Posted on 04/10/2012 11:56:22 PM PDT by TBP
Thank you for your gracious post. It is refreshing change from the common insulting and character-assassination responses of the last few days (including fool, idiot, unpatriotic, traitor, troll, bigot, anti-Mormon, Obamabot, Obama plant, useful idiot, childish, temper tantrums, etc.).
We all agree that conservatives face a real dilemma this election. Dilemmas imply that hard choices have to be made. Apparently, you are going to do something different than I am. Fine - follow your convictions and conscience. I might not agree with your actions but I respect your right to act as you feel is best. I thank you for respecting my right to do the same.
“there’s a big difference between the guy actively trying to burn down the house,and the guy that performs inadequate maintenance.”
Sure, but Romney burned down his state even more than Obama has tried to burn down the US.
“It’s lame to stand to the side and say if you can’t have the exact hose you want, you aren’t going to fight the inferno.”
A more appropriate analogy when discussing Romney is that when your house is on fire with Obama you don’t go lighting cans of gas on fire by tossing in Romney.
“I for one have too much at stake to stay out of the game just because I didn’t get my self righteous conservative ego stroked. “
Unfortunately for you your insult is actually about you. Your ego says a Republican must win even though Romney is a proven extreme left-wing liberal. You think just because a Republican wins that somehow makes the liberalness of Romney all better. That’s just your ego talking about ‘winning’ all the while losing to just another liberal like Romney.
Slower is better.
So the guy who lost to the guy who lost to McCain who lost to Obama is going to win?
Or somebody who wouldn't even challenge those guys?
Did you even look at the byline: the guy who lost to Obama in 2004 is telling us that that other guy can't win.
I guess Alan Keyes ought to know about losing to Obama.
I don't think that. I didn't say that and neither did my ego. That wasn't even a part of the argument.
Now pay attention. What ever Romney is, he would be in his first term and would be constrained in his actions by a desire for a second term. Obama, on the other hand would be in his second and would feel even less constrained than he does now. He doesn't give two hoots in hell about you, your freedom, or your future. What you like has nothing to do with this. You're going to end up with one or the other so which do you want? A constrained Romney or an unconstrained Obama? Conservatives are supposed to be able to think so think damn it.
Why is slower better? So you get yours in your lifetime? Let someone else, your children or your grandchildren, deal with the repercussions? So long as you get to keep yours? Is this why “slower is better”?
“so think damn it.”
You think, you arrogant idiot. You already give Republicans a pass on what they do. Imagine the pass RINO voters would give to liberal Romney. They let Bush do anything he damned well pleased and they’ll let Romney do even worse.
The way things look right now, you are going to get either Romney or Obama. Which one of those would you pick to command the army, select Supreme Court justices,et cetera. Come on, Toadie, make a choice. I dare you. (or tuck tail and run).
Yeah, so who is going to be the next president? If you say it doesn’t matter if it’s not your personal pick, then we don’t have anything to talk about. I know how to discern between the lesser of two evils.
More or less idiotic than sending the US military to Egypt to support an Islamist revolution with the resulting ethnic cleansing of Copts?
“More or less idiotic than sending the US military to Egypt to support an Islamist revolution with the resulting ethnic cleansing of Copts? “
In Obama’s book, he TOLD everyone that he was a Muslim. He said if it came down to it, that’s the way he’d break - toward Muslims.
That there is any surprise he chose to do this is a suprise in and of itself.
However, that has zero to do with Ron Paul being dangerously isolationist and naively dovish.
The world is more dangerous since the end of the Cold War, not less, and frankly, because of the way we handled the end of the Cold War that war never really ended.
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.