Posted on 11/07/2012 9:40:48 PM PST by Kevmo
"He [Romney] killed us all over the country. Look at [same-sex] marriage. We've never lost the issue before, until it shared a ballot with Romney then we lost it four times on one day. Heck, we even won marriage in California on Election Day 2008 for goodness sake.
There will never be another establishment candidate like that. Jeb Bush, Chris Christie...those people will never happen. Heck, I think Christie will be driven out of the GOP and be the next Charlie Crist. Mitt just killed Republicans in my home state. People are angry, especially because Matt Drudge and Karl Rove told us it was all in the bag all along, after they got done smearing conservatives in the primary and dumping on Todd Akin.
It's on like Donkey Kong."
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/deace-gop-romney-obama-2012-11#ixzz2Bben4Km6
(Excerpt) Read more at businessinsider.com ...
Kevmo, you are far too wrapped up in yourself to be a valuable discussion partner. Sorry, but I do have a point to make, and it’s a valid one even if it is one that you don’t agree with. I have not “come into” this website; I have been here, and been a contributor to the discussion and debate for 14 years. If the best you can do is dismiss me as a “troll”, then shame on you. And I mean it, shame on you.
If the best you can do is dismiss me as a “troll”, then shame on you. And I mean it, shame on you.
***No, John, shame on you for pounding conservatives on a conservative website. Those people who chose not to vote for your POS candidate had a right to do so, and they are more conservative than you. FR is a conservative website, not a republican website, so you should not be doing that. Would you expect Paulbots to vote against Ron Paul? Or would you go onto a Goodebot website and expect them to vote against Goode? That would be OBVIOUS trolling. Then why do you come onto a conservative website and expect them to vote against their conservative principles? It is OBVIOUS trolling.
Nothing is taboo, for frank discussion--not protected interests. But that said, we should not needlessly insult one another. That prevents getting to the essential factors governing policy decision making. It is counter-productive.
The need of some, today, to insult those who only agree with them 50 or 70% of the time, does not help pulling together later, after we sort things out by those frank discussions. As for Governor Romney, has he not already paid a terrible price for his mistakes? Harping on them, beyond simply analyzing what were mistakes, diverts understanding of why they were mistakes, and only acerbates feelings among those we need & need desperately to rally to a common cause.
Again, all subjects are fair game. Just refrain from unnecessary insults. (Another way of phrasing Reagan's Eleventh Commandment.)
William Flax
Kevmo, you are far too wrapped up in yourself to be a valuable discussion partner.
***So are you, if you’re not only gonna troll against conservatives, but presume to tell me that I prefer Obama.
Sorry, but I do have a point to make, and it’s a valid one even if it is one that you don’t agree with.
***That is a thoroughly invalid point.
I've never said that, and I don't know if it's true or not. But very obviously a couple million people who managed to hold their noses and vote for John McCain (like me) couldn't manage to do the country the same favor and do the same this year. Result: four more years of hell, and maybe 30 years more of a liberal dominated Supreme Court. Forgive me if I am not grateful.
By the way, the word "prefer" needs a comparator if you want to give it real meaning. You might not prefer Obama to, say, Rick Santorum, but perhaps you do prefer him to Mitt Romney. I don't know, and I wouldn't presume to say. Whether you can be grouped with those folks or not, apparently there are many who can be and it is to them that my ire is directed. If you include yourself among them, then you can go to hell as far as I am concerned.
There was a line in one of the Die Hard movies where the Samuel L. Jackson character says to the Bruce Willis character, "I don't like you because you're gonna get me killed". Well, I don't like you and your ilk because you put your personal purity above our collective objective reality, and the world we all have to live in as a result - not just you - is more debased, more dangerous, and less free. Worst of all, it puts the lives of my kids and grandkids in serious peril.
So, thanks for nothing, kevmo.
I’ve never said that,
***Post 148, you said
You would rather have an avowed marxist, .... blah blah blah bowlsheet bowlsheet
Forgive me if I am not grateful.
***Whine over at GOP.com rather than troll against conservatives on a conservative forum that is NOT a GOP website.
By the way, the word “prefer”....I don’t know, and I wouldn’t presume to say.
***And yet, in post #148, you did presume to say. And here, you ‘prefer’ to troll, rather than go to GOP.COM and express your righteous anger to the GOP elite.
