Posted on 11/25/2007 5:29:03 PM PST by cradle of freedom
I would like to know if you are going to vote in the November 2008 election even if your candidate does not win. Will you stay home if you don't like the Republican candidate?
Another thing that I have often wondered about is whether people actually stay home when they are disheartened. News commentators often say that some voters may have decided to stay home because they were not happy with the candidates. I think that is a mistake because even if you do not like the person at the top of the ticket you should at least vote for the other candidates. Have you every actually stayed home and not gone to the polls at all because you were not happy with a candidate?
Or better yet, just vote for Hillary....it will have the same effect as writing your own candidate in.
Like I said.
Because it’s rude to yell. And it “blurs” whatever point it is he is trying to make.
What was the effect of Bubba’s presidency on liberalism? More acceptable or not?
Agreed. The only way the libs have won in the last ten years is by supressing and dividing the Republican vote.
Would Bubba have been president if it weren’t for the Perot voters?
Nope.
But you are supporting it!
If you don’t take action against it, you’re allowing it when you had the opportunity to not allow it.
I will absolutely vote for whichever GOP candidate is nominated.
I will do everything in my power to keep Her Heinous and her HINO out of the White House. That also goes for any of the other Dims whoi might get nominated.
Do not confuse the MSC (Main stream Church) with the Christian Right.
Do you actually believe that millions of people who consider themselves part of the “Christian right” will walk away from their opportunity and obligation to stop a greater evil?
Without a single doubt... and there is no "greater evil", only evil, which is the basis of your error.
Did this so-called “lesson” take the last times it was tried?
I must point out yet again, it was *not* "tried", ever... it isn't something that is organized, it just IS. Much like the term "Mess with the bull, get the horns", it is just a matter of fact.
Conservatives vote for Conservatives. That's it, end of story. Don't try to discourage them, to change their minds, to manipulate their choices, because it just won't work. Trying to change Conservatives (or libertarians for that matter) is alot like herding cats. IT CAN'T BE DONE.
You aren't so good with math, I see...
Your position assumes a single method of action, a method I do not subscribe to.
I have no ability to allow or deny anything, but merely a choice to lend my support or not, or to place my support elsewhere. If the republicans do not field a Conservative candidate, I will not support the Republicans. It is really that simple.
I’m compelled to vote by the service of those who protect our freedoms.
I’m still an independent. More conservative than I was in 92, when I waste my vote on Perot. Don’t be fooled, a write-in or a third party candidate is a vote for liberalism.
I’ll vote for the candidate who is most likely to defeat the Democrats and work to make sure that they follow through on the promises they made to get the nomination.
I may not like Guiliani’s social views, but it’s utterly stupid to compare him to Rodham.
A vote for a third party loser is a vote for those who would degrade and debase our military, which brings me back to the reason that I’m voting in the first place.
If you want a more authoritarian, bullying, more intrusive, more controlling, all-powerful, ‘big government knows best’, 'Big Brother' type of government,,,,,
> Assuming your point in arguendo: I want to avoid an even more authoritarian blah blah government. Therefore, I won't contribute to a Rat victory by not voting for the Republican nominee, whoever that is.
headed by an east coast liberal who worked in the Bobby Kennedy campaign, voted for George McGovern, who as mayor publicly distanced himself from Ronald Reagan,,,,
Please see the resume of Mrs. Bill Clinton.
who vocally supported and proudly endorsed a far-left, liberal, big-government, socialist, democrat like Mario Cuomo over the Republican candidate for governor (largely because the Republican wanted to cut state income taxes),,,,
Please see the resume of Mrs. Bill Clinton and Mr. Bill Clinton, who will also be back on the national stage, influencing policy, campaigning, dealmaking, appearing on news shows should Mrs. Bill Clinton be elected.
who has been a public defender of Bill Clinton on more than one occasion,,,
Now that's funny, I don't care who you are!!
