Posted on 08/04/2012 7:24:29 PM PDT by FL2012
Not all celebrities are Democrats. It may seem that way sometimes, but there actually are a few Republicans in the entertainment industry. And Mitt Romney scored endorsements from two big-name stars earlier this week.
(Excerpt) Read more at examiner.com ...
There are many people that I heartily WANT to stay home on election day, there judgment is so impaired that the Republic is better off without their participation.
Well my vote is for a conservative who you don’t have to hope and pray that he will be a conservative. Maybe you should vote for a conservative for a change. You told me not to cry if Obama is the President in 2013 and I said the same for you about Romney and you say, “Oh know my lover Romney does not get my complaints....he is going to be great”. You are worse than even thought.
everyone on my facebook page is in an uproar (I work in music) “...but...but...he likes jazz, how can he do something so stupid?”
LOL!!!!!!!
If you had the guts to say this to Mr. Eastwood's face, you just might make his day...
You don’t think that Clint Eastwood is liberal. Maybe you need to start taking drugs. He made Million Dollar Baby...that movie was NOT a conservative movie. Now maybe Eastwood is a fiscal moderate and social liberal but he is NOT a conservative and Romney is a full fledged liberal.
Your posts have demonstrated that you are a charter member of the reelect Obama coalition...nothing you say could possibly be considered as "conservative".
I think the worst ever would have to be McCain. At least Romney is not endorsing Obama like Mclame did.
nothing you say could possibly be considered as “conservative”.
Ok. Let me be clear. I will vote for Virgil Goode the conservative in the race.
http://althouse.blogspot.com/2012/08/im-very-looking-forward-to-republican.html
No doubt about it.
McCain wanted only the GOP nomination -- his way of "sticking it to Bush". He didnt seem to want the presidency at all.
McCain also felt it necessary to insult his base at least once a day -- for some inexplicable reason.
Even Dole was superior to McCain. At least, Dole would've been a "signer" of GOP legislation. McCain, in the interest of "bi-partisanship", would've felt it necessary to sign Democrat legislation.
If you think that voting for Virgil Goode is the best thing for our Country, not the best thing for you or your ego, but the best thing for our Country, knowing full well that he has no chance of winning, and knowing that voting for him is a vote that will not be cast to end the scourge of Obama from our nation, then I have to question your judgment. It's not about you, or me, it's about the future of our Country. If you think that the future of our Country will be better served with four more years of Obama, so be it. I hope that none of us will have to live with the future that you support.
Because the corrupt Politico has the exact same agenda as Jameson, to win Obama a second term, the corrupt Politico reported this endorsement without irony or comment.
What Politico forgot, though, is the long memory of the Internet. Yesterday, a tipster jumped in the wayback machine and found that in 2008 this very same Politico bent over backwards to protect Hillary Clinton from the very Jenna Jameson's endorsement:
Campaign ‘Undorsers': Boosters or Saboteurs?
With more than a year before the 2008 elections, we already know how O.J. Simpson, Jenna Jameson and Heidi Fleiss will vote, proving that political opinions are like local Emmys — everybody has one and they don’t matter much.
The online magazine Radar has dubbed these “the undorsements.”
They are “unsolicited proclamations of support” readily offered up by second-or-third-tier celebrities who, for obvious reasons, are more than happy to enter the fray of Oprahs and O’Reillys.
And by Radar’s count, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) leads the ’08 contenders in racking up undorsements. Some of her undorsers — Simpson, Jameson, Fleiss and “D.C. Madam” Deborah Jeane Palfrey — have had their share of legal and moral challenges.
Not really jumping in to stir things up, but I am wondering if you will be upset if Obama is re-elected?
Or will you still think your stand will help when they strip you of more liberties?
Who in the hell is Virgil Goode?
The most important election in our lifetime and some “real conservatives” here are willing to sit it out or vote for some no name just because Romney doesn’t fit the bill. And if BO gets back in then they can claim the mantle of “At least I didn’t vote for Mitt” while the country sinks deeper into tyranny.
Romney is not the best guy around for sure, but he’s light years better than BO and so long as Ryan and DeMint/others after he retires are around, I’ll put country before party and pull for Mitt. We can still work hard for solid converatives to get to Congress and state offices.
For all of Romney’s faults (and there are many) not sure how one can equate them in total to anything BO has already pulled or what we know he will pull if he gets another four years? I’m willing to take the chance that Romney will not trample the Constitution in any way like BO ALREADY HAS. Voting for Viril Goode and sending this statist back into the White House will not make that go away.
This election comes down to getting a tyrant out of office, not trying to re-invent Reagan (which sadly can never be done).
You are wasting your time trying to reason with the anti-Romneyites. Free Republic has gone so far right that it is left. Those who would vote for Virgil Goode are really voting for Obama but are too cowardly to admit it. Rest assured, though, that if Obama is reelected these same “patriots” will be on here every day carping and complaining about the sad state of our nation. They will get exactly what they deserve.
Just who is this Super Conservative you will waste your vote on?
You are right.
Explaining the facts to these people is a bit like potty training a 1 year old.
Some, with real principles, will die for them. Others, that spout off that they have them, are willing to take down a boatload of others, who don't share same "principles", with them. You consider your "principles" as a trump to all other views on the topic and then have the gall to point out the hubris and narcissism of others - conveniently, it cannot be argued against because the only real "argument" put forth is, "It's my principles".
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.