Ryan is a good man, but does not redeem the abortionist/homosexualist statist Romney

Aug 11, 2012 | Jim Robinson

[Jim Robinson]

Except for his unfortunate go along to get along support of TARP, bailouts, stimulus spending and the increased credit limit, etc, Ryan is a pretty good choice. Probably the best choice of the RINOS that were on Romney's short list. I support Ryan for the vice presidency. Wish he were at the top of the ticket, though.

But I still cannot and will not support the grand father of ObamaCare. Romney still loves and brags about his bastard brainchild, RomneyCare, even today when he knows what an anti-liberty socialist POS it is.

And the fact that he advocated that abortion should be safe and legal in America for over three decades of his adult lifetime and even advocated that Roe v Wade should be supported and sustained as settled law precludes any consideration whatsoever by this pro-life Christian for Myth Romney for the presidency.

And the fact that he boasted that he would be better for "gay rights" than Ted Kennedy, and proved it just increases my resistance.

That, and his penchant for gun control, his continuing support for global warming, gays in the scouts, gays in the military, and his record of appointing liberal judges makes it all but impossible for me to support him.

Lastly, we're having a bit of changeover on our moderator staff. At least two moderators resigned this afternoon after I flatly refused to rein in a so-called anti-Mormon "bigot" on FR. Well, if being in opposition to false prophets and false prophecy makes a Christian believer a bigot, then I guess I'm a bigot. I've posted before that I flat do not believe that the Book of Mormon is the true word of God. Nor do I believe that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God. The Christian bible warns us to be weary of false prophets and that I am. Romney being the presumptive Republican nominee does not change that fact.

[Kevmo]

You make it sound like something to celebrate when a freeper opuses out because they suddenly realize they’re not conservative.

And yes, you are sowing discord. A few years from now when you revisit this thread that might become obvious to you.

[Deb]

Geez, I wasn't casting any stones at you, I was trying to explain what I think is the dynamic of two groups, on the same side, who are managing to destroy from the inside what no one on the outside stood a chance at.

Save your mouth-foaming for people who are really against you. That's not me.

FYI: My first question about Mormonism on one of your sweet, happy threads, was met with an avalanche of name-calling and personal attacks. I didn't understand war had been declared. I came to know it and kicked back as hard as I got. Apparently, the ex-Mormons have been so damaged they flail at people just passing by.

[Sola Veritas]

“We will continue moderating FR that way we have been for all these years. Anyone who doesn’t like it or doesn’t trust us is free to post elsewhere. Thanks.”

Jim, I respectfully think you should reconsider what I think Kevmo is trying to say. Posters here on FR that agree with your stance on Romney, should not be subject to repeated calumnies like, “Your third party vote is a vote for Obama.” Or, you are an “OBOT” because you won’t vote for Romney. That is, you know, a lie. Generally, they wouldn’t say that to you directly...why should they get away with saying to other posters here on FR that mirror your stance exactly?

Once again, I respectfully submit that maybe certain actions, like those mentioned above, should get a poster a “time out” where they cannot post without going through a moderator? If they persist, then a zot might be called for, after your review. Conversely, maybe persons like myself, than won’t support Romney because of his past, should have limits put on us as to what is acceptable rhetoric. I have gone over the top at times...I shouldn’t be calling an ABO poster a “traitor” or “surrender monkey.” That should get me a time out. Do you see what I am advocating, is that on both sides (pro Romney and anti Romney) there needs to be certain things that are not allowed to be written here without reprimand.

Tempers are a bit out of control and need to be tempered a bit. To inclue my own.

At least consider posting some new guidelines on proper discourse. BTW - IF you don’t, I’m not going to leave in a huff. I doubt Kevmo will either.

[Jim Robinson]

No thanks. We’ll continue operating the forum as we always have.

[SZonian]

You categorized me correctly as an ex-mormon, then proceeded to lay the “blame” for all of the perceived problems here at FR and in the election in general on ex-mormons.

Then say you weren’t casting stones at me? How does that work?

And no, I’m not “damaged”.

[Kevmo]

Right along the lines of my earlier proposal.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2905011/replies?c=403

To: wolfcreek
Nothing has changed about my principles, ethics, or my relationship with God but you sure couldn’t tell it from the way I’ve been treated here lately. Why?
***My guess is that JimRob doesn’t want to open another heart-wrenching bugzapper thread. So he allows the RINO squishes to bash conservatives.
If it were me, I’d post a boundary establishing thread that draws the line for both sides. If you have decided for yourself to vote for Romney, that’s your own choice that we disagree with. If you’ve decided to write in a conservative, that is also your own choice. Each Freeper makes their choice and the choice is respected
But if you try to separate conservatives from their conservative beliefs on this conservative website to get them to vote for a librul like Romney, you’re a librul and you’ve crossed the line. Similarly, if you call the Romney voters something like ‘squishes’ or ‘cowards’ or CINOs or ‘libruls’ then you have also crossed the line. Anyone who crosses the line gets one warning, then a timeout.
Seems like a simple way to keep the peace during such a troublesome time that the choice is 2 babykilling libtards.

