Posted on 12/02/2009 9:21:09 AM PST by pissant
I have been a minor participant at Free Republic, the Internets leading conservative forum, since September 2004. An online friend referred me to a discussion where members of Free Republic were talking about the 1952 and 1956 presidential elections, and using my maps from this page to make a point. I had to join FR to introduce myself to that group, and thank them for visiting. Because that was right after the Rathergate scandal, I thus became one of the Pajamahadeen that had just brought down the Sauronic eye of CBS.
Being a Freeper has been an interesting and fun experience, but I am disturbed by a current trend on those boards. For the past few weeks, at least since the latest fundraising drive ended, I have noticed that every new thread begins with a picture or video reminding us that Mitt Romney, the former Massachusetts governor and presidential candidate, supports abortion. It doesnt matter what the topic is, the anti-Mitt material pops up.
Personally, I think our current priorities ought to be making sure President Obama and his leftist pals dont force their health care plan down our throats, and defeating as many moonbats as possible in next years congressional and gubernatorial elections, especially Harry Reid, Barbara Boxer, Chris Dodd and Slobbering Barney Frank. Then in 2011 or 2012 we can fight over who we want for the presidency. Consequently, yesterday I posted the following on the Kentucky board:
Is anyone else getting sick and tired of the Mitt Romney bashing that goes on at the beginning of each new thread? Granted, he may not be conservative enough for most of us (my first choice for 2012 would probably be Sarah Palin or Duncan Hunter), but he just HAS to be better than the Chicago mob that rules Washington now. Somebody ought to tell Jim Robinson that BHO and his cabal are the real enemy, not Mitt. Sheesh, an outside observer looking at us now is probably getting the impression that Republicans eat their own. And as for Mitt Romney being a Mormon, well, Im more concerned about Harry Reids Mormon faith. Does he HAVE any?
Four replies have appeared since then, and only one agrees with me. The others just said we ought to do whatever we can to make Mitt Romney unelectable. I guess Im going to take a timeout from Free Republic. Hopefully the Freepers will be acting more sensibly when I return. Bye, see you guys next year.
I am the one person this blogger said agreed with him on the Ky boards... (BTW, there are now two in agreement)... here is what I said:
I agree with you Berosus. I find the attacks on Mormonism highly offensive. I know, and have known MANY Mormons over the years.. Their religion is not for me (I did go through their intro program)... but, they are good people, and they LIVE their faith more than most.
Im troubled by Mitts politically expedient changes on positions.. like abortion. It deeply bothers me. And, I hate his compromise on Health Care in Mass.. its a complete failure. But, I like him personally, and think hes a really smart, pragmatic leader who COULD have beaten Obama.
Now.. Im hoping for someone better.. more authentically Conservative. But, the vitriol on this board for Mitt is.. IMHO.. over the top.
I stand by that statement. I still think Romney was the best option in the last election. And, I'm still hoping for something better in the next.
But.. I also do NOT like the promo banners showing clips of Mitt's statements from 10 years ago. In fact, I don't really like any of the promotional banners at the top of each thread.
As other's have stated, this site is JimRob's baby... he can run it as he sees fit. But, I don't have to choose to support it with my automatic donations. I will wait, awhile... to see if this passes. But, if the Mitt-bashing promos continue... my donations will stop.
JR? You do what you want, I'll do what I want.
Twasn’t I
Jim, I’m not supporting Romney, I’m supporting the notion that politicians can and should change their positions based on the “will” of the people they propose to support.
If people continue to reject Romney because they are not convinced of his change of heart, that’s their decision and might not be a bad one depending on the details and timing of the decision. If a pol changes his position once he can do it twice. Fair enough.
But it simply is a contradiction to demand they “bend to the will of the people” and “listen to us” then also demand they have “unbending” principles.
There are some things I like about Romney and some things I don’t. I’ve never voted for him. However, if he were to win the nomination I would just as I would if it were Sarah, Huckabee, Pawlenty or Demint.
I’ve stated dozens of times on this site my political (as opposed to ideological) principle. Fight like hell for your candidate in the primary and then support who gets the nomination.
That’s my unbending principle, I hope that you respect that even if you disagree with it.
