Posted on 04/11/2012 8:04:00 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
Notice: Free Republic has been in full rebellion mode since 2008 and will remain in full rebellion mode for the duration!
No more Doles!! No more McCains!! No more RINOS!!
NO ROMNEY!!
Those who cannot stomach rebellion might as well start looking for a new home on the net!!
Those who have ignored my hundreds of posts on this crucial issue or who have doubted me these last three or four years might as well get used to it. FR will never support the abortionist, homosexualist, socialist, mandate loving, constitution trampling liar Mitt Romney.
In case you haven't noticed, a TEA Party rebellion is on and Free Republic signed on years ago. There is no turning back. No more crap from the GOP-e!! They've screwed us for the last time!! Karl Rove and Mitt Romney, et al, loathe conservatism and loathe the tea party and took it upon themselves to use their money and connections to destroy nearly every one of our conservative tea party candidates while pushing their big government RINOS. That makes them the enemy. I will not reward that betrayal by giving them my support or my vote.
FR is and will remain a pro-life, pro-limited government conservative site!!
We are beholden to NO ONE!! We bow to no kings!! We bow to NO RINOS!!
I'd rather fight and die like a man than bend over and be screwed by a RINO!! I refuse to kiss Karl Rove or Mitt Romney's rings!! They can kiss my rosy red ass instead!!
FUMR!! FUGOP!!
Long live the rebellion!!
Hope my message is clear.
Fear is the foundation of most governments; but it is so sordid and brutal a passion, and renders men in whose breasts it predominates so stupid and miserable, that Americans will not be likely to approve of any political institution which is founded on it.
John Adams, Thoughts on Government, 1776
We cannot expect a good result from trying to use fear mongering to get us to back Romney. The Repulican party has been runnin on fear and I dare say, stupid and miserable have been the outcome.
Agreed!
Ditto!
“How can you not see he is a Marxist? I mean, seriously, his words spell it out clear as day.”
So is Romney. I hope your daughter forgives you for voting in a Marxist like Romney.
1: Do you consider yourself a conservative?
Yes
2: Are you aware of Mitt Romney’s record?
Yes
3: Did you read the opening post by JR on despite tthe above?
Yes
4: Do you still intend to vote for Mitt Romney despite the above?
If after all we can do from now to the convention does not put in a Conservative and if we cannot rally for a change before Nooov. Then yes Damn it YES. Because I will not do NOTHING and I will NOT THROW my vote to the Dogs. In good concious I will sadly pull the lever knowing that we will still be here to fight another day.
I am not pro Romney. If Jim wants to he can ban me. His choice. But there is still a lot we can do before it comes to Nov
1. Yes
2. Yes
3. Yes
4. Yes, barring a miracle brokered convention. I’ve seen the remains of communism up front and personal. I will vote for Romney, if he’s the last man (or woman) standing.
The flaw lies in the fact that your analogy implies the condemnation of a consensus purely because it is a consensus.
Facts mean plenty. We disagree on them.
If I want to give reason, I will. Enough said.
Don’t answer a question I didn’t ask. Nuff said.
Backwards. You based your argument on the fact that because other conservatives back Romney, you should too.
Mine points out that consensus as a ‘basis’ for voting Romney is a damn stupid rationale considering consensus by committee is a sure fire way to a bad decision/outcome.
"To me, consensus seems to be the process of abandoning all beliefs, principles, values and policies. So it is something in which no one believes and to which no one objects."
-- Margaret Thatcher
Getting a little anssie or however that is spelt. We are all on the same side and we are all fighting our own battles. It is all good FRiend.
No, I don’t care who you support. I’m just saying that their conservative arguments are and will be far more persuasive than yours and other anti-romneybots.
“To me, consensus seems to be the process of abandoning all beliefs, principles, values and policies. So it is something in which no one believes and to which no one objects.”
That’s exactly what it is. I’ve used this example before on FR, but it applies. I spent years writing on landuse topics/off-road motorsports. Most of our problem was not Sierra the BLM or the EPA. It was our own people wanting ‘compromise’ with the enemy. So today, more than 10 years later, all the areas I was involved in are either closed or so restricted they may as well be.
It was ‘our’ side’s compromise that killed us. Common sense that when YOU compromise the basics, you cannot EVER get them back...you can only ‘compromise’ more of yourself.
Here, we have a choice. Compromise our opposition to abortion, ‘gay’ rights, Global warming/green BS and the rest of the CORE ELEMENTS that define who we are as conservatives, or stick to our beliefs.
