Replies

[to Hinckley Buzzard] "are you always this insulting in a discussion?"

When reviewing your first puerile contribution to this thread at #9 (for which you were thoroughly smacked around for, and rightly so), our good FRiend Hinckley was not at all insulting, in fact I don't think there is such a thing as being "insulting" to a "concern troll" like you.

Here are your choices:

Mitt Romney - the king of flip-flops, the 'un-Reagan' by his own admission, 'he lost to the guy who lost to 0bama'. 0bama is pouring socialism down our throats by the bottle, Romney will serve it in fine crystal goblets. No REAL conservative votes for Mitt-Witt.

Rick Santorum - good guy, good values. can't get traction despite winning Iowa after a recount. He never got as much support as Rick Perry did at one point, what makes anyone think that's going to change? (and I like Rick Santorum too)

Ron Paul - that's not the name of a candidate, that's a punchline, a left-leaning libertarian with a big (R) after his name. That loony-tune goofball has as much chance at becoming President as did Pat Paulsen, but if you think having Dennis Kucinich in a Ron Paul Cabinet is a good idea, then he's your guy.

Newt Gingrich - a proven winner, embraces and does not run from what Ronald Reagan stood for, a street fighter who will not take any crap from the media, the left-liberal unintelligentsia, or from the Kenyan turd currently stinkin' up the White House. He will dismantle 0bama on live TV, and the 'Rats fear this more than anything else.

Now reevaluate the flawed neurons bouncing around in your head as an alleged logic circuit and man up and just tell us which one of the above candidates you're going to support? ABO don't cut it babycakes.