Replies

No - I said you are helping to re-elect Obama. Not the same thing (though, ultimately, they produce the same result).

. . . . . .

You should try reading what people actually said. It will make you look less foolish.

You know, you were right, I jumped the gun with respect to what you meant and assumed something I shouldn't have. I apologize.

However, my telling the truth about Romney and not voting for him is not helping Obama, that responsibility falls on Romney's shoulders, not mine.

With regards to your earlier post where you said:

Oh, I also forgot to mention that I don’t think Romney “supports abortion and the homosexual agenda.”

He may have in the past, as have probably a lot of people on this very board who have since chosen not to, but that’s not so relevant to the present as many would like to think it is.

How about we deal with the facts. Here is Romney and his campaign staff, recently, on the social issues:

With regards to the Homosexual Agenda:

August 9, 2012 - Romney Says Boy Scouts Should Admit Homosexuals

May 11, 2012 - Gay Adoption 'Fine' With Romney

December 21, 2011 - Romney Says He Will Continue Obama's Policy of Having Homosexuals in Military

Paul Ryan Says He's Now Okay With Gays in the Military

With regards to Abortion (butchering babies):

August 27, 2012 - "My position has been clear throughout this campaign," Romney said. "I'm in favor of abortion being legal in the case of rape and incest, and the health and life of the mother."

Now you can't fall back on the excuse of ignorance.

Now you know.

Whatever happened to the uncompromising soldier for conservative truth that you used to be Yashcheritsiy?

Is it so easy to throw your principles overboard because you are backing an extremely flawed candidate?

Can't you back him and still be honest about his failures and not try to paper them over?

You know, you were right, I jumped the gun with respect to what you meant and assumed something I shouldn't have. I apologize.

Apology accepted.

Though I'm still not sure you really "got" what I was saying.

Whatever happened to the uncompromising soldier for conservative truth that you used to be Yashcheritsiy?

I woke up and realised that you're not being a "soldier for truth" when you're helping to re-elect Barack Obama.

Sure, you can pat yourself on the back and pretend like you are, and look down your nose at everyone else who just doesn't understand the great esoteric truth of true victory through 1% of the vote that seems to be the third party secret - but the fact remains, that you guys are doing nothing but helping Obama win. That's it.

Now, I know that you like to congratulate yourselves on your principles. But as I've said elsewhere, if your "principles" including helping to re-elect Barack Obama, then quite frankly, your principles are worthless. In fact, they're worse than worthless, they're downright destructive.

I know all the things you posted in your response. I also know that 1) Romney as President won't have much opportunity to act on most or possibly all of these sentiments anywise, and 2) Barack Obama is demonstrably worse than Romney, by a long shot.

Seriously. Stop and think for a minute. You're asking me to not vote for a guy because he slipped and said "health of the mother," thereby helping to re-elect a guy who voted to support killing babies even after they survived an abortion attempt. What that essentially means is that YOU are providing material support to a guy who voted to kill babies after they were born alive through a "botched" abortion.

Now, I'm sure that you'll huffle and puffle and flamjabulate about how that is not the case, could not ever possibly be the case, and how this is all just a horrible terrible effort at discombobujumbatorating your stainless honour, but the fact remains that it's true.

You're asking me to vote in such a way as to take away from Romney, so that there is slightly greater chance that the overall count will end up with the born-baby-killer-voting guy getting elected.

Some principles you got there. And yes, I mean that sarcastically.

I could go on point by point with the rest of your mental gymnastics, but I doubt you could take the full force of this fully armed and operational ticked off ex-Goode voter. So I'll spare your tender sensibilities.

If you can't understand this relatively simple concept - if you are so divorced from actual reality that you really believe you can wishcast Virgil Goode's or Tom Hoefling's or whoever else's sub-1% behind into the White House - then I doubt we really have anything to talk about. I'm dealing in reality. You're dealing in fantasy. I'm dealing with the way electoral mechanics in the United States actually work, you're dealing in some alternate reality where a man can become President on the strength of hopes and dreams and Care Bear wishes alone.

You talk about being a "soldier for truth." Truth has to be grounded in reality, and take reality into account. In that score, being a soldier for truth means tactically doing what you can to get the horrible guy out of office, even if he has to be temporarily replaced by the merely distasteful one instead. You guys can't claim to be soldiers for truth, for your methods are not advancing truth, and not preparing the ground for truth to return. instead, you're helping to stifle truth by making it easier for truth's enemies to keep their places of power.

THAT is a terrible thing, but fortunately, since most folks who are wakable have woken up by now, you're also in a tiny minority who will be inconsequential to this election. THAT is a good thing.