Posted on 05/10/2012 7:02:36 PM PDT by icwhatudo
This retired Army Chaplain says:
“And here’s to you, Mr Robinson, Jesus loves you more than you can know.”
Truly.
I appreciate your kind words.
Mitt desperately needs an attack dog as his V.P. Newt is the ideal candidate.
Because homosexuals are probably per capita by far the wealthiest part of Obama’s base and they were threatening not to donate. Obama still tried to straddle the fence, saying he’s for gay marriage but not proposing any legislation or executive order for it. That part of his message went unheard though. We would know better, but the unwashed masses might have bought it like many bought the “compromise” on birth control. But the media was too overjoyed with his declaration to parse his words at all that way. Obviously he knew it was a risky move that he could straddle the fence, but he needed that money, including from his big Hollywood pot luck the very next day.
Obama was genuinely scared Romney would peel off wealthy gay votes for the Republicans, which is the stealth plan Romney and the RNC had in mind the whole time. So Obama had to shore up that part of his base by moving further left on gay issues. That’s how it works, nominate Republicans who lean left which forces the Democrats to go even further left which gradually shifts the whole country left until we have no more country left.
Obama’s essentially undermining the whole rationale for the Romney candidacy in the mind of the RNC. Any left-of-centers Romney was going to peel off will be pulled back as Obama moves further left on every issue to distinguish himself from the Massachusetts Moderate. However, Obama’s problem is that this might actually galvanize the conservative base for Romney, something Romney could never achieve on his own. The net result is the same though, every single vote is now for a platform that is further left than it was 4 years ago.
Let me say up front that I apologize to xzins for making the ‘paid poster’ accusation. It was wrong, I frankly didnt even mean it, it was said out of frustration to repeated statements I dont think are true. Its to his credit that he ignored it, we’ve argued but he’s never been out-of-bounds w/ me, so he didnt deserve it.
I too have been called a bunch of names over the years for being on the ‘wrong’ side of an FR argument(*), and invariably they are off-base and wrong. The most ironic one is the accusation that I’m a Romney supporter, as I’ve defended Romney from various false allegations (mormon stuff, his record), and hyperbolic attacks (calling him a socialest etc). Well, I’ll be certainly voting for him in the fall, but he wasnt my pick this time or in 2008, and I understand his weaknesses.
But he’s the GOP pick, like it or not, and there are many like me in the Republican party who are more conservative than Romney but understand that he will at least sign some conservative bills and do some good things, whereas with Obama it will be 100% opposite to what we want. I think continued attacks on Romney do *not* help the conservative cause at this time, but only help re-elect Obama, which in my estimation would be a catastrophic thing to befall the country *and* conservatives.
If that opinion is not welcome on FR, then it wasnt the site I once knew.
Thank you also, WOSG. We've all said things we regret.
Thirdly, thanks to Xzins for your participation here. As we've discussed before, I don't agree with you on the Constitution Party for now, but I'm quite aware of how bad things once were a few decades ago in the Republican Party, and if things go seriously wrong, there may be a lot more people running for the exits and hunting for a place to land. The Constitution Party may be the logical choice for social conservatives if the Republican Party decides it doesn't want us.
I generally check people's posting history before saying something negative, and since I read much more than I post, often I know regular posters by their comments. In this case, WOSG, I was aware of your Wednesday post to several people (including Xzins) in which you said “Would have been Newt for me, and might still be (in Texas) just to show conservative colors.” I understand that in your case you are a Romney supporter by default, i.e., a legitimate “anybody but Obama” guy, rather than a Romney supporter because you think he's the best candidate.
The problem is that Jim Robinson's truce inevitably will open the floodgates not only to people who back Mitt Romney because he's “anybody but Obama” but also to people who support Romney for reasons that are incompatible with the stated purpose of Free Republic.
