Posted on 07/02/2005 7:53:49 PM PDT by John Robertson
I just realized...I mean that.
It's going to come down to this.
I have often argued, as many here have, that when FReepers said they would sit home rather than vote for (McCain, usually, sometimes Guiliani), that such sitting out would put Hilary in the Whitehouse.
But I'm not moving on this.
Congrats.
So few people learn their lesson. You did!
what pieces?
Where were you hoping they'd tow that line to?
I believe that it is some of the Perot voters who haven't learned their lesson.
Who are they, anyway? No one will admit to being that stupid.
One can always write in Pat Buchanan.
Thank you, General.
Geez. Just when the fun was getting started....
Sorry, man. Should I put up something about pit bulls? Or homosexuality? Or circumcision?
What about...homosexual pit bulls that were circumcised?
Good post. Activist judges are not good...on either side. That is the role of the legislature and we're all better off when it works that way.
what I wrote was pretty clear.
what's not clear is your head if youd vote for Hillary
and of course if ive only been here three weeks then obviosuly what i say must have no merit. tell me, when does one's position hold weight with you? Four weeks? eight? ever?
A real threat would be to the senators who are up for a vote in 2008 who refuse to support a conservative choice for the court. Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't get your logic.
Apparently you disagree with John. Maybe.
Just one post before yours he noted the error of his ways and stated he would not vote for hillary. And yet, he thanked you for agreeing with him, without noting his latest turn-around. So maybe he means not to vote or maybe he still means to vote for hillary. In either case, I disagree with you (and perhaps John- depending on the tmie of day or day of week). If we get a pro-abort, anti-gun justice out of this, I am not done voting- "I have not yet begun to fight" : )
doug, i'm disappointed in you...but I swear, it's the first time. I recanted, as it were, and issued a long post in response several times...and at least one more time, below.
The "threat," since withdrawn, was not against Bush, whom I love. But it is against the Republican Party. You're right when you invoke the senators...what I was talking about was sending a message to those at the top of our party.
At any rate...here it is:
You’re right. You folks talked me out of it. I don’t know what I was thinking.
I WILL NOT VOTE FOR HILLARY.
That would be, as so many of you so unkindly put it…dumb (you actually said a lot more than that, which I’ll get to). I posted this thread last night, then a family emergency pulled me away before I could manage all the wildfires that flared up. Situation kept me up all night, into the morning…slept all day, into the night. Finally got back to things just a bit ago. Apologies to all, for sending the boat out without a captain—that was never my intention. I am no “hit and run” artist, as was suggested.
But I do have a few things to get off my chest (and I’ll give this same reply three or four times, so the hundreds of posters who responded might see it).
JohnRobertson is NOT JimRobinson. Never was, never intended to confuse. My name here is very close to my real name, and that’s simply what I registered with. Had I known how many people would be confused by it, I would have created a different one when I opened my account…almost four years ago.
Which leads me to the misuse of “troll” on this forum, and how long people have been registered here. Every person who disagrees with you is not always a troll. He might just be someone who has a different take on an issue with you. Next time out, you might be in agreement. Someone registered here less than a month had the nerve to call me a troll. Several of you pointed out that I’d been here going on four years.
A few people, most loudly PhiKapMom, posited that DUers and real trolls register years in advance here, just waiting for their chance to “disrupt” on an issue. This is absurd on its face: How would a “sleeper” troll know when to spring to action? What if his “control” triggered him to disrupt us on Issue A, but then Issue B, which was much bigger, broke three days later—why, that troll’s cover would be blown, and therefore he would be of no use. This does not make any sense to me, and if there’s any proof of it, I’d really be interested in it. (And please consider: someone the troll experts declare a troll might just be someone who happens to disagree with them on an issue, as stated above.)
(My wife took on PhiKapMom, on my behalf, and I see where PhiKapMom responded saying she would NOT apologize for what she said. If it’s worth anything, please understand that my wife was not asking for contrition on your opinions, but for what you said directly or suggested about me and my motives, especially the troll part. I think it’s obvious to many that I’m not a troll, long-planted or otherwise, and you might even reconsider an apology, on that basis. On a related matter, when I read your post to my wife, in which you led off by saying you were offering a prayer for our family situation, she smiled and said, Tell her I think she’s a classy lady. So there, I’ve told you.)
