Posted on 01/29/2008 1:43:23 PM PST by icwhatudo
Did not see it posted yet, here we go folks!
Perhaps in where you live it is harder to deal with the situation. I understand that. But I have not caved like a pragmatic cynic. 'Oh there's nothing we can do. So let's just take what we can get.' That's so 1940's through 1970's republican party. Speak the truth, stand up for what is right. Take what you can get. But never, never, never, never, never give in to evil.
Winston Churchill said,
"Never give in, never give in, never; never; never; never - in nothing, great or small, large or petty - never give in except to convictions of honor and good sense”Nothing is more honorable than protecting those innocent and incapable of defending themselves. It sounds like some may have forgotten this and have given in. I feel sorry for anyone who has.
Mitt says he's not pro-choice now, but he certainly cannot say he is pro-life now with his legacy of $50.00 abortions for any reason on demand in his Mitt spun version of Hillary care.
And I'll worry about the fornicators and prostitutes when I see them parading down the streets screaming at the top of their lungs that they should be specially protected groups deserving more rights than other citizens. I'll protest them when they get invited into classrooms to teach their trade to five year olds.
The sodomites can do what they want in their own homes. I'm glad to see you finally realize they shouldn't be given special rights no matter what Mitt thinks. Loving the sinner does not mean loving what they do. It does not mean allowing children to be defiled by them physically or emotionally. I pity you if you don't understand this.
Huckabee is another one of the four libs that dominate the republican party now. Don't worry, I won't tell you what a conservative is. When I lived in NY, I didn't know what conservative was either. There are so many liberals running around today I'm not surprised you think your lib ideas are conservative. But there are republicans who think as you do, so maybe you're confusing conservative with republican.
Romney's money and his lies have gotten him this far. If he had been a true conservative not a liberal like his parents, he would have done better. But he's not conservative. If he had just said yeah, I know my record is liberal and I have some liberal ideas. Maybe someone would have thought, well at least he's honest. But he could not do that. His lying about Reagan by saying he was pro-choice. Lying when the truth would have served him better (seeing his father and MLK). Lying by saying he was a conservative and his Mass record is not conservative, was too much for reasonable people to stomach and with people covering for him by saying it was Massachusetts that did it, the trashing of true conservatives, and his numerous liberal supporters, did not help him one bit.
He may get a chance to prove himself over the next four years. If he works diligently for conservative causes, over that time, perhaps it will be different. But he would have us believe what he is saying now is true, all the while knowing that what he has said and done in the recent past contradicts it. That's not good enough.
From what you have written I can see that you do not even have a conservative view of the world. The lib thought will do that to you. I hope some day you will find what it is like where people look to one another for help, not the govt. Where self control is prized above wanton license. It is getting harder to find these places now, so many lib are trying to escape the prisons of their own making that they come down and spread their liberal brain disorders where ever they go.
I am glad that you understand that the Lord is in control. I know that as long as we are on the Lord's side, it really does not matter what the world thinks or does. The Lord is the one who moves men's hearts. We do what is right regardless. To be friends with this world and it's ways is to make yourself God's enemy.
I don’t know that Giuliani gets more votes from Romney than McCain. I think maybe not, and was hoping in fact for Giuliani to take more votes from McCain.
But I just don’t know. What I do know is that in a 3-person race, Romney will get another chance to prove he can appeal to a majority of republicans. If he can’t, he won’t be our nominee.
So, how many WPM do you type, CWCT?
You’re spinning like a top for your abortionist/socialist nanny-state liar.
I disagree that Romney himself savaged Thompson. A man who worked with a person on Romney’s team put a web page together which apparently was true but WAS a negative attack site. It lasted only until it was made public, and it was taken down. Maybe some damage was done, but after that, Thompson’s ratings went UP, and didn’t drop until he entered the race, and well before Huckabee.
Thompson lost his support when he turned out not to be a fire-breathing christian. Sorry, maybe it’s unfair, but the evangelicals didn’t want to hear that their candidate didn’t belong to a church, and didn’t see the need to discuss his faith in any manner. So they went back to looking, and THEN they found Huckabee.
I fought Huckabee because I found him a less worthy candidate and a threat to Thompson and Romney. But the value voters loved him, and that was enough to get him Iowa.
Still, Thompson needed to win, and candidates do attack each other.
Seems to me that Dick Cheney did not serve, you gotta problem with that?
Seems some people claim that since Bush served in the TANG, he deserve to be called a draft dodger, do you agree with those liberal idiots?
WTF does the service record of anyone other than McCain have to do with the fact that McCain was a poor pilot, graduated near the bottom of his class and crashed almost a half dozen aircraft?
If going to Vietnam makes a person presidential material, do you advocate the likes of John Kerry or Jack Murtha being president?
My response was to a post that specifically criticized his military service.
You make fine points to support your argument, I of course agree on principle if not practicality. The absolute refusal of those on the extremes of both sides of this issue to compromise is what enables the killing to continue.
Rape, Life of the Mother, Incest.
Most folks will eventually go for this, I hope in my lifetime.
I like all of your assumptions and attacks on positions that I do not hold. First of all, read my last post in which I stated that my post was responding to a specific attack on his military service. I never stated that his military service alone qualified him to be President.
I was pointing out that Mitt supporters should find something else to criticize. I also wanted to throw in Mitt’s Clintonian statement about longing to be in Vietnam.
