Posted on 08/31/2009 8:38:40 PM PDT by Extremely Extreme Extremist
The truth was neither Mitt or McCain had a real chance in 08.
Yet the only people in denial after we picked apart said articles, endorsements, and the like, were his diehard agents, sycophants and bots. Technically, you did assist putting him on the ballot, your own admission, so therefore you worked for him in a capacity. You would fall under the aegis of his supporters. I have consistently asked you what your agenda is. We’ve butted heads over other issues independent of this subject, notably the Mohammadan question. They’ve seemingly been of a questionable nature.
What is your opinion of Gov. Palin ?
So you’ve independently adapted your own methods ? I see. It would be interesting to see your training.
Not 100% sure about the governor. I’d vote for her though.
That cretin has no business appearing at any Republican or Conservative function any more than Zero or Joe Biden. He ought to be bodily removed if he shows at one.
You are correct, it was September of 2007.
I am trying to fully answer your question, if you find it contradictory, simply insert the term “except” in between the sentences.
As a member of the local republican committee, we were given blank forms which we would fill out and circulate to get republican candidates on the ballots for elections. While we did not consider this “working for the campaigns”, and the campaigns did not consider it working for them, I realized that someone like yourself my see it differently.
So, while I do not consider that “working for the campaign”, I told you about it anyway, to be complete. I can certainly understand you considering signature collection as “helping out”, and I would NOT have collected signatures for Romney if I opposed him (I did not collect signatures for McCain, or sign his signature petition for example).
I was “helping out” every candidate who I thought was a viable, reasonable candidate for the office.
BTW, if you consider “helping out” the candidate as “working for the campaign”, then every person here at FR is “working for the campaign” of someone whenever they write anything positive about a candidate, or negative about their opponents. I think that definition is useless because it is overly broad and reveals nothing.
If I understand the real concern, it is that there are people paid by campaigns to show up on boards and support their candidate.
In my case, my support for a candidate is predicated on MY opinion of that candidate and their views, and I express MY views, not those of the candidate. And if I found something that changed my views, I would do so — my support for a candidate is the RESULT of my views, not the other way around.
And in fact, I have trouble arguing with people who would even consider basing their opinions for a candidate on their support for the candidate, since I don’t understand how someone would support a candidate BEFORE forming their opinions, in order to let their opinions be shaped by their support.
Unless we magically develop some other candidate within the next two years, I see no one else who can legitimately claim Conservative credentials and unify the base as Palin can (nor pack in the crowds). It was sickening what we were served up in the ‘08 primary. Liberals and egomaniacs. We were really hurt when the Dems took out Sen. George Allen in ‘06. He was the person I believed was the odds-on strongest choice to run in ‘08.
You never respond to anything except to repost your spam, so your criticism is laughable.
For example, maybe you would provide the name of the lawyer who filed suit to block Romney’s so-called illegal action? OF course not, because there is none.
In California, where a mayor really DID try to impose gay marriage without legal foundation, the same legal minds jumped to the task and stopped it — exactly as they would have in Mass. if there was any truth whatsover to your assertion, which there is not.
Anyone that pays the fee can go to the conference. If Mitt gets some of the high rollers to cough up money and attend the conference, that’s fine by me. It’ll help us in 2010 clean up our massive mess cause by that idiot Granholm.
I’m still not going to vote for Mitt.
Someone like myself ? I'm just reviewing what you said, and that your statement was a contradiction in terms. It's rather akin to a lot of politicians that say, "I'm personally opposed to... but I won't vote to change..." Either you do/did, or didn't/don't.
"I can certainly understand you considering signature collection as “helping out”, and I would NOT have collected signatures for Romney if I opposed him (I did not collect signatures for McCain, or sign his signature petition for example)."
So your personal belief was that McCain was worse than Slick Willard ?
"BTW, if you consider “helping out” the candidate as “working for the campaign”, then every person here at FR is “working for the campaign” of someone whenever they write anything positive about a candidate, or negative about their opponents. I think that definition is useless because it is overly broad and reveals nothing."
Not so, since this is a discussion board with no legal standing with respect to elections or nominations. You carried out a legal action in your capacity as a party official to place a candidate on the ballot, which is far more serious and substantial an action.