If you include yourself among them, then you can go to hell as far as I am concerned.
***So you would send fellow conservatives to hell because they did not vote for someone who is obviously not conservative. And you do that on a conservative website. This IS NOT a GOP website. That is the very essence of trolling. You have descended into being a troll.
There was a line in one of the Die Hard movies where the Samuel L. Jackson character says to the Bruce Willis character, “I don’t like you because you’re gonna get me killed”.
***So now you descend even further, arguing from a work of fiction. And Bruce didn’t even get Sammy killed. You really need to pull yourself together, and stop trolling.
Well, I don’t like you and your ilk because you put your personal purity above our collective objective reality, and the world we all have to live in as a result - not just you - is more debased, more dangerous, and less free.
***Less free, huh? But you’re still free to troll on this conservative website and berate fellow conservatives over not voting for a POS elitist liberal GOP candidate — and this isn’t even a GOP website. Why is it you’re not posting this garbage on GOP.COM? Because you prefer to spend your time separating conservatives from their conservative beliefs rather than focusing your anger at the GOP-E, where it belongs. You PREFER to troll.
Half-wit. The owner of the site, who is both infinitely more conservative and smarter than you, understood the importance of stopping this piece of crap AKA Obama. Why don’t you preach to him about what this site is for, you fool.
Tweedledumb and Tweedledumber cost the GOP millions of female voters. That's the truth.
Limbaugh identified the whole “war on women” theme when Journ0list Stephanopolus rolled it out at the first R debate.
How major senate candidates could get tripped up on this 8 months later is beyond me.
As Dana Loesh said, the right answer is: “so you’re in favor of sparing the lives of convicted murderers and killing innocent pre-born children, have I got that right?”
Half-wit. The owner of the site, who is both infinitely more conservative and smarter than you, understood the importance of stopping this piece of crap AKA Obama. Why don’t you preach to him about what this site is for, you fool.
***One of the first things I did when I was done ‘vomiting’ and returned to FR was to ping JimRob about how he plans to regain his brand after having endorsed a “lying, baby-killing, gun-grabbing statist” (his words).
So if we look at the front page of FR, is the founder’s statement still there? Yup, this is not a GOP website. Not affiliated with ANY political party. So if someone didn’t vote for your precious political party, whatever that party was, maybe you yourself need to take that up with the infinitely smarter owner of this website. Until he changes that, we are a conservative website, not a GOP website, and what you are doing, by berating conservatives, is trolling. So go ahead, preach to him about what this site is for. Halfwit.
Just a final point. I am not a “troll” any more than you are. It does not further dialog to engage in gratuitous name-calling.
What I am is a principled constitutional conservative with the practical goal of restoring constitutional government to our country.
What are you?
Just a final point. I am not a “troll” any more than you are. It does not further dialog to engage in gratuitous name-calling.
***It does not further dialog for you to tell a conservative on a conservative website that he prefers 0bama.
What I am is a principled constitutional conservative with the practical goal of restoring constitutional government to our country.
***Then quit pounding other conservatives, focus your anger on the GOP-E who are against that practical goal you mentioned and also gave us this POS statist candidate.
What are you?
***I’m a big tent conservative. From my home page:
___________________________________________________________________
I’m a big tent republican.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1821435/posts?page=18455
Here’s an analogy to work with. Take a small box and fill it with some rocks. Then add some rice, filling it to the top. Now take all the same stuff, but in a different order. Put in the rice first, then add the rocks. What you’ll find is that if you put in the big stuff first, the small stuff will fit around it. But if you put in the small stuff first, the big stuff won’t have room. The republican tent is the box. The Big issues are the socon issues, to be put in first. The little issues are things that can be accommodated around the bigger stuff. A candidate who tries to focus on the smaller issues first and leave out the bigger issues has no way of getting all of us into the tent. He splits the party. The candidate who gets the big stuff right and as much of the little stuff that will fit, he can fit more into the tent. We’re often amazed at how much rice can keep fitting in. Folks such as Rudy or Romney flunk some of the big issues, and on some of the little issues it looks to me like anyone else’s rice would do just as well. All that remains for us to agree on is which are the bedrock principles and which are not. Why would there be so much invective aimed at rudy or romney from the right? Because there are some bedrock principles that he is leaving out. Bad move. I see rudybot and romneybot postings all the time saying that they would vote for Hunter or Palin, and I see socon postings that say they would not vote for rudy or romney. That’s a BIG indicator of a few bedrock principles that are being left outside the tent in order to let in some rice.