Why don't you just present your evidence? You're asking for a verdict just based on your suggestion that you'll be able to produce some example if needed.
STOP! That is not my bellybutton!
Guess I should have ask you about this at the Louisville Tea Party. :-)
LLS
I agree....but it's not gonna happen with Romney.....
http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/v30n1/cpr30n1-1.html
http://www.newsmax.com/us/Obama_healthcare_Romney/2009/10/16/273384.html
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2009/07/12/wsj-romneycares-failures-ma-not-widely-known-i-wonder-why http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10381
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10381
..”That means that Romneycare achieves near-universal coverage mostly by taxing middle-class earners. Massachusetts forces employers to offer workers a minimum level of health benefits or pay an annual $295-per-worker penalty, while individuals who do not obtain coverage face annual penalties as high as $1,068. Since employers pay for employment taxes and employee benefits by reducing wages, Massachusetts residents can face a tax of nearly $1,400. Depending on their income, married couples pay up to twice that.A report by the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation titled “Massachusetts Health Reform: The Myth of Uncontrolled Costs” tried to put a happy face on the reform’s expense. It explained that in 2009 Romneycare is covering 432,000 previously uninsured residents while increasing state outlays by just $409 million which seems like a bargain. Of course, the full cost of Romneycare includes not only increased state spending but increased federal spending (in the form of matching Medicaid funds) and mandated private spending by individuals and employers. In total, the foundation conservatively estimates that the full cost will exceed $2.1 billion this year. That is, Romneycare is covering the uninsured at a cost of about $6,700 each. For comparison, in 2007 the average cost nationally of an individual policy was just $2,600. That’s a bad deal, even by government standards..
Note also that only about 40 percent of the cost of Romneycare actually appears in any government budget. The lion’s share is borne by the private sector. Massachusetts politicians are nonetheless struggling to scrape together the 20 percent they must raise themselves. Of necessity, they have begun rationing access to care.”
Kinda seeming like the liberals claims about the tea parties just being a bunch of racists. They don't back up the claim, but they just keep repeating it, as if repetition alone makes something true.
I agree... 100%. Even when I have to hold my nose and shower afterwards like last year with McCain. That was a REAL test of my belief in this concept.
Well, xena explained to me that the information I’ve received re: FR policy was inaccurate. Remains to be seen. BUT...Again, for the 3rd time now,
I DON’T CARE!
OK?
This is NOT worth arguing about. Well, not to me. You head on and knock yourself out.
One person being banned for not agreeing in lock-step would not constitute a ‘trend’. The admins/mods, after all, ARE only human, even though they alone would know that person’s posting history.
I’m thinking that if there have been that many banned merely for disagreeing or for not being in ‘lock-step’ with JR, you could come up with more than ONE name. That seems only logical.
Point being, over the years, I’ve seen well-behaved trolls (I know, sounds like an oxymoron, doesn’t it) NOT get banned while disagreeing vehemently. I’ve been here from the beginning.
I think for the most part, the mods are fair. I’ve only objected once, in all these years, to the removal of a thread for no good reason I could see...other than the possible request of one poster to do so. That person would have had to be somewhat liberal, btw, to request the removal of the thread. In other words, NOT in lock-step with the rest of us on that thread. Which only supports my stance and position on this issue.
Can you come up with a couple of names to back up your claim?
_______________________
JRBC done told ya here.....
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2398540/posts
Thanks. I’ll look those over when I have time. But, I wonder, does Cato say whether the increased costs can be traced to the enhanced benefits required by the legislature, or to something else?
Well, I’m a little reluctant because it could be mischaracterized. I’ve seen several “purges” on FR, the first in Dec ‘08 which is known as “The Night of the Long Knives”.
Two somewhat opposing factions had a fight which ended up sucking just about everyone on FR into it. People drew lines in the sand and it was conservative against conservative, mother against son, father against daughter, brother against brother.
There was no in between.
Jim had to finally step in and he ended up pretty much banning one side but I’m not so sure that was as much ideological as it was containing the damage through separating the two...for good.
Huh?
As long as he's already mad, will you ask him why both Ann Coulter and Liz Cheney supported Romney for president? I'll wait in my room.
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.