I said about him before he won the office came true - and worse.
"The opponents of Romney have had to burn down a fair amount of the conservative support structure to keep up their mythos of the uber-evil genius; because in order to keep their facade that only fools couldn’t see this “truth”, they have had to label as fools many people who otherwise are solidly on the conservative side and have been persuasive advocates for our positions."
See, Charles, when you use these ridiculous phrases like "evil", "uber-evil genius", etc, it really doesn't reflect well on you. You use them to dismiss any well-founded accusations and examples of his public conduct while in office and actions while campaigning. There are bad people in politics that seek personal gain at the expense of others, the community, their states, or their country, and they don't care what they do in order to get it and keep it. Most of those people are in the Democrat party, but there's a minority of them in the GOP, and we must endeavor to expose them and run them out (or stop them before they reach a position of power). I am only sorry I didn't speak forcefully against him before he became Governor of MA, because I was fool enough to take him at his word, even though there was already enough evidence he had no intention of fulfilling his promises. But yes, Charles, those that would take this liar at his word are either fools or are accomplices. Fortunately, most politicians get only one opportunity with me. They either keep their word and do what they say, or they will never enjoy my support again. It's that simple, Charles.
"Interestingly, I have seen your group using selective amnesia now, because I think you all understand the insanity of burning down the village to save it. So Rush Limbaugh gets a pass, as do other well-known and popular conservative pundits. Elected officials running for office now who were Romney endorsers, active in his campaign, are now given a pass for their “indescretion”."
And you repeat this lie again, Charles. A debunked talking point. When you continue to repeat it, it makes it hard to take anything you say seriously. You continuously state your fervent belief that Slick Willard was remotely acceptable, let alone a believable, accomplished Conservative when everything in his record and behavior is to the contrary. You aid his cause of fraud when you repeat the lies and accuse those of documenting his conduct, behavior, and lies as somehow a fringe element. I'm sorry, Charles, but I say to damnation with those that consider speaking the truth on politicians is to be mocked or scorned.
"But you still need bogeymen, so the rediculous attacks continue on people who supported Romney but who otherwise have no real power or authority. Who knows how many good conservative workers have been turned off by the childish tactics — not me of course, because as I’ve said many times I won’t judge my values based on anonymous internet postings."
Nor apparently will you judge based on the truth, either. That speaks more to flaws in yourself than anything else. See, Charles, one reason why I appreciate this website is that, for the most part, people are honest around here. Because not one individual can keep up with everything in the political realm (heavens knows I try, but tracking thousands of elected officials is beyond a single human being's capacity), we have many on here who do. We tend to value each other's opinions and judgments, because they're usually based on a generally shared goal (with a modest level of differences), so that basically when one respected FReeper makes a statement regarding an elected official, you can generally take it to the bank. But when some FReepers of a more malevolent nature, those that do not share our goals and values, come here to spread mistruths and slander against Conservatives and Conservatism, these trolls bring dishonor to this website.
As I've told the diehards, if you truly believe this man is wonderful, and so incredibly accomplished and successful - in your opinion - well, you're entitled to your opinion. You're entitled to believe in the Tooth Fairy, the Great Pumpkin, and Santa Claus. You're entitled to believe the sun rises in the west. You're entitled to believe you're more well-endowed than John Holmes or richer than Midas. You're entitled to believe you poop Skittles and whiz Merlot. But what you are not entitled to, sir, is your own set of facts. So again, your opinion of what he is is whatever you wish it to be, but please stop insulting the rest of us, insulting our intelligence by telling us with all "sincerity" how great he is when it flies in the face of the truth. You all end up sounding no different than the supporters of Zero, who really do believe he is the Messiah. Remember, Charles, these people are politicians. While you may not be the worst example of his delusional apologists on this board (I won't dignify the loons by mentioning their names, but we know who they are), you personally should know better than that. I think some small part of you does, but you just have this real aversion to acknowledging that I and the bulk of the members of this website, are actually right.
"But I know strong conservatives who are sick of it, and have left. And I’ve seen the “glee” in the posts of the few here who celebrate the destruction of their own in the name of their ill-conceived purity."
