Am I the Only One Who Thought Romney Running in 2016 Would Be a Good Thing? (Guest Post)

By 124 Comments 1,518 views

romney lost

Aaaand this one is over.

Mitt Romney announced Friday he will not run for president in 2016, after briefly flirting with a third White House run — a decision that only slightly narrows the crowded field of potential Republican candidates.

And Stephen Kruiser summed up what most people outside of the radical left feel about Romney:

The Romney 2012 story has been rewritten with help from Barack Obama. The Idiot King has proven Romney to have been correct about many things during the campaign, which has led everyone to almost forget how awful he is at connecting with voters. With the campaign riding high after the president phoned in his performance during the first debate, Romney let Candy Crowley defeat him in the second one.

I still think Romney’s 2012 campaign was an amazingly blown opportunity to put someone in office who could have made a real, positive difference in Washington. Some of you may even recall that I suggested that had President Obama been smart, after Kathleen Sebelius’ resignation he should have asked Romney to take over as head of HHS, with Howard Dean as Romney’s deputy – yes, really!

Obviously, all of these opportunities have passed. But Kruiser goes on to bring up what would have been a potentially positive side effect of Romney running:

I haven’t determined if this is a relief yet. Yes, the Mittster is most definitely in need of a reality check. However, if he keeps sniffing around for the nomination it divides what I like to call the octogenarian GOP establishment harumph money between him and Jeb Bush. Add Chris Christie into the mix and it’s a full-on family brawl for the addled elders of the party.

Those of us who didn’t think Romney was the right guy in 2012 certainly don’t want him to be the nominee in 2016.

We might just want him to hang around long enough to make Jeb Bush’s life miserable, however.

Unfortunately, that’s where Kruiser stops, and I think that this point needs to be taken a bit further. In the last three Republican primaries I saw the candidates who I supported get squashed by the GOP establishment. In 2000 it was McCain, in 2008 I was behind Fred Thompson, and in 2012 I watched Herman Cain go down in flames.1 A big factor in the GOP establishment getting their candidates nominated was the fact that they were united behind their guys and could put all of their energy into defeating their primary competitors. If only they could have put the same energy into winning the general election…

But what happens if they’re not united early enough? What if Romney, and to some degree, Christie, were to hang around long enough to prevent the establishment from having a candidate to rally around? Maybe this presents the opportunity for something amazing to happen – maybe the nominee is actually the candidate preferred by the Republican base as opposed to the one selected for us by the establishment? Maybe we end up with a solid nominee, like Bobby Jindal, Ted Cruz, or best of all, Scott Walker.

Let’s face it, in 2016 the presidency is there for the GOP’s taking. The Democrats have no bench depth and will give us a primary where Hilary and Fauxcahontis will see who can out-stupid the other with Marxist tirades.

Not satire – this is an actual product being offered over at the leftist site Wonkette

Even worse, they won’t get the same tailwind support that Obama had and be forced to run on his record. The mainstream press will still be there for them of course, but nowhere to the degree that Obama has enjoyed. Now the Republicans just have to avoid messing up by nominating some lukewarm conservative – like Jeb.

Of course, this could all be avoided if the GOP establishment and its base would simply get behind the one person who would make a truly great president. Longtime readers know that there’s only one man worthy of Brother Bob’s endorsement…. Stannis Baratheon in 2016!

Cross posted from Brother Bob’s Blog

Follow Brother Bob on Twitter and Facebook

1. I don’t know if it mattered at all who the Republicans ran against Obama in 2008, but I’m still annoyed at what a lazy campaign Thompson ran. And sadly Herman Cain was never a serious candidate, as “999” can’t be the answer to every question. But I also have zero doubt that either one would have been a better president than what we have now.

