Posted on 04/27/2012 6:57:39 AM PDT by EternalVigilance
Those aren’t facts. Those are your projections.
I mean, unless you’re a bonafide prophet of God. Are you?
The facts about Romney, of which so many Republicans remain in denial, concern his record of liberalism and his obvious continued lying about it.
I’ve already proven to you a vote for Mitt is a vote for Obama. If you think Bush 43 was a failure wait until Mitt takes the reigns. He’ll be an even bigger failure.
I’m not voting for Obomney end of story. The elites, who are Leftists, made sure it would come down to Romney and Obama, both of which are Progressives. Why do I need to vote for either of these collectivists?
Just keep drinking the Flavor-Aid.
I think you are in denial or reality then. But, I think there may be a way to snap you out of it.
:)
How about this:
- I’ll give you 1000 to 1 odds that either Obama or Romney will be the next president.
or...
- I’ll give you $100 for each electoral vote you get if you’ll give me ten cents for every one you don’t.
Deal? Or am I closer to seeing reality than you?
Sorry, S/B:
I think you are in denial *of* reality then.
Personally, I’m sick of political bookie-ism. It’s a major part of why we’re in the mess we’re in.
Perhaps someday you might try simply doing the right thing and leaving the results to God.
"If you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed, if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not so costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no chance of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves."-- Winston Churchill
The topic was denial, not bookie-ism, not whether you thought you were doing the right thing. The bet offers were just a check to see if you were in touch with reality.
Your response indicates you are.
My point is the reality is your efforts are not wisely directed and will have little to no effect. Your responses indicate you agree.
Doing the right thing does not necessarily exclude doing so wisely with regard to the results and outcome.
This, again, is my point.
I never did find my bit! Checking there next....
But the Obama or Romney routes are not possible for those who cannot in good conscience support evil.
So, the odds you proffer are moot.
Which means those of good conscience must find another way.
Are you aware of one other than the one I’m offering?
Fair enough. (You had to give me a source with a picture of that creepy Romney grin, didn't you, LOL)?
More facts:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2844593/posts
For some reason I can't get this link to work, so it will have to be copied and pasted. In effect, Romney said that Islam is not inherently violent and jihad is not a part of Islam.
Here we go again. Stop with the “not voting” meme. I will vote, but not for the person you think I should vote for.
You don’t need to give me Obama’s Marxist resume. I’ve been here the past four years, just like you. I know what he is. I also know that Romney is an abortion-enabling, homosexual-loving, gun-grabbing, tax-raising, global-warming supporting, socialized medicine-creating, lying, underhanded, vicious liberal. If I choose that for my nation’s leader, I am giving him my seal of approval.
Not happening.
The GOP Senate caucus in DC has loads of Weickers: McCain, Graham, Collins, Alexander, Nancyboy Kirk, Corker, Cornyn, McConnell, Murkowski, and many more. The only thing they would hold Romney to is the maximum squandering of money on their respective states and pals. You are kidding yourself.
We disagree on some fundamentals. Among them, I believe you underestimate the damage to the republic that the next Obama regime will do.
And you, likely, believe I underestimate the damage a Romney administration will do.
Based on this fundamental disagreement, you think you are doing what’s right, I think your actions - to the extent you are successful - increase harm; i.e., are wrong.
We disagree on this, and we disagree in that I don’t believe your disagreement constitutes a psychological defense mechanism, but rather an error or lack in knowledge and/or wisdom.
;)
That’s a great article. I tip my hat to you, Sir or Madam!
Too many people think that good can be created from evil. Romney has no good in him and so he must be eliminated as an ingredient for good.
I trust God will show us a better way.
Thank you!
Can you point to even one piece of evidence that I "underestimate the damage to the republic that the next Obama regime will do"?
Refusal to support the most liberal governor in the history of the republic does not count.
I’m sorry to inform you that while you’ve assumed a lot, you have ‘proven’ nothing.
I think it a given we're talking about a relative factor: Romney vs. Obama. IF one thinks one or the other is a huge amount more harmful, the action becomes obvious. The less difference (in harm) one perceives, the opposite is true.
It's the difference that matters. If you see them as near equally harmful, one result and vice versa.
So we disagree on this gap. The gap can be increased in one of two ways. Either decrease the view of harm Romney will do or increase the harm Obama will do.
I believe the amount of harm Obama will do makes defeating him the most critical mission for the republic in this election. Obviously you don't. This is evidence, therefore, logically, you do not estimate the damage the same as I; and that would be in the underestimate direction - in my opinion.
The “gap” is the difference between a bullet to the brain and a bullet to the heart. So to speak.
As a moral conservative and a Christian, I don’t buy into utilitarian or morally relativistic arguments.
They’re the broad way to hell.
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.