Posted on 07/03/2012 12:09:58 PM PDT by Perdogg
Only because I'm not yet old enough to be president. ;)
>> it is best to drag the country suddenly and drastically to the tyranny of socialism rather than slowly and comfortably; the frogs’ll jump out then.
“Conservative” arguments promoting a second term for Obama are simply irrational.
Nascent life will suffer a greater mortality rate with Obama at the helm.
We cannot afford another bloodletting with the expectation it will inevitably heal the Country. We’re in a state of triage, and need to consider the least damaging options.
Put aside the far-reaching theories that involve fate and destruction. We need to pull the Right levers and twist arms indefinitely.
Of exceedingly little relevance; the question I've been asked is "why don't you vote for Romney?".
Mitt at least gave lipservice to some sort of self awareness of the need for an attitude shift when he talked about being “severely conservative” (which from his vantage point is what mushy moderate looks like).
Ah, so then it's a-ok ot elect someone who says there's debt broblem but has no intention of addressing it, or even pressuring the proper peoples [Congress] to address it? ridiculous.
If that’s shallow, then what Obama did isn’t hardly even a film of water.
Again, irrelevant. The topic is why I'm not voting for Romney; I've already stated that "lesser of two evils" argumentation is rejected.
Then how in the hell can you advocate for Romney? He's left of left-of-center!
Since the GOP is not offering anyone that is even Right of center, then I should not vote for the GOP's candidates.
Look, the only reason I'm not running is I'm not old enough to be president -- and God knows I'd make a pretty horrible president, being a bit too stubborn and "unpolitical" (I dare you to ask how I'd solve the Kelo ruling) -- but I believe I'd be better than either Romney or Obama.
Instead, we have a candidate more liberal and more untrustworthy than George W. Bush. So, what do you that is going to result? The country will continue to move to the left, with youe vote. And, we'll end up with repeat of what happened in 2006 and 2008 where Republicans lost Congress and then the White House. Wash, rinse and repeat.
You can't advance conservatism by voting for a liberal Republican. A liberal Republican will advance liberalism. How many more times does that have to be demonstrated before it sinks in?
Putting Romney in the White House means eight more of years of the nation drifting to the left and eliminates a chance of putting a conservative like Scott Walker in 2017.
>> Then how in the hell can you advocate for Romney?
I am certain, not via promise, but through political arrangement that fewer nascent beings will die with Romney as the CIC.
You are inevitably supporting one of two candidates this election. It’s a simple matter of the lesser threat against Life, and there is no third choice that will mitigate this dilemma barring an act of God. Pray.
So, you want more failed policies that inflate the debt, put more liberal judges onto the courts and result in Democrats taking back control of Congress and, ultimately, the White House?
This conservatives keep electing Republicans and country keeps getting more and more liberal.
And, the Republicans will continue to sellout conservatives because they know people like you will vote for any candidate they put up.
That is paranoid hyperbole.
What the nation might not be able to survive is another failed Republican Presidency followed by Democrats taking back Congress and the White House. That will, however, is what will happen, with your vote, if Romney gets into the White House.
And, that is whole lot worse than a lame duck, failed President whose failures will result in increased Republican majorities in Congress and at the state level.
Scott Walker in 2016. Waiting eight more years for a conservative President is unacceptable.
The lackluster interest in McCain, 2008, gave us Obama.
A serious constituency can transition from Romney to Walker. A serious constituency can get the representation it demands and deserves with the exception that Obama will give us zero representation.
There’s plenty of talk of destruction and CW2, but hardly a word is spoken about activism save TEA. Why resign to the notion that we cannot properly and effectively influence POTUS (R) throughout the term?
We also risk losing Congress in 2014 if the perception favors Obama’s 2nd term.
He is *not* OUR nominee... Not by a loooong shot. If he were OUR nominee, he would actually BE CONSERVATIVE.
You seem to be mistaking Conservatism with being a Republican. Far, far from it.
Romney is not the most conservative candidate (in fact, he is not conservative at all), so your comment is invalid.
?? Most would agree that between bama and romney, romney is the more conservative.
Age faster!!! Much faster......
:-)
Not at all, he has a record to show what he is doing. Here just off the top:
He outspent the entire history of US spending in just 3 years. He has shown no interest in not spending. The vast majority of that spending has been on keeping his political power.
He has promised he will gut our nuclear arsenal, take away our tactical advantage in Europe (promise to Putin), and is gutting our military.
He refuses to deport illegals, has just this past month declared children of illegals legal. He has decided to have a not so subtle race war and let Mexico win it on our border. He has neutered the sovereign state of Arizona in it's quest to protect its border.
He has looked the other way while our military secrets have been leaked by his cronies, destroying our ability to have a spy system.
He has clearly shown he hates all things American, debasing in every speech free enterprise and the good things in American life.
He is destroying the coal industry, prevented us from drilling in the gulf and off both coasts, he has stopped the pipeline from Canada, and frittered away tons of money on useless and wasteful "green" (meaning doesn't work) energy projects. If you think he won't ban fracking to destroy the miracle boom in the Dakotas you haven't been watching him.
He has commanded gays be in the military, and furthered their agenda as no other has ever come close to.
He has tried to undermine the second amendment in the most brutally horrid policy in Fast and Furious, attempting to promote border violence by the cartels in order to blame it on American gun laws. He has hidden the incriminating documents through an Attorney General who is absolutely corrupt, racist, and who will be there until we get rid of this administration.
He has set off a ticking time bomb with Bambi care that we won't ever be able to stop if he wins. We have one more chance to undo that horrid law, and frankly to not take it would be to destroy our country.
Paranoid hyperbole? Good lord, that was a dense and stupid comment. I love Scott Walker, and hope he runs and wins, but there won't be much left for him to win by 2016. I could go on and on, this is a five minute list just off the top my head.
This is the most destructive administration ever, your pretense that it isn't is silly, and they simply must be gotten rid of. To allow them the reigns of government once again or to think we can "control him" as a lame duck is delusional.
In your warped view, it was better that Reagan had Bush as his VP then supporting Romney, even though they are both liberals in your mind. Makes absolutely no sense at all.
Everyone just continue to ignore all posts by Diogenesis today, as you usually do. He’s off his medication again.
Political arrangement!? how laughably ridiculous. Handing Jesus over to Pilate and pressuring death was a political arrangement, Pilate handing him back to the jews to kill was also a political arrangement. "Political arrangement" is most often code-words for "getting away with something that technically shouldn't be done because it is illegal and/or morally reprehensible." Furthermore, that 'political arrangement' could dissolve at any time.
I'm sitting as still as I can!
;)
Bah! I'm running in 2016.
And I have evil plans like reducing the size/scope of the government by eliminating whole agencies... My plan to get the USSC to reconsider some flawed item like that is: ask once, if they don't overturn it apply that injustice straight to them. (Oh, I so want to direct the Eminent Domain seizure of all the property held by the Supreme Court Justices citing 2005's Kelo, they made that bed, they should sleep in it.)
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.