Blogging by the credo of "Making the world a more offensive place, one blog post at a time", Brother Bob started writing posts around the beginning of the Obama presidency over at Brother Bob's Blog. A born-again Existentialist and self-professed libertarian with conservative tendencies, he has ironically chosen to live in the Washington, DC area - deep behind enemy lines. He has always loved history, and spent eight years volunteering as a tour guide on weekends, giving over 200 tours to roughly 2,500 mostly foreign guests. His tours were highlighted by stories generally not found in the history books or most other tours, such as the importance of the Battle if Antietam, the origins or Arlington Cemetery, and dispelling the myths of FDR's New Deal. Although his favorite subject to blog about is Economics, as seen in his Economics for Politicians series, his posts try to address angles that other conservative writers and the mainstream media (naturally!) miss. "There's no point in putting up a post on a subject that someone smarter than me has already written". He believes in the "Happy Warrior" approach, and tries to inject humor in his posts, sometimes successfully. Two such examples are his posts comparing the modern left to the horrible Star Wars prequels, and analyzing the laments of a DC woman in search of a feminist boyfriend. Brother Bob lives with his very patient wife known as Sister Babe, and their fantastic son. Little Bob. Little Bob is also the reason that being a tour guide came to an end, as spending Saturdays raising a son takes priority over giving lectures to foreign visitors on the folly of Keynesian economics. BB is also grateful for the opportunity to take his place among the outstanding writers at Flopping Aces, appreciates every person who takes the time to read his posts, and especially those who join him in the conversation in the comments.

124 Responses to “Am I the Only One Who Thought Romney Running in 2016 Would Be a Good Thing? (Guest Post)”

  1. 101

    George Wells

    @ Redteam #98:

    It is you who don’t understand the Windsor decision. It applied to the federal government’s acknowledgment of the Windsor marriage, and also to all other marriages that were legal in the states that accepted them. (It DID establish a precedent, but the precedent that it established had nothing to do with Virginia Law, other than it gave a hint of how the SCOTUS might decide later on the subject of gay marriage in general. That hint was a weak one.)

    The Windsor decision did not convey any rights to Virginia gay couples, because Virginia still banned gay marriages and the contracts that attempted to grant rights similar to the rights of marriage. I did not gain those rights until Judge Wright overturned the Virginia Constitutional Amendment that banned gay marriage. Then, and only then, could I take advantage of the federal rights established by the Windsor decision, and to do that, I had to get married in Virginia or I had to register in Virginia my Maryland marriage. For insurance, I did both. Because the Maryland right was approved by voter assent, it is unlikely to ever be overturned, but the Virginia right was won in the courts, and until the SCOTUS weighs in on the subject, the Virginia right is in question. At this point, it appears that the SCOTUS will uphold the right everywhere, making the Maryland certificate of marriage irrelevant and unnecessary. Still, it is a happy memento.

    “Edith Windsor was the winner. Quit claiming her victory as your own”

    Legal decisions that effect millions of people do not belong exclusively to the individuals who brought suit. The Windsor decision effectively returned to Edith Windsor the $300,000 plus that the IRS had wrongfully confiscated from her, and that was hers to keep. but the effects of that decision reach way beyond Edith, and ALL gay people won a great victory in the court on the day of that decision. Many millions of gay dollars will no longer be stolen from legally married gays, and I will benefit from the decision in this way. There is no deceit in this acknowledgment. Yes, I owe Edith and the legal team that represented her WITH MY FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTION a debt of gratitude for a job well done. ALL gay people won that day, and we ALL win every time another bigoted anti-gay law is overturned. Brian Williams has nothing to do with it.

  2. 102

    Redteam

    @George Wells:

    who denies climate change

    hell, it was 38 early this morning and then the climate changed and it got all the way up to 70, so yeah, it changes daily, why would anyone deny that?

    and who presumes to understand homosexuality that he has no education or experience with other than the fact that he was propositioned when he was a teenager,

    you’re making that up. Why would I want to presume to understand homosexuality? What would be in that for me? What’s that old saying, ‘don’t get near if you’re queer’? actually the first time I was hit on by a queer(as they were known back then) was when I was 12, next time about 3 years later.

    THINKS that he has succeeded in proving that I am dishonest

    wrong again, you proved it yourself back up in 84. I just pointed it out.

    think that YOU have the right to play an honesty card?

    Ah, so where did I do something dishonest. Well sure you don’t like me pointing out your dishonesty but you make it so blatant, it’s not hard to do. I don’t think you can point out anything I’ve said that is dishonest. Just because you don’t like it doesn’t make it so.

    In-breeding has left your mind addled.