I don't see any way around that. Barring “anybody but Obama” supporters of Mitt Romney means Free Republic risks being marginalized, being irrelevant, or possibly being gone entirely. On the other hand, the unavoidable consequence is letting people talk who at least covertly want to push an agenda to make the Republican Party much more liberal than it is today.
I believe it is those people, not people like Xzins, who are the ones who need to be watched. It's those people, not long-term solid conservative Freepers, whose motives need to be questioned because in some cases they may be paid disruptors.
We've got a terrible mess on our hands this election on the presidential level. My hope is that we avoid the conservative circular firing squad so enough of a conservative movement is left after this election to pick up the pieces. Of the two candidates still in the Romney-Obama race, whoever wins this fall will be one of the three most liberal candidates who ran this year (the third being Huntsman).
That does not bode well for the future of America.
“At least Obama didn’t go around and beat up gay kids. He WAS the gay kid.”
Actually, Obama, the high school dope smoker, bullied a girl in high school and wrote about it in his autobiography ... stuff, like the dog eating, the media wont dare mention while they dig up 40 year old stuff on Republicans.
Is that you, Mitt?
Apology fully expected, and I understand your frustration. FWIW, I don’t think someone saying “the logical result of supporting a 3rd party is to take votes away from Romney, therefore, that weakens him and is to Obama’s advantage.”
I understand that logic. I don’t think there’s anything flawed in it NO MATTER what the other person’s reasons for supporting a 3rd party might be.
HOWEVER, there are valid, integritous reasons for supporting a 3rd party. Those people can legitimately argue, “I am striving for another objective, so it is not TRUE in our case that we are supporting Obama.”
My intent is to: (1) Strive for the creation of a legitimate home for conservatives, (2) To demonstrate to the former home for this conservative a number that could have belonged to them if they would not have left conservative principles entirely, and (3) to prevent a victory that would irrevocably turn the republican party into another liberal party.
One can argue with my rationale, but I know I don’t support Obama, and my track record says I don’t support Obama, so there can be no argument with my integrity.
That would be a personal attack based on whimsy and not on the facts in evidence.
I sort of thought Obama wanted to galvanize the conservative base for Romney -- at least until the convention. I'm sure the Dems fear a brokered GOP convention as much as many FReepers are hoping against hope for it. This would explain the WP's weird "attack" on the high school Romney -- all us so-cons are truly Neanderthal homophobes, so this story will reassure us about Romney.
Notice Obama's not bringing out any of the big guns against Romney, just enough little ones to look as if they're fighting when they're not really, not yet.
I think this is related to why the recent abortive florescence of OWS was so brief -- they're jumping the gun and were told to hold off until after the GOP convention, when it will fit beautifully with Obama's presentation of Romney's Bain record!
All this JMHO, of course! ;-)
"Had a different opinion but did not criticize."
Offering a different opinion is criticizing. He should have stopped after saying he supported the Boy Scouts right to decide. He can't have it both ways by saying they have the right to decide but they ought to decide x.
We don't need a politician that speaks out of both sides of his mouth. And regardless, Romney's opinion clearly indicates that he doesn't recognize the danger of having homosexuals participate in boy scout leadership positions. Nor does he recognize the Boy Scouts traditional recognization of God and God's laws which forbid homosexuality.
He obeyed a court order, on the last possible day.
Not true according to these articles. He not only did not have a legal obligation, what he did was illegal.
"Although he had no legal obligation, and many legal scholars informed him that it was both illegal and unconstitutional to do so, Romney began handing out marriage licenses to “same-sex couples.” In fact, he ordered justices of the peace in the state to comply or be fired. " The Mitt split
Romney's Views on Gay Marriage: Also evolving (Which romney?)
Cook County Democrats rarely do something unwittingly. They get caught, but their god is Machiavelli. Somethings up with this and we don’t get it yet. There’s some long game here. It perhaps might not even be Obama’s end game, but some other powers.
Disgusting and can someone explain to me why 2-3% of the population is holding the rest of us hostage? Just how gay are our leaders?
All the more reason to elect the most conservatives to Congress we can.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.