Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Sirius Lee; RitaOK; rogue yam; All
He's been stomping his feet and calling everyone a liar that rightly critiques Romney's lack of Conservative values.

Yeah, that seems to be Rogue Yam's hat, doesn't it? I suspect a lot of it has to do with the fact that he's too ignorant and unknowledgable of actual facts to do anything other than make faces at the people who aren't reconciling themselves to Romney. To a person like rogue yam, "principles" are horrid evil things that just mean you "think you're better than everybody else" and that keep you from lining up behind whatever piece of garbage the GOP has decided to nominate this time around.

It's sad, but the fact of the matter is, even in conservative circles, there will always be people like RY who value being a team player more than ideological consistency or commitment to first principles. Supporting the "R" is more important than supporting the Constitution, etc.

The funny thing is, he tries to hide behind the "Romney won it fair and square" argument - but Romney didn't. It can't be called a legitimate win when your opponents' signatures for ballot access are tossed out so they are disqualified, while yours are basically accepted sight unseen, as happened in Virginia. It can't be called a legitimate win when your opponent's campaign ads are kept off the air so they can be "fact-checked," while your much more scurrilous ads receive all the air time you can pay for, as happened in Florida. These, plus many other things, delegitimise Romney's "win." He only "won" because he and his campaign are lying, cheating, and stealing enough to win.

If that's what RY counts as "being a fighter," then no thanks. We've already got one of those in the White House. I choose something different.

Let's face it - anyone who thinks Romney will be significantly different from Obama is a fool. Plain and simple. We know that they both are pro-abortion, pro-gay agenda, anti-gun, pro-progressive taxation, have both raised taxesand fees, both support government-run health care, both denigrate religious liberty, and have made the worst possible judicial picks they could have. These are not opinions, these are facts based off of their respective records - like it or not.

There's no reason to think Romney will govern any more constitutionally than Obama has. There really isn't. There are a lot of FReepers who are trying to convince themselves through wishful thinking that Romney is going to be the second coming of Ronald Reagan, but he won't be. There's no reason to think Romney won't hang onto the czars. there's no reason to think Romney won't keep TSA/VIPR/Patriot Act and the rest of the anti-constitutional regimen completely in place. There is no reason to think that Romney will not keep pretty much the entire substance of all the stuff that we hate about Obama in place.

Why should he change it? Conservatives didn't put him where he is. Money, dirty tricks, and a complicit GOP elite and "conservative" media did. He is not beholden to conservatives. He will not govern the way we want him to. His feet will not be held to the fire by conservatives. Conservatives will not "keep him honest." There's no reason in the world - nada, none, zilch - why he should give two toots of a horn what conservatives think about anything.

Oh, but he has a good platform! Like that's going to mean anything the day after he's elected. The platform will get the etch-a-sketch treatment. It only exists now so as to fool enough conservatives into voting for him to beat Obama. Once that happens, it's gone, never to be heard from again.

The whole "you have to vote for Romney or else you're voting for Obama!!!!" argument rests on a false premise, which is that there's any substantive difference between the two. There is not. Voting for one is essentially to vote for the other - the only differences to speak of are the "team colours" each is wearing. You can rah-rah for the Team D or you can rah-rah for Team R, but at the end of the day, it doesn't really matter which, since they're both going to do essentially the same things. Romney may be a little more subtle about it, but that won't change the substance of how he governs.

America's goose is cooked either way - and it's going to be because of people like Rogue Yam who would rather roll over and wimp out than try to fight for a real conservative who the GOP-E can't control.

161 posted on 05/15/2012 6:45:49 AM PDT by Yashcheritsiy (Anybody but Obama and Romney)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies ]


To: Yashcheritsiy

When you write that we should “ - - - fight for a real conservative who the GOP-E can’t control. “

Then who are they, IYHO?


164 posted on 05/15/2012 7:09:34 AM PDT by Graewoulf ((Dictator Baby-Doc Barack's obama"care" violates Sherman Anti-Trust Law, AND U.S. Constitution.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies ]

To: Yashcheritsiy
...try to fight for a real conservative who the GOP-E can't control.

That fight is called "the GOP Primary".

With respect to the White House, that fight is over.

165 posted on 05/15/2012 7:33:11 AM PDT by rogue yam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies ]

To: Yashcheritsiy
There's no reason to think Romney will govern any more constitutionally than Obama has. There really isn't.

You do not come across as someone who is indifferent between Obama and Romney. Rather, you seem like you are trying to prevent Romney from getting elected.

173 posted on 05/15/2012 8:01:06 AM PDT by rogue yam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson