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.
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.
So far as I know, NO ONE 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.
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...
:rolleyes:
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...
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?
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.