    In breeding? Yeah, but I didn’t give up and go to humping guys to prevent more of it in the future. I guess your Mom and Dad did so bad you didn’t want to take the chance.

    Irretrievably dumb as dirt

    There you go again. Where is the proof that dirt is dumb? Is that an assumption of queer minds? I’m an American, not a Southern American, just plain American. I see you’ve now basically reduced your argument to ‘name calling’. Congrats. Close that closet door.

  3. 103

    Redteam

    @George Wells:

    It is you who don’t understand the Windsor decision.

    then you launch into a long solioquy explaining it. Summing up that you now have the same rights that Windsor won for you. She won, you claim the victory. I get it. You want to feel important.

    The Windsor decision did not convey any rights to Virginia gay couples

    I am surprised to learn that a US Supreme Court ruling on a constitutional issue does not apply in all states. Kinda defeats the need for a US Court doesn’t it. I’ll bet some of the Justices will be surprised to learn that. Uh, and some other people also.

  4. 104

    Bill

    @George Wells: Since you mention the estate issue, don’t you find it just a bit ironic that the wonderful guy that made all your wildest dreams come true (while wrecking the nation and world) has made it possible for you to transfer your estate to your partner, yet is proposing new and more ravenous estate taxes which will devour even more of an estate after death, taking most of the estate for the government and leaving precious little to happily bequeath?

  5. 105

    George Wells

    @redteam #103:
    “I am surprised to learn that a US Supreme Court ruling on a constitutional issue does not apply in all states.”

    Well, you learned something. The “constitutional issue” that the SCOTUS ruled on was the constitutionality of the DOMA section – the one part that the SCOTUS voided. That section forbade the Federal Government from honoring gay marriages that were legal IN THE STATES THAT ALLOWED THEM. The SCOTUS decision said the the Federal Government HAD to honor those marriages. Virginia didn’t allow gay marriages, so the DOMA decision didn’t effect Virginia gays. The SCOTUS ruling only applied to those states that already allowed gay marriages. You have to be awfully thick to not comprehend this. Why do you bother to comment on things that you have absolutely NO understanding of?

  6. 106

    George Wells

    @Bill #104:
    I sought only equal treatment, not special treatment, not a free ride. Unlike many Republicans, I’m more than willing to pay my fair share of whatever the government needs to fund their necessary functions. I don’t agree with giving everyone a tax break when embarking on a trillion-dollar Iraq War, an unconscionable bit of ugly politics that ballooned our deficit. Republicans demand a strong response to ISIS, but refuse to authorize Obama to use force or to fund it. More political mischief. Our infrastructure is in a state of collapse, yet we do nothing to fund its repair. Our schools are falling behind those of second-tier countries, yet we cut funding to education. We allow the veterans returning damaged from fighting our wars to suffer inferior medical services, and we are unwilling to pay for the increased costs that our unnecessary wars incur, instead blaming the Obama Administration for the failure. There is no free ride. There is no way to continually achieve more while continually paying less, yet Republicans seem to believe that such magic is possible. It’s not. If more money is needed, more taxes are needed to provide it. Robbing Peter to pay Paul won’t work. The Republican strategy of crippling our tax base in order to force the dismantlement of Social Security and Medicare (yes, I read the book) is criminal. I’ll happily pay whatever taxes are needed, so long as my bill isn’t padded by politicians who think that because I’m gay, I owe three times as much as the next married guy. Pay your own fare share, and quit griping!

  7. 107

    Rich Wheeler

    @George Wells: You ask RT why he bothers to comment on things he has absolutely no understanding of.
    That’s RT —He goes on and on—clueless and bored.— a hate filled racist homophobe I’m tired of him. He’s all yours.

  8. 108

    Bill

    @George Wells: I’m sure you’ll feel that gracious right up to the point that you find out that if you leave something like a home or substantial estate (like a family business or farm, for example), whomever is inheriting it will have to fork over about 75% of its value in order to keep it. This is how so many family farms go under, and that was before Obama’s new interpretation was proposed.

    I also believe in paying one’s fair share; I do not believe, however, that the government should get to tax the same items multiple times and rape a family just because someone died. You, however, feel otherwise.

