Nah; that's like MORMON archeological sites...
Posted on 03/03/2013 10:10:39 AM PST by lowbridge
Mitt Romney says it "kills" him that he's not president. But he doesn't blame Superstorm Sandy, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie or anything else on his loss to President Barack Obama--except his campaign's failure to connect with minority voters.
“I lost my election because of my campaign," Romney said on "Fox News Sunday" in his first television interview since his November defeat, "not because of what anyone else did."
The former Massachusetts governor refused place blame on Christie, who some Republicans say elevated Obama in his embrace of the president in the wake of the storm.
Romney said his inability to win over black and Hispanic voters--and the damage done by those disastrous "47 percent" comments--ultimately derailed his White House bid.
Ann Romney, though, pointed the finger at the fourth estate. “It was not just the campaign’s fault," Ann Romney said. "I believe it was the media's fault as well, in that he was not being given a fair shake--that people weren’t allowed to really see him for who he was. ... I’m happy to blame the media.”
She added: “I totally believe at this moment, if Mitt were there in the office, that we would not be facing sequestration right now."
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
That's another reason I chose him and good for America. No BS, PC, 'aren't I great' attitude. He spoke only of America, his veins runs of red/white/blue. He laid out exactly what he would do - I so enjoyed hearing him planning on going after the judges 'ruling' - he knew what was allowed and why it wasn't from intense study of America from early on and inspired by his grandmother to do so. America's tragic loss by not having him represent her.
When I read David Barton wrote him a letter that he was happy he was running, he said he and his wife were disappointed he didn't run in '08. I thought 'smart guy' that David Barton. ;)
So, again, I am being admonished for my confusion or confoundment by people who insist they are right and I am wrong and yet every piece of evidence shows that the failure to unite against this scurrilous infection (but maybe I am making an incorrect assumption here because I have not heard you nor Norm say ANYTHING against 0bama) Maybe he’s your candidate after all? Hearty congratulations on your success!
So, if I may summarize your position, you would rather have this vile, destructive avowed enemy of you and me and everything else in this country implanted into office because it ratifies your discernment of Mitt Romney being a fraud. It’s more important, to you, to correctly point out that Mitt Romney is a fraud, than to marshall your defenses and ward off the prompt and urgent threat to the future of your country?
Next time, could you just drive your own bus over the cliff and leave me and mine out of it?
Another sign of the dinosaur known as “Stupidicus Pontificus” is a genetic need to ascribe a substance known as “Purity” to anything he deems evil. This thread is loaded with examples.
If the stupid gave a moment’s thought (Ah! but then they would no longer be stupid!) they would realize three things:
1: Purity is the opposite of corruption.
2: That puts them in the position of preferring corruption.
3: There exists a party platform for a reason. Following it does not make one evil/wrong/whatever unless the party platform is in and of itself wrong/evil.
So do you believe the traditional conservative/Republican platform is wrong or evil? Do you believe purity is something we should avoid and embrace wholesale corruption?
Extreme examples? Yup. But that’s where claiming to be conservative while fighting for the correctness of embracing liberalism puts you.
Squarely.
The only people using the word “purity” in any context are you Mitt Defenders. We on the Right (which you abandoned) are perfectly willing to follow the 80% rule. Mitt didn’t break 50%. That puts him on the left. Which you support.
Tell me again about “Purity”. Then jump back on the screen as we already have enough of the stupid to have an Idiocracy of our own.
See post #252.
Your summary is a figment of YOUR mind.
THIS??
The last 7 presidential primaries and general elections. Or do you believe the winners were real conservatives?
How does it equate to...
...a true right wing, Christian conservative...
Post like a jerk and I'll treat you as such.
What really amazes me it that we have a bunch of people running around FR using “Purity” like it was the F or N word.
I remember “Purity” as being something free from corruption as in something “Good”. The only exception is when describing ‘pure evil’ AKA the complete absence of anything good.
So... Either these people thing purity is a bad thing (and I am reminded about the Bible verse about those who would call evil ‘good’ and call good ‘evil’, or they think that believing in one’s principles and acting on them is “Evil”.
We have some very stupid people here. And I am sick to death of trying to debate and defend the basics of conservatism with self proclaimed ‘conservatives’ who make things up as they go along. Best to talk down to them. They seem to understand that much even if logic goes over their heads.
” - - - All he said is that he doesn’t care about 47% of America, - - - “
WRONG again, my FRiend!
The Liberal Agenda Media, (LAM), lied and said that Romney used the word “care” when in fact the exact quote was as follows: “ I am not worried about getting the support of the 47 %.”
Words to the LAM are merely interchangeable tools in the Scrabble Game of Control of Public Opinion.
Thus, Romney’s brutally honest appraisal of risk-reward to his Campaign Investors was one of Romney’s very few reality-based comments in his otherwise stupid, senseless Campaign.
When Romney apologized for his astute 47 % remark, “ - - - people just decided that you can’t elect a man who shows such disdain for - - - “ the TRUTH.
” - - - All he said is that he doesn’t care about 47% of America, - - - “
WRONG again, my FRiend!
The Liberal Agenda Media, (LAM), lied and said that Romney used the word “care” when in fact the exact quote was as follows: “ I am not worried about getting the support of the 47 %.”