Because regardless of all the reasons the compromisers give, it’s a simple fact that if we vote for a man who spports those things, WE support those things. We can lie to ourselves and others and scream “ON NO! i AM AGAINST ABORTION!!! OH NO!!! i DON’T WANT GAYS IN THE MILITARY AND MARRYING AND...!!!
But to even THINK much less publicly state we will willingly empower such a person, means that in reality, we have SUPPORTED that position. Period. End of subject. There is no way around truth. Even TRYING to lie their way out of it with excuses shows just how compromised in their morality they have become.
There is no alternative. Vote Romney, vote for all he supports. If it was one meaningless thing in an overall list of 100, you could say “no biggie.” But it’s 99 biggies.
I keep reading how ‘offended’ people are that Jim and others have taken a stand and said ‘no more’. We;ll, I’m offended that FR is still infested with people to which “God country” and the other things in the FR mission statement are some malleable item. Something that’s bendable like a branch in the wind.
These people either need to reevaluate their beliefs of find somewhere that better supports their situational ethics. Because JR has been made clear that their Vote Romney view is not welcome.
Does not matter a whit. I’m right, provably so. They are wrong, provably so.
Wrong is wrong.
Ah... I asked the question...then you redefined it and directed me what you would or wouldn’t answer.
THAT is asinine. You should simply ignore it if you don’t want to answer the question as asked.
And no. We are not on the same side. I’m on the side of sticking to my and conservative beliefs. Others are on the side of Romney. That’s what your vote for him is. An acknowledgement that you support him. That ain’t the team I’m playing for.
It is all relative. The GOP must be brought down no matter who wins.
This is between me and God and no one else.
Have you ever lived in socialist country. Do you have idea of being chained to the gov. We must ensure we win both houses and hold everyone of their feet to the fire. Then it really won’t matter will it. The war has not yet begun, not really and calling yourself right and others wrong is rather childish. It proves nothing and improves less.
You are fool if you believe a vote against an EVIL COMMIE is a vote for dome else. Wake up. Your logic is childish.
However, to cite one example from your list, if I believe “fearing God” is an absolute requirement for a candidate in a civil election, I have an immediate problem in this election because the confessions of my church say some pretty seriously negative things against the Roman Catholic Church. I can say what I believe to be true, namely, that there are sincere Christians in the Roman Catholic church who are sincerely wrong, but I can't get around the confessional standards. Gingrich would not be allowed to come to communion in my church, I would not be allowed to do so in his parish, and there are important reasons for that. The Council of Trent said some pretty serious things about us Protestants, too.
There is no major party candidate running this year, with the possible exception of Michele Bachmann, who would have been acceptable to John Calvin or most other leaders of the Calvinist wing of the Reformation — and in her case, Knox would have said some severely negative things about the “monstrous regiment of women” so even Bachmann wouldn't have been acceptable to the founder of Scottish Presbyterianism as a civil ruler.
I'm not a full-blown Kuyperian, but I believe Abraham Kuyper was correct in saying that within the sphere of the church, we need to adhere strictly to the confessions, but because the sphere of the state is not (at least in most modern nations) formally covenanted with God, Christians can cooperate with people in the state who we would never let into church office.
Kuyper fleshes out in theology the way most of the Reformers worked in practice. How did the Reformers actually work in city-states like Zurich, Geneva, and Basel, and how did they work in larger nations like the Netherlands, Hungary, France, Scotland, and England? Henry VIII was far from the only Protestant ruler to have a moral life that makes Newt Gingrich look rather good. The Netherlands would have remained Roman Catholic with tens of thousands of dead Protestant bodies continuing to pile up in the streets if it were not for urban burghers who cared much more about money than God, and if it were not for William of Orange whose background seems fairly close to that of Newt Gingrich.
I wish Newt Gingrich had been discipled by confessional Calvinists or had returned to a confessional version of the largely nominal Lutheranism of his childhood. I think, in reading Gingrich's religious background, that he was served very poorly by the “cheap grace” of much of modern American evangelicalism. However, from what I read of Gingrich's faith, it seems that what he liked about Roman Catholicism is the same thing that has drawn many other neoconservatives into the Catholic orbit — a full-fledged doctrine of church and society which, while wrong, provides an answer to questions that many evangelicals are asking and to which they're not getting answers.
Can I vote for someone like that? Not as a first choice, but at this point my only alternative is Romney or going third-party, and those aren't choices I want to make since they're conceding the 2012 election to Obama.
Of course, we can and probably will agree to disagree. I have a group of Ron Paul supporters in my own church who I have argued against regularly, and that doesn't mean I think they're bad people; I just think they're wrong.
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.