Friday, September 30, 2011
Tecs conflicted!
Tecs likes nothing more than red-on-red violence! Ooooh, and he's proud of getting Obammy elected. Tecs just loves to pay taxes like a Swede and live in Massachabwe.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
6 comments:
Sounds more like a "Planet Rot deeply conflicted" story -- quoting Newt, your favorite whipping boy? How about all the scorn you heap on Mitt or Bachmann or Santorum? By definition, "stop fighting" in Rotterspeak means, "stop attacking my favorite candidate", be it Mac or be it Perry.
And, at any rate, attacking a competitor's record or statements is not the same as "committing violence". This is the sort of absurd nonsense the moonbatty left heaped on Palin when Giffords was shot by that lunatic down in Arizona. Let's try to raise above that level, shall we?
That said, I agree with what Newt has been saying for a while now, even during the debates. Put succinctly, one should follow Ronnie's 11th commandment, as much as possible. Still, when a candidate goes overboard (like Mac or Perry with their inane performances, or Bachmann with her over-the-top attacks), one should not feel constrained to speak up when appropriate.
Pandering is what I detest, Tecs. Romney has been all over the place with his principles, including the bus station men's room.
I don't buy that. Personally, I think he's straight as an arrow.
Politically, yes, he triangulates and twists and turns and flips and flops -- but no more than, say, Bubba, whom I never heard you fault for that. Also, he clearly was running to Mac's right in 2008, and you still were pulling for the "maverick".
Now, it seems Mitt is running just about like Perry on the substance (plus or minus epsilon), though Perry veers kind of erratically, and is much more a regional candidate, obsessed with Texas, almost to the exclusion of everything else, whereas Romney is much more the national candidate (like Newt, too).
I don't see how someone can be a straight arrow and then pull that Democrat bullshit about chucking grandma off the pier.
Sorry. He's better than Obama, but he's worse than McCain. Romney has no character.
Straight arrow: not taking a wide stance in "the bus station men's room", like you implied, based on nothing but spite.
Chucking grandma off the pier: not buying Perry's formulation (Social Security is a Ponzi scheme, and unconstitutional to boot) is not the same as standard pinko demagoguery. In fact, Perry is the only GOP politico to have used such gratuitous language, and he's now furiously backpedalling from it, like he's furiously backpedalling from his "if you're not with me on handing out free tuition to whoever asks for it you are heartless" stance.
So, in short, you have no case, Mr Rot. To build up a case, you need reason, and a logical argument. Not there.
If you don't think that a man's character is an issue, then there's really nothing to discuss. Likewise, if you think that Romney believes even most of what he says, talking policy is a waste of time, because he changes his bedrock every time it suits his goals.
This is not spite. This is distrust for people that have demonstrably no beliefs. This was my view of Obama and it has proved correct.
W, for his faults as a communicator, was dead on when it came to personal accountability and strength of his convictions. Add to that that he had the correct convictions.
Like I say, Romney is better than another four from the Chicago thug machine, but almost any GOPer is better than he is.
I don't see how you can forgive Romneycare. It is philosophical anathema. It is clear that this pussy won't work hard to repeal Obamacare because that would cost him support four years down the road.
You talk about a wide stance, but politically, Romney is exactly that.
Post a Comment