Posted on 07/13/2012 7:49:04 PM PDT by NoLibZone
RUSH:
I saw some stories about... Actually, I should more accurately say I saw blog posts speculating on what would happen to turnout. Some of them made the point that there really isn't a whole lot of turnout energy, that conservative turnout's kinda flapping away in the wind. And if Condoleezza Rice had happened to be the nominee, it could suppress turnout.
And I read that and it boggles my mind.
I could be dead wrong about it, bit when I see blog posts that conservative turnout is down because they hate Romney and are unhappy that Romney's the nominee, and conservatives are already thinking sitting it out and sitting at home?
And if Rice is the choice, that's bad?
I'm thinking, "What the hell is going on out there?" If that's true, if there are a bunch of you people sitting around there thinking you're not gonna vote 'cause Romney's the nominee and if he chooses Condoleezza it's over, then I have lost touch with you!
I have lost touch with you. I don't understand that at all.
If they fully implement Obamacare, it's not just babies in the womb that are gonna be killed! That's his point. So what does it matter?
Now, it matters because it's morality.
It matters, and you should never compromise your morality. But you do have to keep things in perspective. And you do have to have your eye on the big prize and what is going to enable you to have your morality prevail (or to have a chance to, at any rate).
But if there are people out there who are saying, "You know what? (grumbling) I don't like Romney so much and I'm thinking not voting,"
I don't know you.
(Excerpt) Read more at rushlimbaugh.com ...
Well, you were referring to the evil Republican plan. I think HR3000 is the “replace” of repeal and replace.
Okay, thanks. I should go take a look at it then.
Sorry I mistook it for the Obamacare tool
Smaller rains will buy time; that is how I view Romney. not ideal; but buys us some time hopefully.
We all said the same thing in 2008.
Not going to fly with that analogy any longer. We still got Obama despite the fear-mongering of the Ruling Class and the frightened loyalists.
You going to do that?
No one is. So you needn't worry about the frightening prospect of armed violence upsetting your apple cart.
For you, the evils are still sufferable and so the entire concept of abolishing that which you have grown accustomed is a worse thought than practicing insanity over and over again.
Just another example of being deceived and wanting to be deceived, something we were warned would happen in a II Timothy 3 generation.
I doubt one election cycle is going to fix the whole problem. Certainly not if Obama wins.
As if elections can maintain and preserve liberty. Like I said earlier - you have not a clue about what I'm talking about. It's called being conditioned, like a parrot only able to think and act inside the box constructed by those in power to keep opposition caged.
What the Hell, according to you, all is lost
You can take that complaint up with history, the blueprints being followed by our rulers, the warnings from the Founders (that I ascertain are prophetic) and scripture itself.
Hell, why not try arguing with what John Adams said and see which of you bears the truth?
"a Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty once lost is lost forever. When the People once surrender their share in the Legislature, and their Right of defending the Limitations upon the Government, and of resisting every Encroachment upon them, they can never regain it…
I'll be watching the news, looking for the puff of smoke that was you. Try not to kill any innocent people...OK?
How very ALINSKY of you. Well at least we know you will side with the status quo.
Yeah, well I think not.
You have provided nothing but bitching, so I am left to assume you have nothing.
Buh-bye.
I need to correct and clarify something in my last post -
Liberty is not maintained or preserved soley by an election process, especially one that is become as corrupted and rigged as ours is today.
Liberty was and is a province of religion and morality - only such a people can preserve and maintain it via principles that are never compromised or surrendered for expedience.
And such people are not afraid to defend that liberty by all and any means necessary, safeguarding it with jealous rage and apt readiness to do violence to protect it.
But as I said - we are no longer such a people.
Such people are so few, they are most likely the 3% of three percent in a nation so far gone - even Conservatives no longer recognize what intended liberty is.
Buh-bye.
Right. Quotes from John Adams and paraphrasing the Founders is just 'bitching' to someone like you. As to having nothing, you go ahead and believe that.
Trials by fire often reveal how little real character and faith a person has, especially when all their hopes and faith are rooted in men.
“Obama is the drought; Romney is the small amount of rain.
We know the outcome with no rain; total disaster.”
My FRiend Romney is just clouds that look like rain but don’t. Gets you hopes up for nothing.
“Such people are so few, they are most likely the 3% of three percent in a nation so far gone - even Conservatives no longer recognize what intended liberty is.”
Amen. While I hold to all three legs of conservatism (Morale, Fiscal, & National Defense), I think that Moral Conservatism is the most important. IF we get the morality right, then the rest will fall into place. IF we don’t get the morality right, then the others are meaningless to a God fearing people. What good is wealth in the absence of God? Personally, I think I would rather live in a poor but Godly land than the most affluent and Godless that is a moral sewer.
