Xzins, I fully agree with your assessment of BB’s position, and feel that she made it adequately clear.
My approach was not to demand that she vote in any particular way, but to ask if she understood the consequences of voting for a committed Luciferian candidate (we all here in this discussion have done that at least once before).
She has answered me with what I found to be a dismissive, sarcastic, and frivolous reply, which I found inappropriate considering her initial post to the thread.
I just think that we need to fully address the consequences of each alternative. I do not believe that electing Romney will in any way block Obama’s agenda, since it is so similar to his own.
You catch more flies with honey than vinegar, ES.
Our objective is to BUILD a new conservative coalition. The republican party is liberal, and Romney’s nomination means it will be staffed with liberals for decades.
We drill NOW for oil later. The longer we wait to drill, the longer we put off the appearance of more oil in the marketplace.
What is so easy to see about that with oil, but so hard to see about a conservative party?
Well E-S, you may have "found" it that way; but it certainly wasn't intended that way.
I do not "dismiss" you. I do not have a sarcastic bone in my body. And in what way was my reply "frivolous?"
I absolutely do not see in what way Romney's "agenda" is "similar" to Obama's. Frankly, demonizing him as "the committed Luciferian candidate" strikes me as 'way over the top.... Maybe it's even a red herring.
But maybe you can clue me in on all this. I'm willing to listen. Just see if you can do it without laying charges of freemasonry and Luciferian intent on his doorstep. That is only a conjecture at best — although clearly, it is a very passionately held one.
But that doesn't necessarily make it objectively true....
I'm just trying to be objective in analyzing our electoral prospects; and in the matter of third-party candidates, I'm just letting history be my guide.