Romney is a Flat out Liar, a Fake, and a liberal.

[InTheLight]

Could it be you do not want to talk about the fact you are considering voting for cult member who degrades Jesus Christ, a pro abortionist, pro gay rights person, pro gun control, and the man who established a government run medical care system pretty much like Obamas? Are you really going to vote for a man that has made a u turn on a dime and now preaches conservative values? Are you really going to vote for a man who really does not care about abortion one way or the other, that only cares about being elected? How about voting for a man pandering for votes off the blood of innocent children? So how does it feel considering a vote for a person who is going to take us further down the path of being a godless nation more than we already are?

Another copy-and-paste job.

 

[webdog]

Why does everyone insist on bringing up Ron Paul in a Romney thread? Could it be you do not want to talk about the fact you are considering voting for cult member who degrades Jesus Christ, a pro abortionist, pro gay rights person, pro gun control, and the man who established a government run medical care system pretty much like Obamas? Are you really going to vote for a man that has made a u turn on a dime and now preaches conservative values? Are you really going to vote for a man who really does not care about abortion one way or the other, that only cares about being elected? How about voting for a man pandering for votes off the blood of innocent children? So how does it feel considering a vote for a person who is going to take us further down the path of being a godless nation more than we already are?

As has already been pointed out, the author of the OP brought up Paul first.

 

[saturneptune]

Another copy-and-paste job.

Could be but they are my words. It does not really matter where they come from. The message is the same. Christians that would even consider a vote for such a thug like this should hang their heads in shame.

 

[saturneptune]

As has already been pointed out, the author of the OP brought up Paul first.

Yep, that really justifies a vote for Mitt Romney.

 

[saturneptune]

That actually made me laugh and it's funny because it's true. :laugh:

Saturneptune, who would you like to see in office?

I answered that yesterday. It is too early to tell, as I pray the Lord will intercede and produce a decent Republican candidate. Short of that, whoever presents the best choice amongst the third parties, probably the nominee of the Constitution Party. If you could raise Richard Nixon from the dead, I would vote for him over this group.

 

[InTheLight]

Could be but they are my words. It does not really matter where they come from. The message is the same. Christians that would even consider a vote for such a thug like this should hang their heads in shame.

So far as I know, NNE on BB is stating that Mittens is their first choice. Most people admit they would vote for him as a last resort, a lesser of two evils type of vote, an "anybody but Obama again" vote.

You continually post the same rant about Romney and no one rebuts you. We understand your position, trust me, you don't need to keep posting it.

 

[Havensdad]

As has already been pointed out, the author of the OP brought up Paul first.

Yeah, cause if you say, "A vote for that old kook congressman from Texas is a wasted vote," it doesn't count, cause you haven't actually said the name...



I guess, then, I can start questioning other people's salvation on this board, by using initials, instead of their name, since I am not "technically" breaking the rules...

 

[Bro. Curtis]

-----------------------

 

[webdog]

Yep, that really justifies a vote for Mitt Romney.

If I only said that or even hinted as such. Talk about the perfect example of a non sequitur!

 

[webdog]

Yeah, cause if you say, "A vote for that old kook congressman from Texas is a wasted vote," it doesn't count, cause you haven't actually said the name...



I guess, then, I can start questioning other people's salvation on this board, by using initials, instead of their name, since I am not "technically" breaking the rules...

What on God's green earth are you talking about?

 

[John Toppass]

Before I can vote for any candidate, they must be Pro-Life. Romney does not fit that bill. 12-15 million other voters will not vote at all before voting for Romney. Can we afford to lose that many votes?

 

[carpro]

You are a liar. Ron Paul is not an isolationist.

:laugh: Just because he has you fooled doesn't mean he has fooled everyone.

Paul will go after military spending. He said so. I believe him.

Cut it to the bone , he will. An isolationist always will. It's been done before and we have paid dearly for it.

 

[Havensdad]

:laugh: Just because he has you fooled doesn't mean he has fooled everyone.

Paul will go after military spending. He said so. I believe him.

A billion dollars for a palace like embassy in another country is not "military" spending, however much pseudo-conservatives want to claim that it is. Nor is giving billions of dollars in "foreign aid."

Cut it to the bone , he will. An isolationist always will. It's been done before and we have paid dearly for it.

Paul is not an isolationist. He is a non-interventionist. An isolationist wants no trade with other countries, and closed borders (no legal immigration). Paul wants neither of these.

Also, you are wrong about spending. Paul has an excellent record of voting FOR true defense appropriations.

Now, again, start your own thread, and quit hijacking mine.

 

[InTheLight]

A billion dollars for a palace like embassy in another country is not "military" spending, however much pseudo-conservatives want to claim that it is. Nor is giving billions of dollars in "foreign aid."
Paul is not an isolationist. He is a non-interventionist. An isolationist wants no trade with other countries, and closed borders (no legal immigration). Paul wants neither of these.

I agree with you. It is a shameful tactic to call Paul an isolationist, when in fact the proper terminology is non-interventionist. But that's politics for you.

Now back to the evil, lying, heretical, cultist, SUPER RICH, out-of-touch Mitt Romney...

 

[Bro. Curtis]

I am with H.D. and I.T.L.. I am ashamed of the folks misrepresenting Dr. Paul's position.

At least be honest, call it what it is, and THEN say you don't support it.

Carpro, I am with you 90% of the time, but the only ones fooled about Dr. Paul are the ones who can't get his position straight in their heads.

 

[webdog]

Non interventionism is the avoidance of all wars not related to direct territorial differences. Isolationism is the avoidance of any military conflict with other nations while also declining to enter alliances with other nations. Paul fits the latter, not the former.

 

[InTheLight]

Non interventionism is the avoidance of all wars not related to direct territorial differences. Isolationism is the avoidance of any military conflict with other nations while also declining to enter alliances with other nations. Paul fits the latter, not the former.

Isolationism is declining military and economic alliances, treaties, diplomacy, and trade. Non-interventionism is not entering into military alliances.

 

[webdog]

Isolationism refers to America's longstanding reluctance to become involved in European alliances and wars. Isolationists held the view that America's perspective on the world was different from that of European societies and that America could advance the cause of freedom and democracy by means other than war.

American isolationism did not mean disengagement from the world stage. Isolationists were not averse to the idea that the United States should be a world player and even further its territorial, ideological and economic interests, particularly in the Western Hemisphere.

http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1601.html

This sure sounds like Ron Paul to me.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

I am ashamed of the so-called "conservatives" on this board. I expect a little ignorance from the liberals.

Just don't expect me to adopt your personal definition of the word. The people calling him an "isolationist" are just not being truthful.

You should say you don't support "non-interventionism".

Tell me we need to keep borrowing from China to keep these wars going, that the U.S. needs to run a world-wide police force on credit.

I would respect that more.

 

[webdog]

I am ashamed of the so-called "conservatives" on this board. I expect a little ignorance from the liberals.

Just don't expect me to adopt your personal definition of the word. The people calling him an "isolationist" are just not being truthful.

Now you've gone "all in" concerning ignorance. He is a historic American Isolationist. Don't expect me to adopt "your personal definition" either.

Your signature is an example of classic isolationism.