While I know a GREAT many would not agree with this, it is my view. Although I know I have but corrupted by this Godless society and my own innate depravity.
I agree with you 100%.
And, Romney is much more likely to get liberal legislation passed than Obama. RINOS who would oppose tax increases, amnesty for illegal, climate change legislation, etc. if Obama proposed any of those things will not hesitate to support any of that if Romney is twisting their arm.
Judicial appointments? Romney is almost certain to move the Supreme Court to the left, not the right. Scalia and Kennedy, who would remain on SCOTUS if a Obama was reelected will almost certainly retire and, chances are, Romney will nominate justices to the left of Scalia and no better than Kennedy.
I'll take my chances with a growing conservative majority and public backlash against Obama rather than Romney dooming the Republican party and conservative movement by infecting both with liberalism.
You make great points, and I cannot say with certainty your projections are out of the realm of reality. It is strange, however, to see Obama advocacy as a matter of strategy. You are among the few that seem willing to acknowledge the effective outcome of the counter-vote — an amazing form of candor.
I don’t agree with your reasoning, but all ideas need to be on the table.
I pray.
Romney is NOT a devil, you just don't like him, because you disagree with him in everything.
The further we move from conservatism, the harder it will be to get back. If Obama continues in office, we move inexorably to the left. You may think Romney is exactly the same, but he is not. They may share some ideas on social issues, but on economics, they are worlds apart.
The social issues are important, and many of us hold them dear, but the vast majority of American voters will ignore them, if their main concern is finding a job to put food on their tables. Because of this, it's much more difficult to be elected by stressing the social issues as opposed to the fiscal ones. Romney will be much better for the economy, and their chances for work, than Obama will.
It stinks, but that's the reality we face in this election. Continually denigrating Romney will do nothing except turn voters who might have thought about voting for him off, and possibly even back to Obama. That won't help us to move toward conservatism in the long run.
“It won’t be Obama or Romney”
Figured as much.
“Niether Romney nor BHO2 support the 2nd Amendment.”
Not true. Romney supports the 2nd Amendment. Doesn’t support assault weapons.
re: “Romney is the greater evil because he corrupts otherwise good people into voting for liberalism.”
If you truly believe that then the only moral thing for you to do is vote for Obama.
If everything you say about Romney is true, then you MUST vote for Obama to stop Romney’s juggarnaut of marxist liberalism.
I'm confused as to where you stand. So many folks I see posting who eviscerate Romney, and rightly, also intend to vote for him. Are you one? Just curious, FRiend.
“Romney supports the 2nd Amendment.”
Oh, sure. Another flip-flop.
“Continually denigrating Romney will do nothing except turn voters who might have thought about voting for him off, and possibly even back to Obama. That won’t help us to move toward conservatism in the long run.”
Good, I want to move persons away from Romney. Also, just because they don’t vote for Romney doesn’t mean they will vote for Obama. That is fuzzy logic on your part. Romney deserves denigration and every effort to stop him. HE SHOULD NOT BE THE NOMINEE. This isn’t “sour grapes”, it is the recognition that the GOP Establishment picked this bozo and foisted him on us.
Whether you want to acknowledge it or not...it is fact that Romney is evil. Romney has a history of being pro-abortion, pro-homosexual. and he IS a big government “Statist.” He is not conservative, and to pretend he is makes him evil. Plus, he is a major proponent of a psuedo-Christian cult that misdirects possibly millions to hell. The VERY ESSENCE of EVIL. So, don’t you dare say he IS NOT EVIL. Another thing about him is that he is an insidious form of evil (the worst kind), because he fools people into thinking he is not...people like yourself.
IF you really care about your country and turning it towards conservatism, you will forget about supporting Romney and work hard on the House and Senate. Vote third party so neighter Obama or Romney can claim a “mandate.”
“The social issues are important, and many of us hold them dear, but the vast majority of American voters will ignore them, if their main concern is finding a job to put food on their tables. Because of this, it’s much more difficult to be elected by stressing the social issues as opposed to the fiscal ones. Romney will be much better for the economy, and their chances for work, than Obama will.”
Well the polls I have been reading show that Romney isn’t seen as that much better on the economy. So, you can kiss that off. Look, and I say this gently...you have been in Mass too long and your perspective is warped by what you are surrounded with. Romney WAS NOT a good governor...not on social or fiscal matters. He wasn’t really a good businessman either. He was a vulture capitalist. Anything good that came out of Bain was in spite of Romney, not because of him. He just provided the capital.
To appeal across the spectrum and beat Obama, we conservatives must promote all three legs of conservatism:
Social/Moral, Fiscal, and National Defense. I ONLY consider the first most important because IF you get IT right, the others WILL fall into place.
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.