Why do some Freepers kept playing the same old song: I’ve been here five years…so the opinions of people who’ve been here three years simply don’t matter. May I suggest something? Just because some of you got to the party before the rest of us did, doesn’t mean it really got rockin’ till a whole bunch of the rest of us got here too. This forum is terrific because it grows and evolves and attracts (and converts!) new people. If the “old-timers” always go off in the corner like a bunch of snarky teenagers, acting superior to everyone who happened to register after the millennium, and discounting everything they have to say, it’s going to be a lot less fun and interesting. And from what I can glean of the people who post here, we’re all a bit too long in the tooth to be acting like spoiled suburban teenaged girls—doncha think?
A lot of people said I was “throwing a tantrum,” “acting like a [fill in the under-6 age]-year-old,” and “pouting.” To indicate the glaringly obvious: that judgement is highly subjective. And even though I’ve reversed completely on pledging my vote to Her Heinous (and there will be no re-reversal, I assure you), I still have to say that, making yourself heard by the party you have supported in so many ways for so long is not throwing a tantrum…it’s a political act.
Most of Sunday’s newspapers are calling for “another moderate,” like O’Conner. Same theme detected on Sunday talk shows. You see what’s happening? They’re framing the issue: We MUST have a moderate! Oh, and, what’s a moderate? They’ll tell us when we put up someone we approve of.
There was a recurrent sentiment on this thread, and though I didn’t do the math, I’d say 70+% of the people who responded endorsed this sentiment: Stay the course, we can’t win them all, look how we’re winning by increments, over time we’re selling our agenda, we can’t win them all, sometimes you have to compromise, live to fight another day, if we don’t get the nominee we want….
Not buying it. Not voting for…her, but I will not buy into the language of appeasement above, and I will not compromise on this: If a conservative nominee is not named, I am through with the Republican Party. A line in the sand. A political act.
Before everybody jumps on his or her keyboard, please consider this: If the Whitehouse was monitoring this forum last night (and they were, I can assure you), their people reading responses here could honestly report back that, Yes, the conservatives on FR want a conservative nominee, but they’re adopting a wait-and-see attitude, and if they don’t get the nominee they want, they won’t abandon us in droves…they might not like it, but they’ll hang in there with us, hoping for a better selection next time out.
I’m still hoping and praying for the right nominee. But I urge you to think about the signals you send when you indicate your willingness to accept a less-than-perfect nominee before one has even been named.
I thank OKIEDOC for this: “The next two appointments to the Supreme Court will tell Americans’ future for the next 20 plus years. It will be the telling tale of whether we continue down this road to destruction of our country as we used to know it. I cannot make the kind of comment that can impress on any one who cares about our country, that
this appointment is probably the biggest ever made to the court.”
That’s why it’s so important to me. I really don’t think we’ll get another chance, if we blow this.
I thank Dominic Harr for: “I hear your pain. I'm sorry for the flames, but that's how it goes, I guess. Politics is a 'team' sport, and you know how 'fans' can be. Not sure I agree with you regarding backing Hillary, but I respect the point you're trying to make.”
So many thoughtful people here. Thank you. Once I listened to your reactions, I realized the errors of my ways.
If we get a pro-abort, anti-gun justice out of this, I am done voting. Complete waste of time.
"what I wrote was pretty clear. what's not clear is your head if youd vote for Hillary. and of course if ive only been here three weeks then obviosuly what i say must have no merit. tell me, when does one's position hold weight with you? Four weeks? eight? ever?"
This is why what you say is meaningless. I am NOT voting for Hillary. I AM spelling her name right. I've responded, at length, all over this thread (look in the 400s), explaining how I changed my mind, and why, and actually thanking FReepers for showing me the way. You are ranting and raving about something that is no longer operable.
As for your newbie status, and your query as to when your positions might "hold weight" here...that's been completely worked out. It's at the exact millisecond when you demonstrate you are capable of reading an entire thread before spouting off like an idiot.
Just quit voting, expressing your opinion, and tilting against windmills now and save yourself the grief. Life is full of disappointments.
i'm pretty sure patton and i are cool.
i'm kinda confused by what you said.
who knows about the timing of these things....
now you have me confused.
all i know is, i'm not voting for hillary.
I would have understood your position better, John, but I didn't want to read the whole thread.
calm down
I responded to you originally before you changed your mind.
If you think someone has the time to read all 400 posts, youre very mistaken..especially in response to one as irrational as your original one
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.