368 posted on 07/11/2012 8:30:11 AM PDT by Kevmo ( FRINAGOPWIASS: Free Republic Is Not A GOP Website. It’s A Socon Site.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 335 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
________________________________________
To: Kevmo
If it were me, I’d post a boundary establishing thread that draws the line for both sides. If you have decided for yourself to vote for Romney, that’s your own choice that we disagree with. If you’ve decided to write in a conservative, that is also your own choice. Each Freeper makes their choice and the choice is respected.
I called directly to the top for this several months ago, as soon as it became clear that Romney was pulling away with the nomination.
I was told pointedly that there would be absolutely no room on FR for those who thought supporting the GOP nominee was best for America.
Then there was the so-called “truce” that was utterly ill-formed and incoherent and failed to address any of the real issues at hand.
Now here we are, doing what we’re doing.
Oh, well. At least we’re making the DUmmies, the commies, Team Obama, the rent-seekers, the moochers, and the jihadis happy.

403 posted on 07/11/2012 11:08:13 AM PDT by rogue yam

To: rogue yam; Jim Robinson
Well, this is interesting. We’ve got a RINO squish agreeing with a hold-your-ground Conservative agreeing with eachother on how this situation should be handled on Free Republic.

540 posted on 07/11/2012 5:03:37 PM PDT by Kevmo ( FRINAGOPWIASS: Free Republic Is Not A GOP Website. It’s A Socon Site.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 403 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

http://www.freerepublic.com/~rogueyam/

This account has been banned or suspended.

[Deb]

Hey, guess what? Felix Hernandez threw a perfect game for the Mariners. Take some time off from your self-satisfied, arrogant blathering and try to appreciate something besides judging who is & isn't a conservative. Or have you all decided that the person who heaps the most scorn on Mormons is the most conservative? Maybe new rules should be posted so no one offends the ex-Mormons by asking questions or challenging their sensitive natures.

Save your breath, I'm going...

[SZonian]

"Of course, as JimRob says if you don’t trust the mods here, you can post elsewhere."

That's true and I don't plan to. I can live with JR's decisions, have to. It's his site. But I would hope that this serves as some kind of wake up call.

The mods do an outstanding job overall, given the situations and topics they moderate.

But in the back of one's mind...

[KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle]

Posters here on FR that agree with your stance on Romney, should not be subject to repeated calumnies like, “Your third party vote is a vote for Obama.” Or, you are an “OBOT” because you won’t vote for Romney. That is, you know, a lie. Generally, they wouldn’t say that to you directly...why should they get away with saying to other posters here on FR that mirror your stance exactly?

You know my stance, Jim: it's your house, always and forever... and you're (rightly and unalterably) its sole arbiter and master.

Your Place; Your Rules. I'll abide, regardless of whatever you ultimately decide.

That being freely and happily conceded, however: what Kevmo and Sola are saying, directly above, is, I think, both perfectly consistent with FR principles AND rigorously fair.

Hope that didn't seem "out of turn"; slipping back into regular Snarky Observer Mode, now. ;)

[Jim Robinson]

There’s nothing to decide. I’m not making any changes.

[Colofornian]

Let me tell you the distinction between attacking Mormons or MormonISM is specious. Mormons will take this personally, and should

So are you consistent here? Do you deem distinctions between...
...attacking Muslims or Islam? Since Muslims also "will take" it "personally, and should" did you favor protecting Islam on this site? (Why didn't we ever see anybody stick up for that, then, on various threads?)
...attacking homosexuals or the homosexual activist agenda? Since homosexuals also "will take" it "personally, and should" did you ever favor protecting homosexual activism on this site?

Do you likewise think that attacking the Democrats' agenda equates to your Democrat neighbors & relatives? Yes? No? Are you simply inconsistent on this?

There are other religions that have been called cults such as Christian Science, Jehovah's Witnesses,Worldwide Church of God,Unity School of Christianity or Scientology that do not have to take the constant assault you allow on MormonISM.

These other groups haven't had "regular" FR posters to engage with...to my knowledge...evidenced by the reality that we didn't have JW or Unity School of Christianity caucuses on this site. You know, that should be quite obvious to you...

Also, the Worldwide Church of God became one of the first cults to convert almost wholesale to orthodox Christianity...Why? Because Christians bothered to care about them and witness to them with the truth. I suppose you'd like to protect that same thing from happening to Mormons, eh?