    I am finding it harder and harder to believe you have a conservative bone in your body. It is more than apparent that you are far more liberal than you let on (and I wouldn’t blame you one whit for hiding it) and are perfectly content with the ruinous road Mr. Obama has taken our country down.

  9. 109

    George Wells

    @Bill:
    I believe in gun ownership – broadly. Sound liberal?

    I believe that the problem of illegal immigration should be dealt with by placing a bounty on the heads of illegals and allowing it to be collected on CORPSES. Let me clarify: If illegal immigration threatens our national security (as Retire05 has generously explained it does) it should be punishable by death, just as treason is. Allow citizens to protect the homeland with lethal force, and after the first one or two illegals are shot dead and the word gets out, the remaining 18 million will self-deport in a heart-beat. Very efficient, very humane, very low-cost. Sound liberal?

    I believe that a society has the right to forbid abortion. I don’t mind abortion, principally because I don’t believe that life is “sacred.” But society’s right trumps my opinion. Sound liberal?

    I believe that a society has the right to exterminate gays. I hope it does not choose to do so, but only for the obviously selfish reason that I am gay. Again, society’s right trumps my opinion. Sound liberal? (I’m actually to the right of Antonin Scalia on that one.)

    I believe that society has the right to impose the death penalty on criminals as it deems appropriate. Again consistent with my belief that life is not sacred. Keeping people incarcerated for life isn’t cost-effective and it isn’t humane. Kill them and be done with it. So what if a few mistakes are made. Nature makes mistakes, too. Sh*t happens. Get over it. Sound liberal?

    Getting into the insane fiscal policies of the past several administration would take a book, but basically, my fiscal conservatism far exceeds either party’s current philosophy. Rest assured I’m not liberal here, not in terms of Federal Reserve policy, not in government spending. Liberal? I don’t think so.

    ISIS/Islam? Nuke them. No more pussy-footing around with diplomacy that Muslims can’t begin to understand, much less appreciate. A big stick is the only thing they understand. Sound liberal?

    I’m getting tired of making the point – REPEATEDLY – that I’m basically Republican in my political leanings. It is ONLY because the GOP has waged – and continues to wage – war on gays that I have supported Democratic candidates. You continue that war to your own disadvantage. Don’t blame me – I warned you.

  10. 110

    George Wells

    @Rich Wheeler #107:

    Yeah, that’s “Redteam.”
    After you strip away the layers of denial and the blatantly misinformation, there’s very little left.
    I have a brother who spent a large portion of his adolescence making up lies about every last thing to the point that the family worried that he had some sort of mental problem that prevented him from being able to distinguish the truth from his fantasies. What made everybody feel particularly weird was that the kid seemed absolutely convinced that everybody bought every last one of his outrageous lies, hook, line and sinker. Somehow, he grew out of that phase, and his second marriage was a happy success. Redteam seems to have followed a different course, so I have no experience with his brand of strange. In the final analysis, we are all remarkably different, and way more so than we usually give ourselves credit for being.

  11. 111

    Redteam

    @George Wells:

    Why do you bother to comment on things that you have absolutely NO understanding of?

    To give you a chance to dazzle us with your ignorance.

    The “constitutional issue” that the SCOTUS ruled on was the constitutionality of the DOMA section – the one part that the SCOTUS voided.

    They voided it and it didn’t apply in the US? Then how did it benefit you? I know you’re trying to Prove that you WON something, you just don’t know what it was. The weird thing to me is that you were concerned with the status of your ‘material’ property and not so much you personal relationship.

  12. 112

    Bill

    @George Wells:

    I believe that a society has the right to exterminate gays

    Really? That sounds a bit extreme. It doesn’t sound necessarily “conservative”. Sounds more socialist to me.

    However, yes, many of the things you listed sound like healthy conservatism. So, I have to ask, why would you throw all that away just to vote for someone that stands against all that, especially when he didn’t need your support, he had the exact same point of view that you characterize as a “war on gays” when taken by Republicans?

    Again, you are not convincing. What is most surprising is why you bother trying.

  13. 113

    Redteam

    @Rich Wheeler:

    hate filled racist homophobe

    yet you can’t demonstate any examples of it. I’ve certainly never been racist, if you want to see racism go up to the places where Sharpton, Jackson, Farrankhan live. They are the epicenter. hated? I do truly dislike those that are trying to destroy the country and those that support those while pretending to be patriotic. Homophobe? Why would anyone fear a man that considers humping another man to be normal? Feel sorry for them? Maybe.

