Can’t you see that?
Oh NO; Mr. Jeff!
We are WELL trained in what we do!
No one ever said you were not free to say what you want...or even implied it. My point was simple. BB is well known for her positions and activities and dedication over a long period of years and perhaps her own thoughts on the matter based on living in Mass when Romney was governor are worthy of consideration.
Your attempts to characterize her, myself and others as “choosing to ignore him because of irrational fear and naivete, as are you, Agamemnon, and the rest who are quivering in fear,” and, “licking the hand that gives you a little nibble of the crumbs every once in a while...” are part of your freedom to express those views.
But for those who know us and of our own activities over the years, our own involvement, and to what degree we have gone to risk all in these efforts...such a characterization is so far off the mark as to be laughable.
We simply disagree, Yash...and that is fine.
I have not called you names, placed your honor, integrity, or bravery into question as a result of that disagreement, or disparaged you because of it. I have simpluy tried to point out reasons, again, why some of the points BB and others make are worthy of consideration.
Instead, you choose to make bald faced assetrtions about others which are simply false and meant only to marginalize those with whom you disagree as if though by simply stating such rediculous, bombastic statements it makes them true...almost like you were taking such points right out of Alinsky’s play book. Can’t you see that?
Again, you are free to say, feel, and voice your opinion however you feel. But that does not make what you say so, and particularly when you use such methods to try and score your points. It certainly does not serve the cause that you yourself espouse as critical for the Republic very well because such ad homion and vitriol does nothing to convince or move others toward your cause.
Prehaps you don’t care...and that’s fine too. But, IMHO, the end game of such a path and attitude towards others is a relatively small echo chamber that, again, does not serve your purpose well at all in helping the Republic.
One rea we can hopefully certainly agree on and must do in any case is to support an elect as many true conservatives into the House and Senate in Washington as possible, and into our state houses and county court houses. We will need them all in any case and I am committed to and will continue to do all in my power to impact that course of action as well.
LOL...that's the second favorite accusation from the MittBots/mormons....
This is usually resorted to when other FReepers refuse to give in to the "vote against Romney is a vote for Obama" lecture.
But for those who know "us" and of our own activities over the years, our own involvement, and to what degree we have gone to risk all in these efforts...such a characterization is so far off the mark as to be laughable.
What exclusive "us" are you speaking of, Jeff? I've been here since 2001, and I recall a whole list of FReepers involved in "activities, involvements and risk" that do not necessarily agree with the ABOs.
Again, you are free to say, feel, and voice your opinion however you feel. But that does not make what you say so, and particularly when you use such methods to try and score your points.....
Gee, I haven't seen Yashcheritsiy using accusations of "alinksy" in trying to score points. That really looks like a "bald faced assetrtions about others which are simply false and meant only to marginalize those with whom you disagree as if though by simply stating such rediculous, bombastic statements".
IMO, you might want to read your words in which you begin with "No one ever said you were not free to say what you want" to find an attempt to "marginalize those with whom you disagree."
because such ad homion and vitriol does nothing to convince or move others toward your cause.
As I've suggested, read your own words. This is an open forum not a place in which one FReeper has "authority" over another with a podium to stand behind and lecture from.
Can’t you see that?
Oh NO; Mr. Jeff!
We are WELL trained in what we do!
We are WELL trained in what we do!
Well Jeff, I'm sorry that I haven't done as much for the conservative movement as you all. I'm sorry I don't play the guitar and wear a neat looking cowboy hat at Tea Parties. I'm stuck with merely standing up for actual conservatives instead of non-conservative progressive leftist candidates. I guess if that means I just turn out to be useless for the conservative movement, then so be it. Nevertheless, I shall attempt better things than simply voting for the lesser of two evils because I've been scared half out of my wits by people screaming that voting for a third party equals voting for Obama. I actually believe conservatism can win when it doesn't present itself as a near carbon copy of the Left.
Instead, you choose to make bald faced assetrtions about others which are simply false and meant only to marginalize those with whom you disagree as if though by simply stating such rediculous, bombastic statements it makes them true...almost like you were taking such points right out of Alinsky’s play book. Can’t you see that?
You know, when I made my comment about social autists, I actually meant it, as in, I wasn't just saying it to be bombastic or to rile people up, but was intending it to be an actual diagnosis of what I was observing. I really meant it as a serious question when I asked why it is that the pro-Romney people on here seem like they MUST assume, even in the absence of evidence for any particular FReeper, that non-support for Romney must be due to animus against his religion (i.e., you might like to go back and check the train of comments, the "context," that led to my post). I know you all are not unintelligent people, so how else can we explain folks who seem determined to simply dismiss all of the arguments we've made as "made up," and chalk our opposition to Romney up to our being "anti-Mormon"? What else can I think but that you all are simply psychologically incapable of even acknowledging the legitimacy of any viewpoint but your own, almost as if you cannot even comprehend that someone would hold to it? That IS social autism, Jeff, whether the term offends you or not.
Rogue yam and Drew68 tell us that we're nothing but closet Obama supporters. BB compares us to "Darwinists" who can't even understand her arguments (which is funny, because she wouldn't say this about *me*, at least, if she knew who I am). The whole lot say that we're just "anti-Mormon" and this is why we oppose Romney. Bad, bad arguments all, with little seeming balance of "hey, you know, I know Romney really is a leftist, but here's why I think he's conservative enough for a principled conservative to still support comfortably." About the best we get from you all is breathless arguments that "if you don't vote for Romeny then YOU'RE VOTING FOR OBAMA!!!!!" And guess what, Jeff, that IS an argument based on fear. Somehow, we're supposed to settle for voting for a guy who's practically as bad as Obama - because if we don't, Obama will win again. that's fear, Jeff. That's trying to replace rational argument FOR your candidate with simple-minded fearmongering against another. It might work, if Romney was a decent-though-flawed conservative. But when they're six of one, half a dozen of another, it just doesn't wash anymore.
Let's face it - we have no evidence that Romney won't continue many of the same things that we hate about Obama (and, if we're honest, Bush before him).
Will Romney end the unconstitutional czars, of will he perpetuate them, and a ton of FReepers will suddenly find that they're cool with them now?
Will Romney do anything about the TSA overreaches, the expansions of the VIPR program, etc.?
Will Romney do anything about the "Food Safety Modernisation Act" and its potential to destroy the liberty of citizens to even grow their own gardens and sell to their neighbours (or sell milk, as the Amish are already finding out?)
Will Romney do anything to roll back the parts of the PATRIOT ACT that are unconstitutional?
These, and many, many more, are all important questions that should be answered, rather than swept under the rug with the argument that "at least he's not Obama." True. He's not Obama. But we don't know that he'll be any better than Obama, and none of you have really made the case that he would be.
Sorry - I'm not comfortable voting for a guy based on somebody else's opinion as to how the roll of the dice might turn out.