Charles, if they left this board because people were rightly exposing Slick Willard's record, they weren't strong Conservatives, let alone Conservatives at all. They are misguided fools, easily impressed with a slick, attractive outer package. No one expects to agree with a pol 100% of the time because FReepers don't agree with other FReepers 100% of the time, but we agree enough to know what is Conservative and what isn't. We expect our elected officials to stand for those values and to push for that agenda once in office, not tell us one thing (talk Conservative) and go and do another (vote liberal). In which case, they deserve to be toppled. They represent us, not their own personal egos, agendas and vanity. But if you expect I and the rest of us to quietly sit by and support those pols that spit in our face and mock our values and agenda, you're sadly mistaken, Charles.
"Romney could be everything you claim him to be, but people who know him personally, and who I have spoken to personally, and who are seen as impeccable conservatives, disagree vehemently with your anonymous postings."
And I submit, again, that they are either fooled by him (as I once was), or they support his destructive behavior (or are employees who are in no position to speak ill of him, lest they lose their paycheck or job). We've been over the examples ad infinitum. If these individuals "disagree" with my "anonymous postings" (yeah, real anonymous, I've been on this website almost 11 years, registered for 8 1/2), they can step up and speak. Methinks they are afraid to because they know the Emperor has no clothes.
"So forgive me if I give more credence to the people I see, who I can look into the eyes of, people of KNOWN character."
Some people are excellent at lying straight to your face. Slick Willard is one of those people. The question is whether he does it deliberately, or whether he can't even help himself.
"BTW, to illustrate the problems I have with the Romney stories here, it still amazes me that so many freepers give any credence to the absurd notion that Romney could have stopped Gay Marriage in Massachusetts. This concept, pushed by an organization but which has no legal or logical basis, demeans those who believe it, and weakens any arguments they may try to make about Romney, or really anything else."
He had no intention of even trying to stop it, and perpetuated the myth that he stood like a stone wall against it. He aided its cause, and that's been documented many times. I don't know what this shadowy organization is you allude to, but like his supporters, you tend to howl any time the facts come out about him. Truly a shame, because the one thing I know about real Conservatives, they don't believe in lies and Myths. Liberals do.
TO provide a succinct counter to the absurd argument:
The court did not strike down the marriage laws. Instead, the court read the marriage laws, and provided an interpretation of the words in the marriage laws as written, saying that the marriage law AS WRITTEN required gay marriage.
They were wrong, of course, to interpret “man and woman” as gender-neutral terms, but that is what they did, they had the power to do so, and EVERYBODY knew they had that power, which is why when they did it we ALL, meaning the entire NATION, knew they had legalized gay marriage.
Since they were re-interpreting the words of a statute, they gave the legislature 180 days to change the words if the legislature thought the court interpreted them incorrectly. The legislature did not fix the statute, so after 180 days the court interpretation became the law of the land.
It is very clear. the court ruling was not hard to read, the issue was simple and it is amazing that anybody would have trouble understanding it.
BTW, if the legislature had had to do something to institute gay marraige, they would have done so. 75% of them voted to prevent the people of the state from voting against gay marriage, which is more than enough to override a veto of a gay marriage bill.
I don’t mind you boldfacing your remarks. At least you now acknowledge that the previous boldface remarks were just yours, and not some quote. Don’t know why you ever tried to claim they were a quote, or that they were my quote.
IF there was a polling feature at FR anymore, we’d find out whether the “majority” of freepers believe Mitt is the embodiment of evil. The last polls done on the subject suggested that Romney was an acceptable alternative to the majority, but maybe that’s why we don’t do polls anymore.
If you want to argue that the vast majority of conservatives are willfully ignorant studges, or stupid, you have to realize that this is the same thing the left says about conservatives when they can’t make a rational argument.
Once again, you have engaged in your mind-reading abilities; not surprising you think you can do so, given that you attribute magical powers to Mitt Romney as well. I can only tell you that I read, at least once, every link that was provided to me, and found the argument unpersuasive in regards to the question of Mitt being evil.
I have no idea why you refuse to accept that Rush Limbaugh, on a national radio show, said that Mitt Romney was a candidate he could support. You claim that is a lie, when the audio is available, the transcripts are available. I have no doubt that Romney would never be the first choice of Limbaugh; my point is that Rush would never have said he was acceptable if Rush believed your assertions about Mitt being evil.
Yes, I remember the “suspicious” endorsement argument, that basically claimed that every conservative, no matter how accepted, was now trashed as unprincipled, crooked, corrupt, or unethical and immoral if they decided to support Mitt Romney.
And the argument that so many good conservatives could be bribed into backing someone who was evil and would destroy our party is absurd. It was absurd when you all made it, and it is just as absurd today. Money can buy an endorsement of a weaker candidate, or one for which there are questions. It won’t make principled people support someone who is known to be evil, a liar, and a destroyer (and if you remember, that is what the argument has been here, not about whether Mitt should have been trusted to be the conservative he was claiming, but your and others absurd arguments that he was the embodiment of evil and that everybody knew he was a liar and a crook).
I am happy that those who authored such comments have dropped their 3rd-party jihads, since many of those good conservatives are running for election again and need our support, and are getting it.
Of course, we have even forgiven some of the conservatives who supported McCain.
SO I find it funny that you now claim that I am wrong in using the word “evil” and “evil genius” do describe your arguments against Mitt, when in fact those are words regularly used by the most ardent opponents of Mitt here, and well-describe YOUR opinion of him as well.
Your side long moved past the discussion of issues, or positions, past or present. You accused good conservatives of being willfully ignorant, of taking bribes, of being stupid, of ignoring facts. You accused Romney of bribing people, lying, and of being an evil conspirator.
You always avoid discussing exactly what was posted.
Why? Can you read? The Massachusetts Constitution was torn up by Romney.
Post #111 explains how --- illegal legislative authority.
And that, is a Romney specialty.
Romney takes bribes.
That is not what happened.
What has this to do with the subject at hand ? You questioned why I boldfaced my comments, mistakenly claiming they were an emotional outburst, and I corrected you. What this who quoted what or whom is wasteful silliness. It was already explained and clarified in a prior posting, so go ahead and reread it for your own benefit.
"IF there was a polling feature at FR anymore, we’d find out whether the “majority” of freepers believe Mitt is the embodiment of evil. The last polls done on the subject suggested that Romney was an acceptable alternative to the majority, but maybe that’s why we don’t do polls anymore."
That poll, which again has been explained to you by every other person, was based upon a contingent of people wishing to vote against McCain in the mistaken belief that Slick Willard was slightly less odious. For you to consider that some sort of positive affirmation of Slick Willard is delusional on your part. By the time that came out, I was openly lobbying FR to support "none of the above" and force the national party at the convention to reject the last 3 candidates and choose someone else entirely. The overwhelming belief that the last 3 candidates were opposed by the majority of the voters (and that McCain only got a majority of delegates because he was considered the best of 3 awful RINOs) was something the party had not the right to disregard. We saw the results in November.
"If you want to argue that the vast majority of conservatives are willfully ignorant studges, or stupid, you have to realize that this is the same thing the left says about conservatives when they can’t make a rational argument."
I've already addressed this in my previous post, Charles. If you are a Conservative that couldn't figure out based on mountains of evidence what Slick Willard is, you are either stupid or you are not a Conservative. What part of that are you having trouble understanding, Charles ?
"Once again, you have engaged in your mind-reading abilities; not surprising you think you can do so, given that you attribute magical powers to Mitt Romney as well. I can only tell you that I read, at least once, every link that was provided to me, and found the argument unpersuasive in regards to the question of Mitt being evil."
More stupid comments, Charles. You're wasting my time after you were corrected on your baiting phrases in my prior post. Try offering up something original.
"I have no idea why you refuse to accept that Rush Limbaugh, on a national radio show, said that Mitt Romney was a candidate he could support. You claim that is a lie, when the audio is available, the transcripts are available. I have no doubt that Romney would never be the first choice of Limbaugh; my point is that Rush would never have said he was acceptable if Rush believed your assertions about Mitt being evil."
Because it's a lie. See above point here, I will requote since you persist in being disingenuous and willfully dense: "people wishing to vote against McCain (were) in the mistaken belief that Slick Willard was slightly less odious." Any support there may have been momentarily for Slick Willard was based upon that, but there was no positive affirmation. It was like choosing between which heinous way you wished to die: Terminal AIDS or terminal brain cancer.
"Yes, I remember the “suspicious” endorsement argument, that basically claimed that every conservative, no matter how accepted, was now trashed as unprincipled, crooked, corrupt, or unethical and immoral if they decided to support Mitt Romney."
Just had to follow the money, Charles. Was that so hard to do ? It certainly did reveal how many stupid, gullible or easily bribable people there were that claimed to be on our side.
"And the argument that so many good conservatives could be bribed into backing someone who was evil and would destroy our party is absurd. It was absurd when you all made it, and it is just as absurd today."
You sure love using the word "evil", Charles, especially after you've been corrected on its usage here for the purposes of a propaganda attack. And it was not absurd when I called into question the support of faux Conservatives backing a known fraud, Socialist and liar. Only you consider it to be, because you believe in his mission, and the more you persist in your postings, the more you continue to expose yourself. Tell me, Charles, are you a lawyer ?
"Money can buy an endorsement of a weaker candidate, or one for which there are questions. It won’t make principled people support someone who is known to be evil, a liar, and a destroyer (and if you remember, that is what the argument has been here, not about whether Mitt should have been trusted to be the conservative he was claiming, but your and others absurd arguments that he was the embodiment of evil and that everybody knew he was a liar and a crook)."
I'll state again, Charles, I know of no Conservative that WILLFULLY endorsed him knowing full well his record. None. I saw some endorse him being LIED to in order to get an endorsement, and repeating talking points from his campaign that were all easily debunked. So, yes, Charles, a lot of people got rolled by him. I did once. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
"I am happy that those who authored such comments have dropped their 3rd-party jihads, since many of those good conservatives are running for election again and need our support, and are getting it."
Who authored what comments ? 3rd party jihads ? Charles, please try to be coherent here.
"Of course, we have even forgiven some of the conservatives who supported McCain."
McCain was sickeningly unacceptable, but at least he didn't resort to bribery. Of course, I never supported him in the primary. I supported Fred Thompson, and once he was gone, I supported "None of the above." There was no acceptable candidate of the remaining three who earned the right to represent the GOP, let alone was viable in a general election.
"SO I find it funny that you now claim that I am wrong in using the word “evil” and “evil genius” do describe your arguments against Mitt, when in fact those are words regularly used by the most ardent opponents of Mitt here, and well-describe YOUR opinion of him as well."
Take it up with them, you're talking to me. I said he's a phony, a Socialist, a liar, a con-artist and a bunch of other well-deserved descriptions based on the facts and the record. You employ such words as to make any criticisms of your hero so over-the-top as to be discredited on its face. It's a nice propaganda point. Did you learn it from Alinsky, Charles ? Or maybe Sun Tzu ?
"Your side long moved past the discussion of issues, or positions, past or present. You accused good conservatives of being willfully ignorant, of taking bribes, of being stupid, of ignoring facts. You accused Romney of bribing people, lying, and of being an evil conspirator."
Charles, my side was right. Your side was wrong. Get over it.
I discussed what you posted, a link to a single article which gave the talking points of the group that is making a stupid argument that is so poorly received in the real world that the experts haven’t even bothered to waste their time refuting it.
MassResistance, whatever else it may be, is off the deep end with their opinion on the legal opinion.
The specific article you provided conflated their absurd argument with other, sounder arguments about how Romney could have sacrificed his position to make a point, or how the legislature could have stepped in if they had wanted to.
One pointed out how Governor Moore of Alabama chose to violate a court order and got thrown out of office. Certainly Romney could have done that — sometimes civil disobedience is a good thing, but to argue that it would be legal is stupid.
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.
