Posted on 09/17/2014 4:36:52 PM PDT by Kansas58
A very disturbing number of Freepers are openly advocating, on Free Republic threads, for the defeat of Senator Pat Roberts and other good Conservative Republicans. Greg Orman, in Kansas, is a pro abortion, anti gun, tax and spend Liberal Democrat who has given tens of thousands of dollars to Obama and Pelosi and the Democrat Party and Harry Reid. I am called an "idiot" for supporting Roberts. However, I think that those on Free Republic who support Harry Reid and Greg Orman should be ZOTTED, kicked off the site. I have had enough of there hate filled, vindictive, misguided trash.
No, that is not how it works.
Romney’s entire record is that of a liberal.
A solid liberal.
He has done NOTHING conservative, ever.
A situational ethicist hallmark is to find one ‘wedge’ and ride it like the lone ranger on Silver.
When a person has to look for a point of conservatism in a GOP candidate before defending his position, that says everything one needs to know about both.
I already wrote I’m not going to rehash all the points. However, you keep making claims about me that aren’t true. I’m refusing to admit something? LOL. I’ll say it flat out (again). I’ll compromise my beliefs when I’m forced to in order to get the result that best approaches my beliefs. You think my beliefs are better served by a Democrat senate? NO. I’m not buying that.
Funny thing is, there is not a single thing someone can point to and claim as conservative in Romney’s record.
When the nails were to the board, Romney always chose the liberal path.
Advocate of Secret Infiltration, Cass Sunstein, on Obama’s “Committee To Make Us Trust the Dragnet”
So you admit situational ethics. Thats fine. When you can show where situational ethics are conservative let me know.
I have asked the sycophants time and again for one. For years now.
Not one has done it. They call me names, change the subject, get offended, kick, scream, question my partiotism...you name it.
I collect their excuses like Pokemon (Gotta catch’em all!) but they keep using the same ones over and over. Just like reading off a script.
But no conservatism from Romney. Ever.
Another point to ponder. O’Donell wasn’t good for anything but a trip unser the buss and we lost that seat. The Foot in mouth guy went the same route over the rape comment.
Two stupid comments were enough to sacrifice 2 seats.
Romney’s record is nothing BUT stupid comments, payments in cash and law to the abortion industry and the homos, Ted Kennedy selfies, dogs on cars....one afteranotherafteranotherafteranother.
But THAT guy is presidential timber and worth sacrificing ones integrity to promote and defend AFTER HE TANKED THE ELECTION.
I agree a pro-abort would be a tough call, but it’s a call you have to make if both candidates are pro-aborts. I’m vilified (by some FReepers) for saying this, but it’s not black and white.
There are different levels of pro-aborts. Perhaps the opponent supports government funded abortion on demand at any time for any reason. Most Democrats do. A Republican that is generally pro-abort but supports restrictions is better.
I’m talking about general elections of course. One can (and SHOULD!) try to defeat the pro-abort RINO in the primaries. Even if your stuck with the RINO, you might still have some sway over them. That’s better than what you’ll get from a Democrat (absolutely nothing).
Don’t forget. Senators are there for six very long years. Pick the course that best serves your cause or at least does the least amount of damage.
I don’t understand why anyone would vilify you for trading the lives of babies for political gain.
Seems perfectly reasonable...to liberals. Like situational ethics. Speaking of which is your steadfast intent to vote GOP no matter what the only principle you stick to? I ask because so far everything else seems negotiable.
I respectfully disagree.
We must draw a line in the sand someplace with liberal republicans or you’re without principles. I don’t really care if you want to murder at 12 weeks or 20 weeks or 34 weeks. You wouldn’t have to kill it if it weren’t alive.
So, if I have to draw a line at overspending or murder, I’ll pick murder; immigration or murder, I’ll pick murder, etc. Some of those can be nuanced, but there’s no nuancing murder.
Norm: “When you take a position that ensures conservatives are shut out...”
I’m sorry, Norm, but that’s a ridiculous accusation. How am I shutting out conservatives? Show me a conservative, and I’ll vote for them. We had our chance in the primaries and we got beat.
You keep writing how we’re all going to be better off if we toss the RINOs out. Frankly, I think you think nearly everyone is a RINO, but that’s beside the point. All these RINOs will be replaced by Democrats for what? Six long years, my FRiend!
Ah, but that’s when we’ll make our move, right? We can’t even beat weak RINOs in our primaries with mostly Republican voters, but we’ll sure show those Democrats in six years in the general elections? Sorry, but on what planet does that strategy actually work?
BTW, I’m not claiming my strategy assures success. I’m only claiming yours ensures defeat.
There were several conservatives on the ballot in 12 for example in 12. They didn’t vanish. they were there. One was even a Freeper. But the GOP wing here trash talked him and dispite agreeing with his positions, willingly chose the uberliberal.
I want you to explain in detail how it is that by constantly doing the above and putting RINOs on general ballots, then advocating people vote for them you come up with the idea that a conservative can miraculously win.
You also seem to be willing to accept ‘6 long years’ of rinos voting with dems, empowering dems and governing as dems as long as an R is attached. How about facing the reality that your R is a dem? And you put them there?
you guys think that after 390 years of this you can just wait it out until someone digs up Ronaldus and elects him. It won’t happen. The founders lost lives, homes and families fighting for their beliefs and you can’;t stand tall enough to cast a simple vote for what you CLAIM to want?
you want conservative governamce or you don’t. If you do, you will vote for it. If you don’t, you’ll vote for something else. Thats the way it works in reality. Because your vote for a RINO gets you, at best, a RINO. Not a conservative. And since it is the RINO lesser evils so many touted now giving Obama his way, it’s all on you guys. And THAT is what losing looks like.
Edit: 30 years not 390
Again, I don’t have to prove Romney is a conservative. In fact, he’s most clearly NOT conservative. I only have to show where he’s better than President Obama. If I can find even ONE area where he’s better, than he’s not exactly the same as President Obama. That was your assertion I believe. Do you see my point?
BTW, I’m not defending Romney at all. I’m only comparing him to Obama and claiming Romney wouldn’t have done as much damage. You could dispute that of course. Some claim Romney would have cooperated with Democrats and pushed the House to compromise. I think that argument has some merit. Unfortunately, we’ll never know, because we’re stuck with President Obola.
The problem in the GOP isn’t really with Liberal Republicans. It’s with Ronald Reagan and us Conservatives.
Reagan fundamentally changed the GOP into a Conservative Party. But people need to remember that he got the nomination because he was the Conservative running in a field of Liberal Republicans.
He was so successful that the Republican Presidential primaries are now flooded with Conservative contenders, allowing a non-Conservative like Romney, or McCain, to win the nomination with a plurality.
If we Conservatives were smart we’d figure out a way to, early and quickly and coalesce support around a common Conservative candidate. But in past cycles we haven’t been. And then get angry when a non-Conservative gets the nomination.
2016 will probably end up the same way. There’ll be a scenario (i’m greatly simplifying here because I think there’ll be at least 8 contenders) where Cruz gets 30%, Walker 25%, Rand Paul 10% and Jeb Bush gets the nomination with 35%.
And in that kind of scenerio, which we saw give McCain and Romney the nomination, who’s really to blame? I don’t see Romney, or McCain for that matter, as Liberals. That would be giving them way too much credit. They’re really just craven opportunists, saying and doing whatever they need to exploit a situation for their advancement and benefit. But if us Conservatives could actually get our acts together, there wouldn’t be a situation for them to exploit.
The GOP sends their sycophants out to keep us from getting our crap together. This thread is a case example. Add up the time we collectively spend debating the most basic points and principles of conservatism.
That is tens of thousands of hours a year collectively on FR alone. And it’s all time well spent for those intent on keeping us powerless.
You really don't know what you are talking about. Santorum won the primary here in OK. And we dumped the RINO John Sullivan and replaced him in the House with the Tea Party backed Jim Bridenstein.
I’m not trading the lives of babies for political gain. I’m saying it’s better to save some babies than no babies. Show me a path where I can save all the babies, and I’ll take it. That choice is not open to xzins at this time. If both candidates are pro-abort, there is no “all babies” option.
Again, I’ll save what I can when I can. It’s called being pragmatic, and there’s nothing shameful about that. I’m sure the babies who are saved now while we fight for fewer abortions in the future won’t mind that we had to compromise our beliefs in the meantime.
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.