Posted on 03/22/2014 9:50:31 AM PDT by greyfoxx39
(Excerpt) Read more at newsmax.com ...
Mutt, doing what Mutt does best, attacking conservatism.
It was easy, I pulled the lever for Mitt. What lever did you pull?
Okay. What were you voting FOR? Please be specific. Since a vote is by definition literally and materially only ever for something, please state what you were voting FOR.
What lever did you pull?
I'll not only answer your question, I'll do you one better and tell you want I was voting for. I can do this because it finally got through my head that voting "against" is materially and mathematically an oxymoron. See, steelwheels, I used to think like you -- that I could vote "against" opponents. I know better now, and I am joined by tens of thousands of fellow Americans in this.
I pulled the lever for Tom Hoefling, an official third party (America's Party) candidate. He wasn't a perfect candidate, but he certainly rated 80 percent, easily, so met Reagan's requirements. It would be a lovely pipe dream to see him win the office, had I indulged. I would love it!
What was I voting "for"? Ostensibly, I was voting for him to win the White House. PUH LEEEEZE, as if that was going to happen! I was in action and function voting for something entirely different. I knew EXACTLY what I was voting for. It was a long shot, but not nearly as long as Tom's shot at the White House!
I was voting FOR a plurality. I was voting FOR making sure that whichever damned leftist government tyrant got the White House, Romney or Obama, got in with as little and weak a show of support as possible. Perot forced a plurality that so weakened Clinton that he was plowed by the Republican Revolution his first term, and impeached the second term. The first time, 57 percent of Americans voted "against" Bill Clinton. The second time, 51 percent of Americans voted "against" Bill Clinton. It weakened him and made him vulnerable.
Had HW won, conservatism would have made less gain.
So steelwheels, please specify what you were voting FOR when you voted for Romney.
You seem to like left-wing RINOs. Why ?
This one is a devout WillardBot. Check its posting history. It was anxiously awaiting for when the Willard lovers could post hosannas without truth and reality daring to rain on their parade. Apparently they missed JimRob’s statement on the matter.
So you were voting FOR the bastards. So much for “fighting” them when you’re right in bed with ‘em.
Come on fieldmarshaldj, you know you don’t now or ever will have the numbers that will make your pipe dream come true. You vote your way and I will vote my way. Your way elected Obama and my way may keep Hillary at bay.
I don't want to hear about what you intended to vote "against." I want to hear about what you were in fact and in function voting for.
And explain how voting for leftism as a way of keeping Hillary "at bay" isn't voting for leftism just the same.
What did you vote FOR when you pulled the lever for Romney?
What’s my “pipe dream” ? Electing an actual Conservative to office ? Heaven forbid ! You’ve already exposed yourself as a liberal troll with your pimping for establishment RINOs. Jim Robinson already explained how “welcome” your agenda is here. Hit the bricks, sis.
This one needs to take a ride on the ZOT Train.
He's eloquent in detailing what he was voting against when he voted for Romney.
And he's dead silent about what he was voting for.
Facing the question myself after having voted for Meg Whitman, a Romney MBA clone intensified, was a difficult one. What had I voted for? What if she'd won? One and one is two. If you vote for leftists, you're a functional leftist. I was a functional leftist.
You, steelwheels? How about you?
Show me one single post, steelwheels, ONE SINGLE POST, ONE SINGLE WORD, that says or even implies that we are insisting on a "perfect candidate."
Steelwheels, you have to engage in falsehoods in order to support your argument. That's a bad sign right there.
Just look at any of the threads during the last Republican Primary....per this very site there was a concentrated effort to find the perfect candidate. No one was good enough. How many times was it said that I will just stay home. They did, welcome obama.
*SNIFF*SNIFF*
You haz a smell.
Trolls never answer questions. Check out the ubertroll in post #93.
Once again: You've talked until you're blue about what you're voting against. What are you voting FOR?
Purists and circular firing squads are imaginary. People who call others "purists" and of being part of "circular firing squads" are real.
Voting "against" is imaginary. Voting for is real. It is FUNCTIONAL.
From your last statements I believe that you are in the wrong party
Romney is the guy who’s in the wrong party, dear.
Then tell me: Why are you in the Republican party?
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.