    I’m tired of him. He’s all yours.

    but you’ll continue to answer because you know you will be conceding defeat to someone that you consider inferior. But I’m not singing kumbaya to a memory of the Marine Corps while also singing kumbaya to the actions of a traitor in the white house.

  14. 114

    George Wells

    @redteam #111:
    “They voided it and it didn’t apply in the US? Then how did it benefit you?”

    If you had the capacity to remember more than the last sentence that you read, you’d have retained my explanation that The DOMA section that the Windsor decision voided did not apply in Virginia because Virginia did not allow gay marriages at the time of the decision. The DOMA provision (before it was voided) forbade the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT from honoring state-allowed gay marriages. Virginia didn’t allow gay marriages, so the Windsor decision had no effect in Virginia. Is that so hard to understand?

    The Windsor decision did NOT benefit me UNTIL the Wright decision (in Norfolk) voiding Virginia’s Anti-Gay Constitutional Amendment was upheld by the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals (in Richmond).

    My interest in the legal aspects of gay marriage are strictly financial. I have been happily and faithfully bonded to Paul for 40 years, and neither of us require state sanction to maintain our indivisible love for one another. Neither do we require your approval.

  15. 115

    Redteam

    @George Wells:

    I have a brother who spent a large portion of his adolescence making up lies about every last thing

    To my knowledge, I’ve never spent any portiion of my existence making up any lies. I may have said something untrue, but I didn’t spend any time concocting the untruth. Seems as if your parentage might be your problem. According to you they gave birth to a habitual liar and a homosexual. Did they produce any children without birth defects?

    and his second marriage was a happy success. Redteam seems to have followed a different course,

    yep, unlike him, only one marriage to same female for 54 years now.

    I believe that a society has the right to exterminate gays

    Really, that’s kinda like Hitlers beliefs, the exact opposite of Conservative, more like socialist facism. I don’t think children should be destroyed just because they are born with a birth defect.

  16. 116

    Redteam

    @George Wells:

    bonded to Paul for 40 years

    Bonded? that’s a strange use of the word.

    Neither do we require your approval.

    True as I don’t require your approval for my relationship. Even if asked if I approve, I would most likely respond that I believe that your living arrangements are your business.

  17. 117

    George Wells

    @Bill #112:
    “I believe that a society has the right to exterminate gays”
    “Really? That sounds a bit extreme. It doesn’t sound necessarily “conservative”. Sounds more socialist to me.”

    No more “socialist” than support of the death penalty generally. If homosexuality is a crime (as Scalia has argued states have a right to declare), why would putting homosexuals to death be any more socialistic than putting murderers to death? Hint: there is no difference.

    “why would you throw all that away just to vote for someone that stands against all that, especially when he didn’t need your support, he had the exact same point of view that you characterize as a “war on gays” when taken by Republicans?”

    First of all, gays did not buy Obama’s 2008 claim to have flipped position on gay marriage. He was FOR it first, remember? We believed him then, and when he flipped in 2008, the wide-spread scuttlebutt in the gay community was that he did it to win over moderates and independents. Remember that in 2008, the country was still leaning AGAINST gay marriage. Obama’s flip was just as dishonest as so many other politicians who allow opinion polls to change their minds. Most politicians are opportunistic diseases.

    Obama didn’t need my vote? Then neither did Romney. I’ve never voted in an election that turned on one vote, so I suppose that my vote has NEVER been needed. But that is no reason not to vote. And, as it turned out, I was RIGHT about Obama on gay marriage. His staged “evolution” was perhaps unseemly, but it got the job done. He was there when gays needed him. The ends justified the means, so-to-speak.

    “Again, you are not convincing. What is most surprising is why you bother trying.”

    I have explained the answer to this before. I find arguing here to be mentally stimulating. I notice an improvement in my critical thinking, my spelling, my vocabulary when I spend what time I can here. Once the weather improves, I’ll be outside more.

