Posted on 04/20/2012 8:01:23 PM PDT by katiedidit1
Like a true believer that has been aborted by his party.
If it was your intent to motivate me to vote third party by insulting her, it backfired for when you insult her, you insult me.
I'm so sorry to upset my friends. But I'm only calling it as I see it.
Thank you ever so much, dearest sister in Christ, for your kindly words of support.
—It’s almost as if some people here don’t realize four more years of Obama means the end of America.—
I do. I also think four years of Romney will be the end of Ameriaca - and the republican party.
Decisions, decisions...
But the problem there, dear brother in Christ, is that if I vote for Goode, I'm surely going to get evil out of it.
History shows that third-party candidates never win presidential elections. All they do is siphon votes away from the major party nominees.
Case in point: Ross Perot. He received 19 percent of the popular vote in 1992 — but not one single electoral vote. As a consequence of his participation in that election, Bill Clinton was elected president with less than half the popular vote, defeating a sitting president in the process.
A third-party effort at this stage has a snowball's chance in hell of success.... It will only divide the Republican base. You don't win elections that way.
But I do have to acknowledge that Virgil Goode is my kind of guy — TEA Party down to the ground. Still and all, I believe that to vote for a third-party candidate is to throw my vote away.
Again: Job One is to remove the criminal enterprise from the White House. I'm focusing on that. Nothing is more important to me right now.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts dear brother.
—So what is a good solution?—
My solution was to move from my home of 45 years, Seattle, to a small farm in central KY.
I’ll be finishing the chicken coup tonight. 14 layers will keep us in cholesterol for the foreseeable future. A 1/4 acre garden will do its part.
Etc.
G’night, JohnBoy.
Nonetheless, dear sister in Christ, I’m gonna keep working on you. :>)
AG, what ‘remark’ are you talking about?
I have reviewed my two post to her and can find only the question that I asked, and for which I still await an answer.
Xzins, I fully agree with your assessment of BB’s position, and feel that she made it adequately clear.
My approach was not to demand that she vote in any particular way, but to ask if she understood the consequences of voting for a committed Luciferian candidate (we all here in this discussion have done that at least once before).
She has answered me with what I found to be a dismissive, sarcastic, and frivolous reply, which I found inappropriate considering her initial post to the thread.
I just think that we need to fully address the consequences of each alternative. I do not believe that electing Romney will in any way block Obama’s agenda, since it is so similar to his own.
You catch more flies with honey than vinegar, ES.
Our objective is to BUILD a new conservative coalition. The republican party is liberal, and Romney’s nomination means it will be staffed with liberals for decades.
We drill NOW for oil later. The longer we wait to drill, the longer we put off the appearance of more oil in the marketplace.
What is so easy to see about that with oil, but so hard to see about a conservative party?
>> “There is no such entity as “Lucifer” in my religion” <<
.
I believe that in hinduism, Lakshmi takes the place of Lucifer/Satan. Use any name you prefer.
My point is that any candidate that follows any but the one God YHWH, creator of all things, is leading us to certain destruction.
The faith in YHWH is the beginning of all faith, beginning on day 6 of the year 1, about 6000 years ago.
.
Ah, but vinegar cleanses and invigorates! :o)
.
Well E-S, you may have "found" it that way; but it certainly wasn't intended that way.
I do not "dismiss" you. I do not have a sarcastic bone in my body. And in what way was my reply "frivolous?"
I absolutely do not see in what way Romney's "agenda" is "similar" to Obama's. Frankly, demonizing him as "the committed Luciferian candidate" strikes me as 'way over the top.... Maybe it's even a red herring.
But maybe you can clue me in on all this. I'm willing to listen. Just see if you can do it without laying charges of freemasonry and Luciferian intent on his doorstep. That is only a conjecture at best — although clearly, it is a very passionately held one.
But that doesn't necessarily make it objectively true....
I'm just trying to be objective in analyzing our electoral prospects; and in the matter of third-party candidates, I'm just letting history be my guide.
I'm all for building a "new conservative coalition"; but you do not build one overnight — or in seven months. Perhaps the best way to build one is to reform the GOP from within (it certainly needs it!), rather than trying to build a conservative alternative from scratch....
Oh, and the kind of "liberals" that Romney would likely staff his administration with (assuming he's the GOP nominee and wins, of course, and that's far from assured) would likely include names such as, for example, Rob Portman, John Bolton, Mitch Daniels, et al. Real left-wingers, there — who have all endorsed Romney.
I dunno, dear brother in Christ. It seems to me you guys have created quite a bogeyman for yourselves.... But then again, what do I know? You may be right about Romney.
But somehow, I doubt it.
It pains me that we are at odds over this, dear brother in Christ. Yet reasonable people can disagree, (hopefully) without being "disagreeable." I respect your right to form your own thinking on any question. Ultimately, what this all boils down to is a person's act of conscience; and we are all accountable to God for such acts.
>> “But that doesn’t necessarily make it objectively true” <<
.
Eyes wide shut!
Reality doesn’t go away just because you wish not to see it.
The forces that control this country (and the world) are at this point well understood to those that are willing to see, and a blank to the rest. They even confess in writing in their literature, yet some refuse to read.
You cannot take that position, and still lay claim to being any part of the solution.
I was for Sarah, for Cain, for Santorum, and now Newt, even with his numerous warts (so to speak). I hope he is able to pull off a brokered convention.
But if he cannot, I will not do anything that will enable, help, abett, or assist the abject marxist, Barack Hussein Obama, get into a second term, either by my action or inaction. He is, IMHO, a much more real and present danger to these United States than anyone else running...and I have explained this here on FR and on my own site
As you say, it is an act of conscience for all loyal Americans, and I will not desparage or naysay anyone who loves this country and its constitution and who acts in this regard out of those convictions, even if they are not what I personally intend.
Obama is...the man who despises America
I strongly agree, dear Jeff.
I think the problem we are having here is, we cannot agree on solutions if we cannot agree about what the "problem" IS.
To some of my correspondents here, the problem is ROMNEY. But to me, the problem is OBAMA.
And yet, I totally agree with you here: "...I will not desparage or naysay anyone who loves this country and its constitution and who acts in this regard out of those convictions, even if they are not what I personally intend."
I think Newt is dreaming, if he thinks he's going to win the nomination at a "brokered" convention. My best guess is Romney will have the 1240 (or whatever the number is) electoral votes in hand before the convention is even held.
Tomorrow's five primaries should give us some insight into his "momentum." As I mentioned before, like it or hate it, it appears the man has "the wind at his back" at this point, and may have reached critical momentum going forward from here.
JMHO, FWIW.
Thank you so very much for the links to your perspicacious, well-reasoned articles! I read “Why I will Support Romney if he is the GOP Nominee” last week on Facebook — and agree with your fine analysis of the situation.
Thanks, Jeff.
I might not be one of the aforementioned correspondents, Betty, because to me the problem is Romney AND Obama. It isn't either/or, it's both.
>> “ because to me the problem is Romney AND Obama. It isn’t either/or, it’s both.” <<
.
Amen!
Romney = Obama minus the class envy and institutionalized racism.
Everything else is the same.
.
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.