Posted on 07/16/2012 12:57:11 PM PDT by JimWayne
No matter who wins the election in November, a Communist will occupy the White House. However, a Romney win has an added disadvantage. It will strengthen the Communist grip over the GOP.
Right now, there is a struggle between the Tea Party and the Trotskyite neocons for the control of the GOP. If Romney is defeated, it will give a boost to the Tea Party. If he wins, it could be over for the Tea Party.
The RINO GOP establishment has opposed every Tea Party candidate and has ganged up with the Democrats whenever it seemed like a Tea Party candidate would win. It started with NY-23 and then they opposed the TP candidates in other states. In AK, when the establishment candidate lost the primaries, they ran her as an independent, but they now expect us to unite and support a Comiecare pioneer.
It is time for payback and at least save the GOP and vote against every RINO. Four more years of Obama cannot be worse than four years of Mittens, and with good candidates in the House and Senate, Obama's agenda can be blunted, but Mittens winning and strengthening the RINO grip on GOP will put America in an extremely dangerous situation.
A request to Mitt Romney supporters. Stop posting your propaganda here. Don't you get it? Mitt Romney is unwanted here.
Actually, that's not the case. There are hundreds of Romney supporters posting all the time all over Free Republic.
I'm not a Romney supporter, and when I post anything negative toward Romney I'm answered almost immediately by those telling me that I'm some kind of Obama supporter because I don't support Romney.
These people do not get banned. They don't even get confronted. The only time there is a confrontation is when they get belligerant. That's as it always has been here on FR.
Here's what I think, Randy, and you can take it or leave it. I think the Romney supporters want FR to be unified behind Romney rather than split. I think it totally bothers them that others have not gotten on board with him. As they debate their points, I think they have trouble dealing with someone who simply refuses to see it their way.
You check out FR on Tuesday. Watch the number of pro-Romney threads that are posted unmolested, totally free.
There is a truce. JR isn't punishing those who go about their business as usual. Those who get smacked are those who attack this site or fellow freepers in clearly demeaning ways.
But, the truth is, that's as it always has been.
I won't support Romney. It's that simple. Don't worry about it. Live and let live. Feel free to disagree with me, but I'm voting for Goode, Constitution Party, who is the only conservative in the race.
As JR has pointed out, we all win if we vote conservative up and down the ticket. No one should stay home come election day.
Wow .. so you read a book and now you want to lecture people here . You think the Republic will be restored just like that when it took over a century to get here ? Do as you please while I vote for Romney .
When was the last time you voted in a Federal election for someone ? How about just staying home this time around with your statist posture chest thumping my way or the highway . That works .
Demonizing you speak of ? Been here to long for you to mention that sort of thing . You and your type love to try slapping people around here so spare me .
The truth always bears repeating.
Yes it does need repeating . Pick your 1% er , dont vote , vote for the Marxist or Socialist lite . Maybe stay home ? Do as you please . I’ll be voting for Romney .
Unlike the angry, self-righteous scolds of Mittens' online Sister-Wife Squadron, I don't consider it my business who you do (or do not) vote for, come November.
The ultimate dispensation of my own vote, however, has demonstrably lead to my currently living, rent free, inside of their heads.
One might wish for marginally less cramped quarters, certainly; and in an appreciably better neighborhood. ;)
Yeah .. it’s alway’s good to achieve an upgrade . Just consider your neighbors .
It's a compelling argument but one that has gaps.
I see Obama being driven to socialism by belief in such. I see the GOP-E driven to such by fear of standing up to the populace and possibly losing their own perks and power because of such.
However, they also have different governing principles - the GOP-E will not actively seek to sandbag the economy the way Obama and the Dems do. And I think that is the difference those willing to vote for Romney see - that Obama is killing the economy and Romney would give it a respite. But would that respite come at the cost of entrenching the GOP-E to the point where much more serious and needed reforms in government would become much more difficult if not impossible?