    I might also ask YOU the same thing. What are YOU trying to prove.
    I am equally at a loss over exactly what y’all are bickering about over gay marriage. I get that you THINK that it is either hastening America’s “moral decline” or that it will CAUSE America’s destruction, but none of that has happened in the places where gay marriage has been around for a number of years. The sky hasn’t fallen. People haven’t stopped having babies. The number of gay people hasn’t increased. NOTHING bad has happened, other than a few bigots have had their feelings hurt when courts gave gays rights that everyone else already took for granted. Gee, that’s so TERRIBLE! But other than that – NOTHING.

    Gay marriage is here, and in June it will be here EVERYWHERE in America. You are wasting your breath complaining about it. You lost that fight.
    At this point, I’d be more concerned about getting MY vote back in your corner rather than repeatedly trying to shrink your tent by alienating me and those of like mind.

  18. 118

    George Wells

    @Redteam #115:
    ” Seems as if your parentage might be your problem. According to you they gave birth to a habitual liar and a homosexual. Did they produce any children without birth defects?”

    My third and only other brother was born with a congenital defect on his skull. None of my parents’ children were born perfect. Have you an appropriate “final solution” for parents who produce flawed offspring? Perhaps an incinerator handy to dispose such abominations? You REALLY want to go there?

    “I believe that a society has the right to exterminate gays”
    “Really, that’s kinda like Hitlers beliefs, the exact opposite of Conservative, more like socialist facism. I don’t think children should be destroyed just because they are born with a birth defect.”

    Going soft all of a sudden? Don’t you support the death penalty? Didn’t the Bible call homosexuality an abomination and prescribe stoning to death as the appropriate punishment for that sin? If that’s social fascism, than putting murderers to death is, too. I stand for the death penalty. In my book that’s conservative. Call it whatever you want.

  19. 119

    George Wells

    @Redteam #116:
    “Bonded? that’s a strange use of the word.”

    Well, I didn’t think that you’d understand the term WE have used these 40 years. We call ourselves “WIBANDS.” The term is a marriage of the two words “wife” and “husband.”
    I’m his “wiband” and he’s my “wiband.” We used the term in both of our legal marriage vows. “Do you take Paul as your lawfully wedded wiband?”
    “I do.”
    Happy now?

  20. 120

    Redteam

    @George Wells:

    I believe that a society has the right to exterminate gays

    Really, that’s kinda like Hitlers beliefs, the exact opposite of Conservative, more like socialist facism. I don’t think children should be destroyed just because they are born with a birth defect.

    .

    None of my parents’ children were born perfect. Have you an appropriate “final solution” for parents who produce flawed offspring?

    Did you miss 115 above where I stated that I don’t think children should be destroyed because of birth defects?

    Going soft all of a sudden? Don’t you support the death penalty?

    yes, for people that deserve it, primarily for intentionally killing someone for no reason.

    Didn’t the Bible call homosexuality an abomination and prescribe stoning to death as the appropriate punishment for that sin?

    I’m not sure, I’m not a Bible fanatic. I don’t believe it to be literally true. The world was not created in 6 days 6000 years ago. I don’t believe in someone being ‘punished’ for being homosexual. I believe homosexuals should be punished for sex crimes exactly the same as heterosexuals are.

    The term is a marriage of the two words “wife” and “husband.”

    are you saying you don’t know if you’re the wife or husband? I would say you’re definitely not the wife because you’re not a female. I don’t know if you’re a husband because I don’t know if you’re a male. Now with these ‘other genders’ running around, I guess you’re gonna have to go with ‘wiogband’ for wife othergenderhusband. But hey, whatever works for you.

  21. 121

    Redteam

    @George Wells:

    No more “socialist” than support of the death penalty generally. If homosexuality is a crime (as Scalia has argued states have a right to declare), why would putting homosexuals to death be any more socialistic than putting murderers to death? Hint: there is no difference.

    unbelievable! I don’t even think homosexuality is a crime, much less a ‘capital offense’. Murder is a premeditated crime against another person. There is a huge difference. I’m gonna guess that Scalia said that in the context that any state can declare any activity a crime. But punishment should fit the crime. While walking down the street can be declared a crime, I doubt that very many would allow a stiff penalty for doing so.

    I have explained the answer to this before. I find arguing here to be mentally stimulating. I notice an improvement in my critical thinking, my spelling, my vocabulary when I spend what time I can here. Once the weather improves, I’ll be outside more.

    I guess that’s my reason also. I find that I disagree rarely about most of your positions. In fact, I think the only absolute disagreement is that you are not married. One person has to be a woman and one person has to be a man to be married. You will never be married to a man. You can ‘call yourself a bullfrog’ but you’re still not gonna be one.

    People haven’t stopped having babies.

    I will point out that gay couples are not having babies.

    At this point, I’d be more concerned about getting MY vote back in your corner

    you will never vote conservative, there will always be a gay issue that makes you support gay baiters. Blacks thought the issue was over in 1865 and then again in 1964 the next time will be about 2063. Gays will think the issue is over in June, it might, but closer to June 2115 than this year.

  22. 122

    George Wells

    @Redteam:

    WoW! You got the correct answer to the Biblical Science problem! Good for you!

    “People haven’t stopped having babies.”
    “I will point out that gay couples are not having babies.”

    I would dispute the second statement, but only on a technicality, which I will illuminate below. I will point out that, in the sense that you intend, the above two statements are not mutually contradictory.
    Neither straight couples NOR gay couples have stopped having babies.
    Gay couples have babies through the agency of surrogacy. It is scientifically possible for gay couples to reproduce, but none have, as there is a moratorium on both human cloning and the types of genetic engineering that would be required to accomplish such a feat.

    You are right that gay issues will remain contentious just as race issues have remained so. But you are wrong about how much that will influence my vote. I have never voted exclusively for Democrats in any election. There are ALWAYS some Republicans who are the better choice. I’m realistic about that fact. I wonder how many Flopping Aces voices can say the same thing about THEIR voting records.

  23. 123

    Bill

    @George Wells:

    No more “socialist” than support of the death penalty generally. If homosexuality is a crime (as Scalia has argued states have a right to declare), why would putting homosexuals to death be any more socialistic than putting murderers to death? Hint: there is no difference.

    I guess you would have a point if you equate homosexuality with murder… or if a homosexual murdered someone. Otherwise, I truly believe you are up to no good with that line of thought.

    First of all, gays did not buy Obama’s 2008 claim to have flipped position on gay marriage. He was FOR it first, remember? We believed him then, and when he flipped in 2008, the wide-spread scuttlebutt in the gay community was that he did it to win over moderates and independents.

    It is no stretch of the imagination to believe he was lying to appeal to multiple divergent groups at the same time (it’s what he does), but gee, I gotta wonder how a deep-down conservative voting on one issue, gay marriage, decided to abandon those conservative principles (because, as you say, McCain chose Palin, who is even more conservative) to vote for an uber-liberal that states he disagrees with your ONE POINT you are voting for him for. Why don’t you just assume Republicans are lying about their opposition to gay “marriage” and vote with your convictions?

    Yeah, you are conservative. And I can fly.

  24. 124

    George Wells

    @Bill #123:
    “I guess you would have a point if you equate homosexuality with murder… or if a homosexual murdered someone. Otherwise, I truly believe you are up to no good with that line of thought.”

    I do not personally equate homosexuality with murder, but essentially the Bible does: The Bible condemns homosexuality in the strongest possible language. It commands execution of homosexuals for their sins. The Bible’s condemnation of murder is no stronger, nor is the prescribed punishment any more severe. The single Biblical difference is that murder was mentioned in the Ten Commandments, while homosexuality was not.

    Now, I personally don’t encourage the Biblical prescription (for the obvious reason), but I accept that some people believe the Bible literally, and I accept that a society has every right to decide such matters for itself, and that the Bible is a legitimate (though not the only) guide for construction of modern law. So long as a country’s constitution and its laws are consistent in both substance and application, I have no argument otherwise.

    “Yeah, you are conservative. And I can fly.”
    That’s real cute, Bill. I have submitted to you in my #109 seven different issues on which my position is conservative – evidently significantly more conservative than your own – and you have acknowledged than the positions I claimed were indeed conservative. Other than gay rights, on which issues do you find me NOT conservative? I’m looking, but I cannot find any. I gave you plenty of evidence that I’m conservative, but you’ve offered no evidence that you can fly.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *