A Choice Between Satan and Beelzebub

WND ^ | 7/12/12 | Alan Keyes argues against 'fighting evil with evil' by voting for Romney

[HiTech RedNeck]

and a remarkable thing i have noticed is that some of the folks who are the most vocal about never letting mitt get their vote, will then make the most sensible suggestions about how mitt can improve his chances in the national polls... and will cheer when they actually see mitt doing that and obama going down as a result. this spells c-o-n-f-l-i-c-t-e-d to me. but i’m just a lowly hi tech red neck.

[so_real]

People who oppose Romney are Helping Obama.

If that's the length and breadth of your thinking, then you must also believe that those who "oppose Obama are helping Romney". And yet, that's not really happening, is it? Here is an entire forum in full opposition to Obama, and yet only a few are helping Romney. Who's part of the problem and who is part of the solution: those helping Romney, or those opposing Obama?

How can ANYONE with one brain cell possibly consider voting to re-elect Obama?

I suspect not a single individual on this forum -- not one -- will possibly consider voting to re-elect Obama. You see, by and large, we don't support pro-mandate, pro-abortion, pro-bailout, pro-amnesty, pro-homosexualization, pro-guncontrol, pro-stimulus, and pro-deathpanel candidates. Especially the ones that claim to be "conservative". If you don't understand this -- if this single-brain-cell concept is beyond you -- why are you here?

[factmart]

I have almost 99% of the time agree with Jim. Met him at the Freepers 2001 Inauguration Ball in DC. Nice guy but I thought conservatives believe in free speech?

[disraeligears]

There are huge differences between Obama and Romney. Is Romney perfect? Heck no! But he is 100 times better than Obama. If abortion is your primary concern, think what will happen if Obama is re-elected and gets to replace 1 to 2 conservatives. Also, nominate someone as “pure” but without electability, then you get another Keyes-Obama blowout. Respectfully,
Sometimes I feel like common sense is not quite so common.

[KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle]

No matter how such an election turns out, people content to choose between Satan and Beelzebub have made clear their willingness to let things go to hell. Moreover, the nature of their choice is so clear to them that they practically boast of the passionate hatred that impels them to it. With this practical boast they become the willing, proud accomplices of the very evil they profess to hate.

"Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?"

OUTSTANDING post, Jim!!!

[HiTech RedNeck]

the only way to oppose some other fellow american’s ignorant vote for obama (in your state, if it is winner take all, or in a district of your state if it splits electoral votes) in a way that has a measurable hope of actually ousting obama before a second term... will be to vote for the gop nominee. now if a wipe out for obama is already assured, then you can vote for sarah palin or mickey mouse or nobody and make a statement without jeopardizing that wipe out.

[HiTech RedNeck]

Sigh, passion is not just a problem with the “Mittbots.” (Scare quotes very, very deliberate.)

[Maurice Tift]

  It's physically impossible for me to vote for Romney even though he calls himself a "severe" conservative. I'm confident that he will appoint the same sort of judges that he appointed while in Massachusetts. Romney is a statist and it's built into his DNA. He's the enemy within and that's the really sickening part of this horrible situation. He doesn't know the meaning of the word 'liberty' and liberty is the one thing we need to reverse course.

[KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle]

Rush says you nuts, he right.

You post like kindergartener. No listen.

[KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle]

Sigh, passion is not just a problem with the “Mittbots.”

Nor craven rationalization, solely with those unable to countenance same.

[HiTech RedNeck]

The very leftily practiced Mitt has to be “severe” just to approach some kind of mushy moderation. Mitt will tend left without that kind of effort. If there is room for optimism about the outcome of a putative Mitt win, it is that Mitt appears to acknowledge the need for the effort. Mitt has no reason to be ignorant that what flew in Massachusetts, with its predominance of screaming liberals, will not fly in the USA as a whole.

This does not mean Mitt is any sort or kind of savior. This shows him to be a deeply flawed man with a little bit of an inkling that he needs to do better. That won’t save his soul. But it may be the means of mercy to America.

[HiTech RedNeck]

Ah, you are saying being black is not a problem with white. Nice little self glorification.

[disraeligears]

It is ironic that apparent born again bigotry against Mormonism may cause additional harm to the unborn. Sorry folks, but if you don’t vote for Romney and you live in a swing State, your actions are, in effect, pro-abortion, pro infanticide. Romney is not perfect, but for the unborn, he is 1000 times better than Obama.

[KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle]

Ah, you are saying being black is not a problem with white.

When you have to intentionally re-state another's words, solely in order to "defeat" a point entirely of your own dishonest creation: you've already lost the argument.

Something to think about.

[Dogbert41]

Nailed it. Good article.

We need a miracle.

Or we need to get ready for what’s coming. There may very well be a heavenly reason our choices are what they are.

[HiTech RedNeck]

Mormon, schmormon. I’ve scarcely come across anyone who does not want to vote for Mitt, that complains that it’s because of his space case religion that he actually keeps pretty darn private (it’s not like Mitt, with his high church rank, has these big Mormon parties). In the fighting fundie church where I go, nobody has even mentioned the Mormon connection about Mitt. Their concern seems to be about Mitt’s policies and how they stack up to Obama’s policies.

[so_real]

You are saying then, that in order to negate one ignorant vote cast for a "pro-mandate, pro-abortion, pro-bailout, pro-amnesty, pro-homosexualization, pro-guncontrol, pro-stimulus, pro-deathpanel candidate", I must necessarily cast my vote for a different "pro-mandate, pro-abortion, pro-bailout, pro-amnesty, pro-homosexualization, pro-guncontrol, pro-stimulus, pro-deathpanel candidate". And somehow, this vote of mine is not also "ignorant", and that my vote will win something more than "pro-mandate, pro-abortion, pro-bailout, pro-amnesty, pro-homosexualization, pro-guncontrol, pro-stimulus, and pro-deathpanel" leadership. This is peculiar logic. In my estimation, following this path only perpetuates the problem. After all, our support of John McCain has earned us his replacement, Mitt Romney.

[HiTech RedNeck]

Is this another kind of Godwin’s law? Find me the entry in the debate dictionary that proves anything remotely close to what you say. You are outright claiming you are the non-rationalization people. But you need to realize that rationalization can take short cuts that are overly reactionary as well as those that are overly lax. Yes it is possible to rationalize an opposition to voting for Mitt.

[KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle]

Pro-Life? Mitt Romney’s Abortion Clinic

Every time someone bleats "anti-Mormon bigotry" in defense of Mitt Romney, what I actually hear is: I will gladly sacrifice [xxxx number] of babies, in order to get this man elected President.

[Cvengr]

I grow apathetic in studying either candidate as they are both enemies of Christ. Granted, their methods differ from one another, they simply fail to be faithful to Christ first in all things.