I see that Rick Santorum has dropped out of the Republican Presidential primary race. Perhaps if he had done so a few months ago and supported the true conservative in the race (Newt Gingrich), we conservative Republicans wouldn't be faced with the prospect of, once again, having to hold our noses and vote for a wishy-washy moderate. Here's hoping Santorum does the right thing and talks his set of delegates into voting for Speaker Gingrich at the convention...
------------------------------------
Anyone who knows me knows that I love KISS, but not enough to watch "Dancing With The Stars." I will, however, seek out their two performances from the show on the 'net. One can never have enough KISS in their lives...
------------------------------------
I'm starting to get the feeling that the mainstream media's coverage/analysis of the shooting death of Trayvon Martin by George Zimmerman is their attempt to gin up a race war in order to aid in the reelection of their Messiah, one Dear Leader. What other explanation can there be for trying this case in the court of public opinion instead of a court of law? Why else would NBC (who is firmly in Dear Leader's back pocket) doctor a 911 tape in order to present Mr. Zimmerman in the worst possible light? Why else ignore Martin's record of bad behavior, and only show a five-year-old picture of Martin, in order to present him in the best possible light? Why else would the two biggest race pimps in America (Sharpton and Jackson) rear their ugly heads? Why is the New Black Panther Party's placing of a bounty on George Zimmerman being soundly ignored by the mainstream media? Why else would Dear Leader, in response to a planted question (the ONLY one he answered) at a press conference, say that "if [he] had a son, he would look just like Trayvon?" Why would the supposed President of the United States even comment on something that was not a federal law enforcement issue at all? Something is rotten, and not just in Denmark...
------------------------------------
The more TV spots for the upcoming "Avengers" movie that I see, the more I get the feeling that this may be the first truly entertaining project that Joss Whedon (the most over-rated person in Hollywood) has been involved with since the original "Buffy The Vampire Slayer" movie with Kristy Swanson...
Showing posts with label Rick Santorum. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Rick Santorum. Show all posts
Tuesday, April 10, 2012
Monday, April 2, 2012
Question With Boldness?
A few days ago, I postulated a personal theory on a Facebook Tea Party page. The theory was a simple one: that since a big reason Rick Santorum did so well in certain states was due to support from Evangelical Christians, and because Santorum is very open about his Catholic faith, that Evangelicals aren't backing him because he is the most conservative, or because he displays strong leadership. My theory is that they are backing Santorum simply because they feel that he is the most Christian candidate in the race. I added that being a Christian, be it strong, phoney, or otherwise, did not necessarily make one a leader.
Shortly thereafter, the floodgates opened. I was unloaded upon by people claiming that I hated Christians (and, by extension, Jews), that I was an atheist, that I was EVIL, that I was Wiccan, that I was a Democrat plant working for Dear Leader's campaign, and sundry other ridiculous notions. NOT ONE of these so-called "Christian" individuals actually argued the merits of what I had posted. They simply attacked me personally. Even when I gave them an out by asking them why they felt the need to reply to a post which they felt didn't apply to them with such vitriol, even pointing out their own hypocrisy in doing so, the attacks continued.
A day or so later, I added a new post to the same page, calling out these self-described "Godly" people on their lack of good Christian values (coming from a Christian family, I know a thing or two about them). Needless to say, they didn't like that at all. And through all of this, not one attempt to prove what I posted to be incorrect... just knee-jerk emotionalism, personal attacks, and attempting to deflect from the issue by somehow making me the issue. I can, therefore, only conclude that I must have struck a nerve with those people. After all, why would anyone get so defensive about an observation that they claim didn't apply to them, unless it really did on some level?
I suppose that it's perfectly OK to question the motives of anyone you wish, as long as that person isn't an Evangelical Christian.
How deliciously hypocritical.
Shortly thereafter, the floodgates opened. I was unloaded upon by people claiming that I hated Christians (and, by extension, Jews), that I was an atheist, that I was EVIL, that I was Wiccan, that I was a Democrat plant working for Dear Leader's campaign, and sundry other ridiculous notions. NOT ONE of these so-called "Christian" individuals actually argued the merits of what I had posted. They simply attacked me personally. Even when I gave them an out by asking them why they felt the need to reply to a post which they felt didn't apply to them with such vitriol, even pointing out their own hypocrisy in doing so, the attacks continued.
A day or so later, I added a new post to the same page, calling out these self-described "Godly" people on their lack of good Christian values (coming from a Christian family, I know a thing or two about them). Needless to say, they didn't like that at all. And through all of this, not one attempt to prove what I posted to be incorrect... just knee-jerk emotionalism, personal attacks, and attempting to deflect from the issue by somehow making me the issue. I can, therefore, only conclude that I must have struck a nerve with those people. After all, why would anyone get so defensive about an observation that they claim didn't apply to them, unless it really did on some level?
I suppose that it's perfectly OK to question the motives of anyone you wish, as long as that person isn't an Evangelical Christian.
How deliciously hypocritical.
Sunday, April 1, 2012
It Ain't Over
With the garnering of endorsements from former President George H.W. Bush, Senator Marco Rubio, and Representative Paul Ryan, it seems the Republican establishment is attempting to revive the already-disproven theory that former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney is the inevitable Republican nominee for President. Former Pennsylvania senator Rick Santorum, however, has vowed to remain in the race no matter what, and former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich's campaign is restructuring for a "floor-fight" strategy at the Convention.
The point being that this is a long way from being over. With only about half of the delegates awarded so far, neither Gingrich nor Santorum are anywhere close to reaching the "magic number" of 1144 needed to clinch the nomination (Republican party gadfly Ron Paul remains dead last, as usual). Then again, neither is Romney. Plus, Romney's unfavorable rating has increased. Which says to me that the electorate's search for the "not-Romney" candidate is alive and well.
So I say, let's take it to the convention. After all, the last time we "coalesced around the inevitable nominee," we ended up with John McCain, who is as moderate as they come... and we all know how that turned out, don't we?
The point being that this is a long way from being over. With only about half of the delegates awarded so far, neither Gingrich nor Santorum are anywhere close to reaching the "magic number" of 1144 needed to clinch the nomination (Republican party gadfly Ron Paul remains dead last, as usual). Then again, neither is Romney. Plus, Romney's unfavorable rating has increased. Which says to me that the electorate's search for the "not-Romney" candidate is alive and well.
So I say, let's take it to the convention. After all, the last time we "coalesced around the inevitable nominee," we ended up with John McCain, who is as moderate as they come... and we all know how that turned out, don't we?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)