I don’t see where Diogenesis’s posts are “spam.” They are valid links that demonstrate Slick Willard’s positions and actions on a myriad of subjects. How is posting truth/factual information “spam” ? Aren’t you interested in the truth, Charles ?
The problem is that his “help” comes with a substantial cost. He expects he is buying said individual’s eternal fidelity, and expects them to do anything and everything to get him the White House. It’s too high a price to pay. It’s about as close to selling your soul as it comes. It’s sad that a lot of people will line up to do it.
Charles is not interested in truth.
He can change the issue to California, to create confusion.
And then he complains about fonts, for the same reasons.
Then he refuses to address the real issue:
Romney’s exposed exercise of illegal legislative authority.
Actually, there were many. Many caught. Most not.
It’s frightening that it revealed someone like him could roll so many using his $$ and machine (and slick personality) to get so close to the GOP ticket. When I saw him disengaging himself from running for a second term, I believed it would become readily apparent to the public that this guy was a real cancer, only in it for himself. Many did see it, but nowhere near enough.
Y’know, as flawed and liberal as Giuliani was, he could at least point to some bonafide accomplishments as Mayor (namely cutting the crime rate below that of cities a fraction its size, and standing firm in the 9/11 crisis), but SW couldn’t point to anything on any front that he did that could be considered a success for what was right (yet he certainly was the best thing to ever happen to the MA Democrat party along with William Weld, who appointed some of the trash to the bench responsible for the gay marriage ruling, including the woman who would become the Chief Justice, Margaret Marshall).
Very well said. I guess those of us who witnessed his staged Town Halls were wrong. If you were not a member of his local staff or a Mormon, you could not ask questions.
Several issues really bugged me about Romney besides the fact he wasn’t a conservative but a put a finger in the wind type politician. Equating his son’s missions with being in the military was so wrong. It is one of the issues that thoroughly disgusted me. Another was trying to claim the Reagan mantle when he because an Indy because of Reagan. Self financing his campaign to try and buy the election doesn’t say a lot of popularity. He paid for high school and college students to be bused to CPAC and bought their ballots to win. Not exactly a ground swell of support.
Exactly. I mean, how he operates is almost precisely how Zero has, and much like what we see at these Town Hall meetings, with dispatched leftist thugs to make it look like their is disproportionate support for what they’re doing in DC. And he attracted the same types of crazies, as we’ve seen amongst his most diehard supporters on FR. Try to engage them in reasonable debate, and they become unglued talking about how he’s “the one” (and a litany of other nonsensical talking points and personal attacks).
Yes.
I also agree with you that collecting signatures was a more official act than posting on this board. I only mention that because posting on this board appeared to be the issue you were addressing, specifically whether I posted on this board as a campaign worker for Romney, which I did not.
I can merely re-iterate that those of us collecting signatures for candidates on the committee did not consider that as "working for the campaigns", nor did the campaigns treat us as if we were volunteers for their campaigns.
But I don't have a problem with your opinion that collecting signatures was a form of work for the campaign, and it certainly was worth mentioning, which is why I mentioned it.
If it seems I am overly sensitive on the point, it's because local committees do sometimes have difficulties when the perception is that the people on the committee are working for individual candidates, rather than for republicans in general. So we tried really hard to be fair to all the candidates, and not give one or the other special treatment.
That did not stop me from skipping McCain's signature petition -- from a committee standpoint, I was not being a team player, but in spite of the opinion of some around here, I do have standards.
They are “spam” in the sense that they are often pre-canned repeated posts which also often are only perepherally related to the specific subject matter.
A link page which could be referenced by a single line in a post would serve the same purpose. Of course, we have an entire “truth file” available on this matter at the top of every page.
So for purposes of this discussion, his posts are spam in the sense that I’ve seen them already, I’ve read them before, and feel no obligation to look at the same stuff I already tried to discuss with him years ago to no avail.
I am intimately familiar with the arguments made by the stuff posted again and again, and would be much more interested in the opinion and reasoning of the freeper rather than seeing the same old links again.
Others here may well rather see links to what other people believe, than have freepers explain and argue their own points. SO it’s a matter of personal taste, I guess.
On an unrelated matter, because I don’t think it was clear through my snarking earlier, I did figure out what you meant by the “bold” posting, and I do sincerely apologize for not understanding your first response to me on the matter.
Did I ever mention California?
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.