___________________________________________________________________
From your “I’m a big tent conservative” statement:
“I see rudybot and romneybot postings all the time saying that they would vote for Hunter or Palin, and I see socon postings that say they would not vote for rudy or romney. That’s a BIG indicator of a few bedrock principles that are being left outside the tent in order to let in some rice.”
Once again, here you are exposed as the “small tent” conservative/republican or whatever you want to call yourself. You are quite willing to take from Constitutional conservatives, but you are not willing to give an inch. I’m really not that different from you; I would infinitely prefer Palin or Hunter to Romney or Giuliani. But I would prefer even more to save our country from the likes of Obama and his statist cronies.
Unlike the brayers, I actually care about what happens in the real world.
You are quite willing to take from Constitutional conservatives,
***Absolutely... that’s where I live.
but you are not willing to give an inch.
***Why, thank you for the compliment.
I’m really not that different from you;
***Au Contrere, Pierre. You are far different from me. You sacrifice your principles on the altar of electability, or is it convenience...
I would infinitely prefer Palin or Hunter to Romney or Giuliani.
***Yeah, right... infinitely. What a bunch of hooey.
But
***here it is...
I would prefer even more to save our country from the likes of Obama and his statist cronies.
***Uh huh. Here you are doing the standard bowlsheet of saying that conservatives prefer 0bama. Whatta buncha bowlsheet. Standard trolling behavior. Why do you pound on conservatives on a conservative forum? This aint a GOP forum.
Unlike the brayers, I actually care about what happens in the real world.
***The real world just handed you a tremendous defeat, because you thought a POS statist librul was electable. You’re a republican, not a conservative. Why aren’t you posting this garbage on GOP.com rather than trolling on the conservative site which is not affiliated with the GOP? Because you PREFER to bang on conservatives.
The RMSM told them the ONNNNNLLLLYY person that could beat Obama was Romney! He was not to be questioned, vetted, or challenged. Newt knew Bain was going to be a big deal in the general and the minute he brought it up he was toast. Coulter, Malkin, Hume and a few others own this Romney debacle.
You say you are a conservative. I say that if that’s so you are a worthless one. You might as well be Obama’s pucker boy.
In case you hadn’t noticed, the real world just handed you a defeat too, unless you really can’t see any difference between Romney and Obama.
I fought hard to see someone else nominated, but I lost that fight, and so did you. But unlike the baby boy you seem to be, I didn’t go home and sulk. I went for the best deal on the table.
If the board monitors are watching this, I hope they take note of this exchange.
You say you are a conservative.
***I AM A Conservative. Are you? Then why do you berate conservatives on this conservative forum?
I say that if that’s so
***It IS so.
you are a worthless one.
***Wow. I stopped posting on this forum because JimRob waffled, yielded to the GOP and endorsed whom he had called a “gun-grabbing, lying, baby-killing statist”. If that is worthlessness, then I embrace worthlessness. It is a brand more valuable than JimRob’s conservatism.
You might as well be Obama’s pucker boy.
***Let me get this straight. JimRob endorses a lying, baby-killing, gun-grabbing statist and I am Obama’s pucker boy when I do not endorse the nonconservative. OK.
In case you hadn’t noticed, the real world just handed you a defeat too, unless you really can’t see any difference between Romney and Obama.
***What I can see is that Romney was defeated, repudiating the strategy of endorsing the baby-killing statist.
I fought hard to see someone else nominated, but I lost that fight, and so did you.
***Then man up, rather than give in.
But unlike the baby boy you seem to be, I didn’t go home and sulk. I went for the best deal on the table.
***And look how that turned out. I posted to JimRob that he could have staked out the most valuable real estate in conservatism, but instead he chose to give his deed to the GOP-e. You feel proud about getting the best deal on the table?
If the board monitors are watching this, I hope they take note of this exchange.
***And so do I. Exactly what are Board Monitors? Lurkers?
Kevmo
I live in California as well, we didn’t knock it down handily. It was pretty close and ultimately will be overturned here anyway by judicial fiat.
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.