Well, yes. That was my desire. And even though it seems to have had the opposite effect, I do think it is nice to have a higher moral code. If we all had a higher moral code, we wouldn’t have to argue over candidates who were flawed.
But I don’t expect to elect Jesus in my lifetime.So whoever I vote for will be a flawed human, like me. There are some compromises I will not make, even for the lesser of two evils. But I don’t apologize for requiring myself to think about, and make a rational decision, about what level of compromise I WILL make when choosing which candidate I will support.
Still, I am sorry that my choice of words deterred you from reading and responding to the substance of my post. I would benefit from your point of view, and believe you could benefit from mine.
Save your time, pal. I’m not interested in reading a pile of Romney supporting spew.
This is all I need to know about the man’s moral character:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_w9pquznG4
I know of nobody, even Mitt Romney himself, who doesn’t readily acknowledge that Romney was wrong on abortion when he ran for Governor.
But since I have personally seen people become pro-life, I have no difficulty believing Romney did so. And most of their charges are NOT of the “here’s what he said in 2002” variety”, but things about his record of governor that present a false reality to attack him.
I’ve posted detailed analysis of the court ruling on gay marriage, on the medically nececssary provisions of the entire mass medical plan, and on the law requiring the executive to impose plan b. I won’t bore you again, you clearly disagree with my assessment, but I believe my assessment on those issues is sound, and based in the realm of rational thinking — meaning they cannot be dismissed out-of-hand as ludicrous.
Maybe when Romney is gone one of our legal experts could offer an opinion which would be more readily accepted by those here — but I am guessing that the lack of such a post supporting the charges against Romney already speaks volumes.
Whichever Way the Wind Blows Willard
I've read the argument. Accepting the truth of the opposition, I will note that the person was not pro-life, and the objection was to Romney's characterization that the doctor said the embryos were "killed". But that is a semantic issue of the pro-life movement. A pro-abortion doctor would never use "kill" for an embryo. But Romney, having come to a pro-life position, would characterize the statement that the embryos are "destroyed" as saying the embryos were "killed". He would remember the conversation that way, because "destroy" for a human is kill. SO I don't buy that as an argument against Romney. As to the abortions, there is nothing in the record supporting ANY positive step by Romney to make that happen, and the medical plan that was being expanded already HAD the "$50 abortions", he didn't write it into the law. Since even the new pro-life Romney (and in fact most of the pro-life movement) supports abortion to save a mother's life, we would expect a medical insurance plan to offer medical coverage for the abortion procedure to save the mother's life. But the court would not allow abortion to be restricted to that, as the court already ruled that all medically necessary abortions had to be covered by medicare. And as I've noted, and nobody has shown differently, the entire medical insurance plan restricts treatment to "medically necessary" procedures. The abortion coverage does not have an "exception" from that restriction, and nobody has yet shown me anything in thet plan that says it covers therapeutic abortions. If you have a link to that specific statement, please provide it, but I've read most of the documents and don't think you will find it. I can't agree with the seating of planned parenthood, but realise that they are a major women's health provider, and abortion is legal and is only 3% of their work, so it is really hard to figure out how you ban them from the board, if the legislature wants them on. We hate them because of their politics, but abortion is unfortunately legal.
$50 co-pay for abortion in RomneyCare.
A kumbaya moment or two
Romney confirmed he voted for former U.S. Sen. Paul Tsongas in the state’s 1992 Democratic presidential primary, saying he did so both because Tsongas was from Massachusetts and because he favored his ideas over those of Bill Clinton,” the Boston Globe’s Scot Lehigh and Frank Phillips wrote on Feb. 3, 1994
Romney has previously come under fire for donating to a series of Democratic candidates in the 1992 election, including then-Congressmen Dick Swett, D-N.H., and John LaFalce, D-N.Y.
And that’s not all. He ran for governor as a liberal. Governed as a liberal, then tried to change his spots to run for President. He’d change his spots again if elected, and lick the boots of those Massachusetts ultra-liberal icon Teddy Water Wings Kennedy, just as McPain has done for years. MITTen’s should get in his limo and hightail it back to Massa-chusetts.
And so we’re left with Romney... A man who always says the right thing but never seems to actually mean any of it.
McCain... A man who usually says the wrong thing but, Heaven help us, actually means it.
Huckabee... Is he really viable anymore? He’s come right out and called abortion a holocaust - that takes guts. Pro-gun, pro-marriage. But his understanding of the Constitution seems to be seriously flawed. But if that part of his agenda isn’t actionable, does the good outweigh the bad?
I feel like I should be celebrating Giuliani getting thrown off the cliff, but I just feel sick to my stomach.
Who’s left? What if Fred really could have been the savior of the Republican party? I was never a Fredhead, but I was always open to being convinced. And now, faced with the field we have left...
Republicans said no to pro-choice, pro-gay, anti-gun - that’s good. Giuliani was a nightmare candidate. But Republicans said yes to pro-amnesty, anti-free speech, pro-whatever-Johnny-feels-like-at-the-moment.
So Republicans are the party of what? What’s our platform? What are our goals? McCain has supported the Surge strongly, but that’s not ALL a president does. He can compromise, but is that a feature or a flaw with a Democrat controlled Congress?
If we could just stitch the remaining candidates together, keep only the decent parts, and throw away all the bad parts, we would have a candidate I could ALMOST support without vomitting. I need to sleep on this and see how I feel in the morning. Maybe I will drift deeply, and dream of Frankencandidate.
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.