Early ’12 favorite is Romney

Houston Chronicle / mySA.com ^ | 2010-02-28 | R.G. Ratcliffe

[rabscuttle385]

In the category of it

[byteback]

I’m not saying that PPP has a crystal ball, just that I think they are tying to do real polling. We get one in CA called the Field Poll which is a joke. They only had Brown up by 1 with a month or so to go so I’m sure we’re in for changes. Obama wasn’t even on the radar at this point last cycle. Perry could decide to run and then this poll gets thrown out.

[trisham]

Imho, we have some very well qualified candidates. I am hoping that Sarah Palin will run.

[big'ol_freeper]

You can start at #52 and #56 and go from there. Consistently I have stated he will lose because he is a liberal.

[big'ol_freeper]

There are quite a few that I hope run and will be interested to see how well they catch on. Sarah is one of the best.

[trisham]

Agreed.

[big'ol_freeper]

Ok...now I’m the one hearing crickets...

More #63, #73, #92...should I keep going?

[Diogenesis]

You keep trying to change the subject,
you claim what I posted was not clear (but it was),
you keep trying to put down FReepers,
but know this: sentient FReepers have your and Mitt RomneyCARE's number.

---

RESULTS – Feb. 2010 Early Freerepublic.com straw vote

Governor Palin - 102 votes - THE WINNER

None Of The Above - 12 votes
Barbour - 10 votes
Hunter - 8 votes
Demint - 7 votes

Pence - 3 votes
Ryan - 3 votes
Jindal - 2 votes
Jeb Bush - 2 votes
Liz Cheney - 2 votes
Mitch Daniels - 2 votes
Newt Gingrich - 2 votes

Thune, Gary Johnson, Joe Wilson, Scott Brown and Rick Perry - each 1 vote.
Romney and Huckabee - 0, that is zero, no, zed votes

[Antoninus]

Romney is spending ad dollars on FaceBook again, too. His fan numbers are still pathetic compared to Palin's.

Say it loud, say it proud:

No MITT!

[big'ol_freeper]

Seriously, are you ok? Did you even look at #56, #63, #73, #92? How could you possible construe that I am supporting Romney when I keep saying he will lose because he is a liberal?

[Diogenesis]

Did YOU read what I posted before YOU changed the subject?

In Post #141 (my first), it said,
“ Actually, the only poster saying Mitt Romney-care
cannot win with the false claim that such
is “because he is a Mormon” rather than
the real reason (his is a Loser, cryptoMarxist, DNCenabler),
is YOU.”

It did not say you are “supporting Romney”, like you have
lied in every post thereafter, did it?
You betcha.

So why DID you throw ad homimens,
and change the subject?

[big'ol_freeper]

Ok. I give up. Talk to me tomorrow when you sober up.

[FreeReign]

How could you possible construe that I am supporting Romney when I keep saying he will lose because he is a liberal?

Seems to be a lot of that going on, people being falsely accused of being Romneybots, when they aren't.

[MaxMax]

They will invade the GOP primaries along with the ronbots.

[big'ol_freeper]

I think it is more a case of people having multiple FR screen names and using them to adopt multiple personalities.

[FreeReign]

I think it is more a case of people having multiple FR screen names and using them to adopt multiple personalities.

It's against the rules. Name them.

[big'ol_freeper]

I’m operating on suspicion based on posting patterns, posting times, IP addresses that have visited my FR profile etc. I don’t care to name names, nor am I required to, or I would have. If I get to the point that I am confident without a doubt I will present that info to the proper folks.

[broken_arrow1]

John McCain II rerun.

[Diogenesis]

You are a showing sociopath tendencies with paranoia.
Get some help.

[big'ol_freeper]

In between rounds I see.

[Diogenesis]

posting patterns? posting times?, IP addresses?

Don’t hold back.

Your flagrant and robust paranoia shows, so
your claim will be interesting.

Go for it and tell it as you see it.