Words to the LAM are merely interchangeable tools in the Scrabble Game of Control of Public Opinion.
Thus, Romney’s brutally honest appraisal of risk-reward to his Campaign Investors was one of Romney’s very few reality-based comments in his otherwise stupid, senseless Campaign.
When Romney apologized for his astute 47 % remark, “ - - - people just decided that you can’t elect a man who shows such disdain for - - - “ the TRUTH.
” - - - All he said is that he doesn’t care about 47% of America, - - - “
WRONG again, my FRiend!
The Liberal Agenda Media, (LAM), lied and said that Romney used the word “care” when in fact the exact quote was as follows: “ I am not worried about getting the support of the 47 %.”
Words to the LAM are merely interchangeable tools in the Scrabble Game of Control of Public Opinion.
Thus, Romney’s brutally honest appraisal of risk-reward to his Campaign Investors was one of Romney’s very few reality-based comments in his otherwise stupid, senseless Campaign.
When Romney apologized for his astute 47 % remark, “ - - - people just decided that you can’t elect a man who shows such disdain for - - - “ the TRUTH.
Irrelevant? Tell that to those poor slobs in Canada who wait 20+ weeks for life saving heart surgery.
We are NOT controlled by the past.
Well,Osama Obama,his family and friends might not be (having been fully exempted from every single provision of OsamaObamaCare).You,too,may have been exempted from its provisions (perhaps you made a huge donation to some Rat Senator) but *I* sure as hell will be controlled by the past...as will my kids and grand-kids."Not controlled by the past"? Talk about a statement made by one who KNOWS that he/she has just lost an argument.
You keep doing this, making up some theoretical construct out of nothing but air, and thinking you will be able to employ it as the basis of some kind of logical argument. No go. Not with me.
“Another sign of the dinosaur known as “Stupidicus Pontificus” is a genetic need to ascribe a substance known as “Purity” to anything he deems evil.”
“Stupidicus Pontificus” [I’m so smart I get to tell you how to think]
I never called you evil. [topic change attempt, straw man argument]
genetic [topic change attempt]
You have this theory that the/my use of the word “purity” is some kind of unmistakable sign of something you are prepared to do battle with. It’s just a word, and I am not misusing it, nor do you misunderstand exactly, precisely the meaning of the word as I employ it and as defined in any dictionary except as you choose to deliberately misinterpret it so you can go off on your intellectual tantrum routine. Another nice lib argumentation tactic. In that battle you have demonstrated the ad hominem attack tactic, the change topic tactic, and the continued refusal to take any responsibility for the results of your actions.
The traditional Republican/conservative platform does not exist in any functional sense. But you have to be really, really smart to not see that. It’s entirely at war with itself. Whether the other side successfully turned the two factions against any possible unifying idea behind what the party is supposed to stand for, the fact is, the GOP has self-neutralized.
“So do you believe the traditional conservative/Republican platform is wrong or evil? Do you believe purity is something we should avoid and embrace wholesale corruption?”
No, I just don’t believe any cons/Repub platform exists in any practical, functional sense. I don’t believe in, to use your examples, Mickey and Minnie Mouse. Purity is a luxury that also does not exist. What happened in this election is that the folks who should have had the discernment to see the existential threat to the Republic got caught up in their own purity.
“Yup. But that’s where claiming to be conservative while fighting for the correctness of embracing liberalism puts you.”
But not you? Your candidate got elected. What are you complaining about?
You seem to have this problem making your argument without resorting to the usual collection of Alinsky tactics. You have to insult, attempt to encapsulate and denigrate the other side, resort to name-calling, trying to place yourself on some kind of superiority platform. Everybody else is stupid, you are the only one who can properly display or discern intelligence. But should anyone else point out that your position was critical, linchpin stuff in getting 0bama re-elected, well, you’re not to be assigned any kind of responsibility. You did the smart thing.
You’re so damned smart, you can’t even figure out that you got out-Alinskied.
You have expressed not one criticism of 0bama, you have expressed not the slightest concern that there is going to be anything left to be conservative about after he’s done. I have not defended Mitt Romney. I haven’t claimed to be a conservative. See if you can get a refund on those reading comprehension course, or at least get a complimentary re-take.
Get this: The failure to prevent 0bama from being re-elected is what I am talking about. The thing you take zero responsibility for. The thing your purity blinded you to.
Have you ever read the definition of a logical disconnect? I’ll give you an example.
Say there was some person claiming the following things:
1: Obamacare is evil and people will die.
2: We should have elected Romney because he would have done X.
When you consider the F A C T that Romneycare was the model for Obamacare and Romney created/installed it, yet you oppose that which he himself is responsible for, you sir have engaged in a logical disconnect so great as to make Kirk and the space probe envious.
Hope that helps.
If you could think for yourself, I would give a crap about what you think. As it is, I don’t.
Stop embarrassing yourself. Please. Better yet, stop embarrassing anyone on the right with your leftist ‘logic’.
Thanks.
So who do you believe are true right wing, Christian conservative candidates? Which of them have won a national election? With present day attitudes and demographics how can a TRWCC win a national election? Tell me.
You’re welcome. Give yourself a few weeks and maybe you can come up with a counter argument that isn’t pure topic avoidance.
Try looking back through my posts on this thread. I hate repeating myself to someone too lazy to read the threads they post on.
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.