Okay, please see Mrs. Bill Clinton's not-only public defense of Bill Clinton, but the fact that she presently promotes him and intends to do so in her administration. IOW, under the Hildabeast, Bubba will be back in the saddle again. Which strikes me as a worse result than electing someone who (again, giving you your point in arguendo) "has been a public defender" of Bubba.
who first ran for mayor on the LIBERAL PARTY ticket,,,,
Ruh roh, you got me there. After all, Hildy started out as a Republican and a Goldwater Girl! (By your logic, we should give her Brownie points then?)
and who proudly positioned himself as a gun-grabbing, pro-amnesty, pro-litigation, pro-abortion, gay-rights crusading, condescending, arrogant, and narcissistic LIBERAL, New York ‘pit bull’ lawyer,,,,
Please see the resume of Mrs. Bill Clinton. Plus, it's obvious that a Republican president will have to care more about what his party thinks about judicial appointments than what the other party thinks. So it's better not to vote for (or refuse to vote against) the Party of Death.
who believes in sanctuary cities, global warming, encouraging more illegal aliens to come here by telling them they are not really illegal, and whose idea of fiscal restraint is using our tax money for Federally-funded abortions,,,,
Please see the resume of Mrs. Bill Clinton.
who was SO LIBERAL that he wasn’t even invited to the Republican Convention in ’96--after refusing to endorse (until the last minute) the Republican candidate opposing Clinton, while saying that (paraphrasing here) "he did not want to waste his time",,,,
Ditto.
and a cousin-marrying, Clinton-apologist (and now I can add ‘Obama-apologist’)--whose personal life is an absolute TRAIN WRECK (and whose blatant, public cheating on his wife almost makes Bill Clinton look like a decent family man and loving husband--if that is even possible).
Ditto.
If you want to abandon and sacrifice traditional, core, bedrock, conservative principles and values while destroying the ‘Conservative Identity’ of the Republican Party--a LIBERAL BULLY like Rudy is the RIGHT MAN AT THE RIGHT TIME!!!!
You're it. This is the question I asked you, so I'm waiting. What's your evidence that voting Republican in the next election will destroy the "conservative identity"? And what's your evidence that anyone who is committed to traditional values and conservative principles is going to abandon them just because so-and-so gets elected?
I'm not. Are you?
Cute.
Tell me: how do you think Iraq would be handled in a Rat administration compared to a Republican administration?
I’ll vote for the Republican candidate because I don’t want the Clinton Criminal Enterprise anywhere NEAR the White House again!
I just did.
I’m not going to get into a theological debate with you, unless you want to pursue it in private. But here’s the point:
It was “evil” to fail to keep the Sabbath holy by not following the rules. It was also “evil” to fail to help your animal (as an example) and thus, not only allow unnecessary suffering, but also fail to exercise good stewardship and possibly become unable to provide for one’s family.
Jesus said “get real.” That’s what I’m saying.
You don’t choose between the lesser of two evils just to do it. You do it, and it’s justified, when doing so stops a greater evil. IOW, “choosing the lesser of two evils” is actually not articulating what is happening here. One is “choosing evil.” One is choosing to stop a greater evil by doing a lesser one.
If you don’t want people engaging you on your opinion, don’t post it on a discussion board on the world-wide internet.
That said, I can’t imagine what you found “condescending” about my remarks. I did disagree, and still do, with your idea that you might “need” to write in a candidate. And it is true that only one of the major party candidates will win, so I don’t know how you could take umbrage at that statement, except that it points out that your act of writing in a candidate is meaningless as a political act.
But if I offended you, I apologize. That was not my intent.
It’s almost as if the most important thing is that one “feel good” about one’s vote, that it gave them the warm and fuzzies, rather than that it actually eeked out whatever was possible to eek out for the future of the country.
Thank you. And I want to tell you, I’m not happy with our choices, either. But I sure as shootin’ don’t want to see us do something crappy for the country.
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.