Posted on 07/03/2012 12:09:58 PM PDT by Perdogg
In the days since the Supreme Court decision upholding Obamacare, some Democrats and commentators in the press have suggested that Mitt Romney is declaring a cease-fire on the issue and will no longer make it a centerpiece of his campaign to defeat President Obama.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonexaminer.com ...
Wrong.
His logic only works with two relatively conservative candidates. We are not in that position.We have Far and Farther Left.
Voting either in is supporting the far or farther left and NOT conservative.
Same to you. Hope it was a good one for you as well.
Mitt “might” yield to political pressures. Obama won’t, come hell or high water.
I think the country is going to answer this in a way that will make the entirety of FR’s members’ votes moot. Larger America loathes Barack Obama and Barack gives larger America more reasons to loathe him by the week. On the other hand, most of larger America won’t see much of Mitt’s liberal side (Barack Obama sure won’t bring that out, and typically paints Mitt as one of those horrible right wing nuts), and will believe that the ever-waffling Mitt will walk his present talk.
Mitt will probably walk away with 40 states or more when the November results come in.
Challenge accepted.
First we need definitions:
Conservative
Obama Romney | | | | | | | | Marxist Fabian Socialist Socialist \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / IMPLEMENTS SOCIALISMAs we can see from the above flow-chart, the result of voting for Romney is the same as voting for Obama, therefore preserving the status quo, and therefore being fully in line with keeping things the way they are.
The above was meant as tongue-in-cheek sarcasm.
If they are the same, why not at least forbid the current one from having a tenure longer than 4 years?
Fabian is, at least, softer and less resolved than Marxist. Mitt might yield to pushback on Fabian libertine schemes. Obama, sure as hell exists, won’t yield on his Marxism. He has to be dragged out screaming.
Sarcastic or not, that’s by far the best effort I’ve seen yet ;)
Good question, but the premise is flawed; Obama could seek re-election in 2016 if taken out of office. (highly unlikely, but possible.)
Fabian is, at least, softer and less resolved than Marxist. Mitt might yield to pushback on Fabian libertine schemes. Obama, sure as hell exists, wont yield on his Marxism. He has to be dragged out screaming.
You know, I take the opposite stance; it is best to drag the country suddenly and drastically to the tyranny of socialism rather than slowly and comfortably; the frogs'll jump out then. (I don't want to become accustomed to evils, I want people stirred up enough to throw off even what evils they've become accustomed to.)
“If they are the same, why not at least forbid the current one from having a tenure longer than 4 years?”
In the spirit of debate, not that I advocate this...
When two things are equally bad, why change? It would be cost-effective to keep the current situation.
Thus my vote for a conservative.
If Romney wins in November, it will be the result of one of those historic shifts where the views of the particular candidate mean less than the simple factor of being in the right place at the right time. Romney is an inept empty suit. He could have used the USSC decision to rally Americans against both Obamacare and the treasonous Court. Instead he’s fumbling away the issue and giving Obama cover. A grade 10 student council candidate could do a more effective job of communicating a message. Pathetic.
What can I say? it's a gift... and a curse.
Thank you, though. :)
Thanks. I didn’t even hear that show, but it’s good to know the Great One agrees with me. haha
I believe the “relevant” portions (as far as that recording relates to my post) are from 1:33 to 1:40. Just for the record.
Thanks again, and Amen, may God continue to bless Mark Levin.
Johnson was a good governor of NM, so much so that as a Republican he got reelected in the solidly democratic [at the time, it's since become a little more conservative] state; i certainly don't agree with him on a lot, but I agree with him on enough and recognize his talent for governance.
I know less about Goode, but I'm rather liking some of what I read.
OK, this would have you voting a second time for Jimmy Carter, and then for Al Gore, and Skerry... in order to hasten the shock.
And if Mitt railed against Obamacare and a treasonous Court then I’m sure there’s a third thing he’d be wanting at...
I make not a single excuse; if I am forced to choose between two social evils the I should choose the one that is honest about itself. (I, however, do reject that premise; I may vote third-party or write-in, and am not therefore so constrained.)
Furthermore, I think that GW Bush did a decent job on his first term, for the most part -- I cannot, however, condone the first of the bailouts: the airlines... If I had been a bit more cynical I would not have voted for him in term-2, his "I had to destroy the free market to save it" was, and is, reprehensible.
After Obama's election and the demonstrable difficulties f getting any government entity to respect the constitution I now think that, barring a divine intervention, bloodshed is the only answer. To that end I pray for my country: God may yet be merciful. But if worse comes to worse, then i am ready to spill blood in battle with domestic enemies of the constitution.
If i were old enough for the Presidency then I'd do it... hell, it's not all that difficult.
Obama lied too in the run up to his election — badly — with his pretense of ratcheting right. Mitt at least gave lipservice to some sort of self awareness of the need for an attitude shift when he talked about being “severely conservative” (which from his vantage point is what mushy moderate looks like). If that’s shallow, then what Obama did isn’t hardly even a film of water.
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.