That is the economic impass here. It doesn't even begin to touch on the social impact that having a choice between these two cretins represents.
Willing supporters of a pro-abortion, pro-amnesty, anti-gun Massachusetts liberal? Pffftt. Let them look after themselves.
I’ll say it loud and I’ll say it proud: ABO!!!
You'll explain to your children why you voted for the Republican president who brought on nationalized health care that even "against his own wishes" (ha ha) included tax-payer funded on-demand abortion for anyone 18 or older.
You'll explain to your children why you voted for the Republican who expanded global warming regulations so extensively that America surrendered its sovereignty with regard to energy and food production and consumption to the UN because, as Romney said in his CPAC speech of '08, "Any carbon plan has to be world-wide in scope -- let's have a world-wide solution, not an American one."
You won't have to explain to your children that you helped Obama destroy their country -- you'll have to explain that you lacked the courage to stand and fight government tyranny because Obama scared you too much, so you helped Romney destroy their country instead.
I'll be voting to deny a mandate to either Romney or Obama; I'll be voting to help conservatives fight either one that wins. YOU will be voting for government tyranny and in so doing, risk a landslide victory "popular mandate" for a guy you despise, a guy who would hinder all those conservatives you'll presumably be voting for down-ticket, and a guy who would enslave your children to government tyranny advanced by the Republican party.
Well said!
Every one ought to read “The Road to Serfdom” by Friedrich A. Hayck.....very eye opening. And the Federalist Papers.
Even those with out a HS education can understand what is written in both.
“As JR has pointed out, we all win if we vote conservative up and down the ticket.”
It’s a good bet that all those “conservatives up and down the ticket” are now supporting Romney. To follow your line of thinking, that would make them unprincipled, perhaps even RINOS. Would not you and the other ABR folks here who vote for these people make you all unprincipled too? If you folks want to remain true to yourselves, you can only vote for candidates who denounce Romney. Please tell me where I’m wrong.
I do . I came here alone and I’ll leave as such . No big deal to me . Another time then .
I haven’t rejected you. I just think you are wrong.
I am a committed, dedicated social conservative, RM. There’s no way I could vote for a guy who just a FEW WEEKS AGO came out in favor of gay couples. And then he added to it that gay couples should be allowed to adopt children.
I’m not talking ancient history here. It was just recently. I could look it up for you if you missed it.
I would be violating my religious faith to support that.
Irony of irony. Voting for that which is hated, by proxy. LOL
And you want to live under Obama for another 4 years?
You people can’t see the forest for the trees.
Sorry, I think you’ve dialed a wrong number.
Nope .. cant do it . They have a greater moral depth than the rest us socialist lovers . It’s that walk on water thing like the Republic got here where we are now overnight .
No doubt he will have some superior principled comment so I’ll be back .
OUST THE OBAMANATION
Ronald Magnus, Romney's saying that gay couples "who love each other" should be able to adopt children, is a euphemism for "the government should be allowed to punish adoption agencies that refuse to cooperate with gay couples who want to adopt children." THAT is what Romney really means, and that is what you would really be sanctioning at the top of the Republican party, whether you intended to or not.
I'm with xzins: voting FOR a guy like that is asking -- it is begging -- for massive and permanent buyer's remorse.
Voting for Romney is as nuts as voting for Obama, and in fact all those Republicans/conservatives we'll be voting for downticket would be HINDERED by Romney if he was in the White House, so I doubt they're "all voting for Romney," as you assure us upthread.
They may not say as much because the kneejerk blowback from panicked and angry Republicans would be so hysterical, but I'll bet thare are at least a few who know how Romney would treat conservative Republicans once he was in office -- like "fringe kooks," as one of Romney's supporters-though-he-claims-he's-not considers folks like me, xzins, Jim Robinson, and more than 250 other FReepers who understand that Romney is a BIG mistake.