Only people with a grudge would crusade like this.

There you are judging the inward motivations of complete strangers. How much do you have to "hate" someone to be "OK" with them heading to hell? Just because you don't seemingly take Biblical verses to heart -- like Jude 23: save others by snatching them from the fire; to others show mercy, mixed with fear... provides a reality-check on the urgency needed.

Mormons are generally peaceful and socially Conservative who don't deserve this abuse.

But apparently you're "OK" with Mormons tithing to label all Christian "professors" as "corrupt" -- all Christian creeds as an "abomination" ... and all Christians as "apostates."

Snapshot of Joseph Smith’s Slanderous Invectives vs. Christian Sects	Mormon Source [Note: Most of these are Mormon ‘scriptures'. In fact, First three rows below are Lds 'scripture' & therefore cannot be rug-swept any more than a Jew might try to take three commandments off of the very tablets of stone Moses brought down from the mountain]
“...which of all the sects was right… must join NONE of them, for they were ALL WRONG… those professors were ALL CORRUPT…”	Joseph Smith – History vv. 18-19. – Lds "scripture" Pearl of Great Price
...“which of all the sects was right…ALL their CREEDS were an ABOMINATION in his sight…they teach for doctrines the commandments of MEN…”	Joseph Smith – History vv. 18-19. – Lds "scripture" Pearl of Great Price
Mormon church the only ‘Christ-sanctioned’ church on earth: “…the foundation of this [Mormon] church…the ONLY true and living church on the face of the whole earth” [Obvious ‘scorched earth’ implication: All other churches are false and dead]	Lds “scripture” Doctrines & Covenants 1:30
Direct question asked of Joseph Smith: 'Will everybody be damned, but Mormons?" Answer from Lds "prophet" Joseph Smith: 'Yes, and a great portion of them, unless they repent, and work righteousness."	Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 119 [Not “scripture” – but still publicly spoken by the Mormon ‘living prophet’ and published by a later Mormon ‘living prophet,’ Joseph Fielding Smith – via a publisher owned by the Mormon church – Deseret News Press, 1938]
“In 1952…the first official proselyting plan was sent to missionaries throughout the world…It included seven missionary discussions that emphasized…[four topics, one of them being]…THE APOSTASY and Restoration…” [This makes it 60 years that Mormon church missionaries, now numbering 55,000, have formally emphasized in its training & door to door saturation a priority in bashing the worldwide Christian church as “apostates” (100% AWOL)]	Our Heritage: A Brief History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints p. 116, 1996

[Sola Veritas]

“No thanks. We’ll continue operating the forum as we always have.”

Okie, Dokie....it never hurts to ask respectfully. And as I keep pointing out to folks here...”This is Jim’s house, I will behave in a manner he prescribes for his house, or I will leave.”

Maybe the rhetoric will die down with time. I’m tired of arguing in circles with die hard ABOs...so maybe it has already?

[KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle]

As I stated, Jim: "I'll abide, regardless of whatever you ultimately decide." ;)

[Kevmo]

Maybe new rules should be posted
***So we’re in agreement, then? Just like when I agreed with the squish Rogue Yam.

Or have you all decided that the person who heaps the most scorn on Mormons is the most conservative?
***No freeping way. If Romney had an unmistakable pro-life record, Pro-family, Pro-Military, Pro-America, Pro-borders, etc. then there would be very few pouring scorn on him. Just a few of these ex-mormon types, and they would be welcome to their views. But that isn’t the case.

[Kevmo]

I know, but it’s Jim’s house, Jim’s rules. He obviously does an excellent job or we wouldn’t be here.

[greyfoxx39]

FYI: My first question about Mormonism on one of your sweet, happy threads, was met with an avalanche of name-calling and personal attacks.

Provide a link with this post detailing "your first question", please. I'd love to see it.

[Jim Robinson]

Let’s not try to make this into something it’s not. The mod was simply asking me to make a change in policy. I made no such change. Guess he decided he couldn’t live with my decision not to change the policy so went elsewhere (so to speak). I’m not making any changes and the moderator did the right thing. If he couldn’t abide by my stated policies (for whatever reason), he stepped aside. I respect him for his choice. He did nothing wrong here and never has.

[Jim Robinson]

There are no new rules. Sheesh!!

[BlueDragon]

Anyone who doesn’t like it or doesn’t trust us is free to post elsewhere. Thanks.

went_right_through. Quantum humor? It sparked my own detector, though. I'm still laughing.

[greyfoxx39]

What motivates an individual to decide on their own that FReepers “deserve” to be flamed for posting theological material that is in disagreement with another’s religion?

Well, I would answer that by pointing out 180 years of leaders and members claiming the religion was being "persecuted" and a desire to even the score.