The ONLY way conservatives can vote at the top of the ticket to try to give an advantage to the conservatives we'll be voting for downticket, is to vote so that whichever statist gets in office lacks a popular mandate. Conservatives in Congress will have more pull and more juice if they're able to deal with the statist pro-homosexual "gays should be able to force adoption agencies to accommodate them and should be able to force every accommodation in the U.S. military" president, whichever guy it happens to be, who was opposed by the majority of Americans in the popular vote.
The last time a president was elected on a thin plurality, a "revolution" of the opposing party happened in Congress two years later, in 1994. :^)
Pray for a plurality, vote for a plurality. I'm voting third party to do my part in helping give conservatives a leg-up on statist president they are guaranteed to have to fight.
The Democrats and MarxoFascists have played the GOP well. The GOP-e knows where the power is going to lie and they will do anything to share in it.
We are beyond saving ourselves and this nation via the ballot box.
And everyone's going to slowly wake up to that reality soon.
We're under enemy occupation, and we're comfortable with it.
Sometime soon, we will even be willing to abide it for the empty promise of bread.
No, actually, I've always wanted a pony, and I'd prefer living "under" Palin or Ronald Reagan.
If wishes were fishes we'd have some fried.
You people can’t see the forest for the trees.
Perhaps not, but we DO see that Romney is:
-- virtually guaranteed to advance cap-and-trade global warming regulation with an eye to surrendering US sovereignty in the name of "a worldwide solution"
-- extremely likely to advance nationalized health care with on-demand abortion (even though he claims conversion on that point -- ha ha)
-- virtually guaranteed to use the power of law to force the acceptance and accomodation of the homosexual agenda in every corner of American life, from adoption of children to service in the military
-- and extremely likely to appoint liberal judges.
See, some of us who "can't see the forest for the trees," can at least see Romney's record.
And true, we may not see the forest for the trees, but at least we see that progressive Romney, joined by Republicans seeking to cooperate with the defacto head of their party, moderate Republicans, and Democrats, would OUTNUMBER and OUTVOTE conservative Republicans in congress, who are the SOLE source of opposition in Congress to the liberal agenda that Romney, like Obama, would try to foist on America.
I kinda think you're not seeing the trees for the forest, dear.
You know it profits a man nothing to gain the whole world, Rich, but Wales?
-Thomas Moore, A Man For All Seasons, paraphrasing the scripture in mark.
One of my favorite quotes, especially now.
It profits us nothing to gain the whole world if we lose our principles, but for Romney?
You know it profits a man nothing to gain the whole world, Rich, but Wales?
-Thomas Moore, A Man For All Seasons, paraphrasing the scripture in mark.
One of my favorite quotes, especially now.
It profits us nothing to gain the whole world if we lose our principles, but for Romney?
These people do not get banned. They don’t even get confronted. The only time there is a confrontation is when they get belligerant.
***The belligerent ABOs aren’t even confronted as far as I can see.
More often than not. You are right Kevmo.
What is TBL? Is it a pro-Obama site?
Bookmarking this to add to all my other anti-Obama talking points.
It’s so hard to convince the younger people I argue with—they are just interested in the “free stuff” they think they are getting from Obama. Wait until they see the bill!
Meanwhile...
Another first for Obama:
Canadians Richer Than Americans For First Time In History
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2907384/posts
After his work at Bain?
Then you would have to label Obama a True Blue Libertarian Capitalist after his "If you've got a business - you didn't build it" comment.
Since we know Obama is no capitalist, your whole premise re:Romney is total nonsense as is your post.
Just admit you came over from D.U./KOS.
Your angst is clearly against people like me opposing Romneycare because you know that opposition logically extends to Obamacare. Sorry, Commiecare is Commiecare and I refuse to support it.
angry ? where do you get that from ? You 1 of those hyper sensitive types there finny ? you have super natural powers to go with your superior principles too ? My goodness ... What you read is conviction . Deal with it or walk off . I could care less .
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.