This Is Why I Support Mitt Romney (Rep. Pete Hoekstra)

RedState.com ^ | 06/20/07 | Pete Hoekstra

[Canticle_of_Deborah]

Since you’re such a great Christian why don’t you show us all how it’s done? Why don’t you start with your posts?

[ridge]

FIRST, congratulations, you muddied FreeRepublic with the brainwork of Brian Camenker (The Jewish Advocate, 12/25/96) a self described SOCIAL LIBERAL. He makes his profession trashing CONSEVATIVES, not just ones of his state, but also CONSERVATIVES that GWBush seeks to appoint to national offices.

Open letters and CONSERVATIVES have refuted the mud of Camenker. I would not doubt that SOROS funds this guy. And we can all thank McCain-Thompson-Feingold for strengthening SOROS and his friends.

SECOND, Romney has the support of CONSEVATIVE groups. He received a 100% PROLIFE rating from Massachusetts for LIFE because of his work as Governor. Romney vetoed Massachusetts’ abortion bills, Plan B Bills, Embryonic Stem Cell bills.

Romney lived up to his promise. Mitt Romney said “I will not change the abortion laws of Massachusetts as governor.” He maintained the status, exactly like other executives would that call themselves “Federalist”.

FINALLY, if you want to plaster misinformation please acknowledge the source of the mud, please tell us which candidate you support, please acknowledge the positives of your candidate.

I’ll gladly respond through mail so as not to hijack the thread, primarily, because I have little positive to say about the latest trend of real Republicans. Especially, the ones that suddenly want to make a change after making a profession of washington insider, lobbyist, and mediocre to bad office-holder?!

They make their homes in McLean Virginia, trot-out their latest wife with her implants popping out all over, meet with their buddies in Washington to green light the limited insight base, and want the Presidency not for duty as politicalmom made clear. It is all personal incentive.

And it is no wonder when you have sponsored 4 pieces of legislation after a decade, the only vote of 100 Senators against tort reform, and legislation as bad as the Sedition Act of 1798.

Here is a good conversation about the new Sedition Act:

CALLER: Yes, hello. Senator Thompson, my question is for you, sir. How could a hard-core conservative like yourself support such a wishy-washy conservative like Senator McCain?

THOMPSON: He’s not a wishy-washy conservative. If you look at his voting record over his entire career, whether you look at the conservative’s rating or the liberal’s ratings, John McCain is a conservative by any measure. He’s been right there on all the conservative core issues his entire career. They’re misrepresenting the effect of campaign finance reform. What John McCain recognizes is that it takes money in politics, but he thinks there should be some reasonable limit on it.

[Colofornian]

Since you’re such a great Christian why don’t you show us all how it’s done? Why don’t you start with your posts?

Too many folks assume that "opposition='hate'" If we look @ Galatians 2, we'll see that apostles Peter & Paul had it out (& Paul was in the right). The Bible clearly talks about Paul opposing Peter to his face. If the founding apostle of the Catholic church can be called on the carpet without making Paul into a hate-monger, then we don't have to ascribe "hate" as the motivation of folks.

(Frankly, I'm not sure how the admins let folks get away w/that because we're not supposed to be ascribing motivation to others...I mean I could sit here & try to think up all kinds of reasons as to why folks ascribe hate whenever they see conflict...like maybe their own church or family has had conflict & they avoid it like the dickens, etc...but it's a useless enterprise 'cause I don't know them or their background or what is on their heart)

[colorcountry]

Free speech is foundational to our Free Republic.

AND there is only one way to silence us. We are seeing its fruits.

Hateful speech is not protected speech, and so we see the charges of “hate.” If this isn’t a lib tactic I don’t know what is!

I’ve challenged posters to find anything hateful I have ever said to a Mormon. Have I called them (um, greyfoxx, where’s our list of “hate” names?) bigot, hater, unAmerican, vile, despicable, liar, bitter old hag? Have I ever posted anything like this even once? (if so, please give me the evidence)

Colo, Have you and I been on the receiving side of this charge of “hate?” Certainly.

There are those on FreeRepublic who are sick of me and my free speech, they view it as hateful and that is their right. The anti-anti-mormons have done their job well in turning the attention away from my message and making their focus on me, the “hateful” messenger. They are being used for the liberals own purpose and they don’t even recognize it.

[TAdams8591]

This is a Romney thread, and thus I, a Romney supporter, am welcome on it.

You ex and anti-mormons can discuss your disdain for the mormon faith all your want on separate threads without dragging those of us interested in discussing the future presidency, into your dispute, and having every Romney thread degenerate into a nasty theological debate and an expression of your hatred for mormons, got it?

[Canticle_of_Deborah]

Too many folks fail to see their so-called opposition for what it is: hate.

Like we’ve said, you can spout all the nastiness you want about the Mormons on the religion threads if you think that provides a good example of Christian witness. Have at it. Exercise your free speech and show us all what great Christians you are. The political threads are for politics. The anti-Mormon quest to turn every Romney thread into Mormon bashing is not free speech; it is a profound lack of courtesy, respect and good will.

[greyfoxx39]

To Religion Moderator:

Would you kindly post the reply you gave to Utah Girl on the thread The Mountain Meadows Massacre [LDS Caucus] Post #9?

Specifically the part regarding All other threads are open and are treated as if they are in the town square. Ridicule, challenges and such are allowed.

It seems to me that there are numerous posters who are trying to impose Religion Forum and caucus rules on News Forum open threads. If this interpretation is incorrect please let us know.

Threads marked as devotionals, caucuses or prayer threads are treated as if they are meetings behind the closed doors of a church. The assembly will not be disturbed

Also, are all of these devotional, caucus or prayer threads limited to the Religion Forum? In other words, are closed threads allowed on the News Forum?

Thank you.

Greyfoxx

[colorcountry]

Too many folks fail to see their so-called opposition for what it is: hate.

If I oppose the Klu Klux Klan is it "hate?" No

If I oppose socialism, is it "hate?" No

If I oppose Hillary, is it "hate?" No

If I oppose the Democrats, "is it hate?" No

If I oppose Romney, is it "hate?" ...Yes?

If I oppose Mormonism, is it "hate?" ...Yes?

Just wanted to clarify your position. Did I get it right? Yes or No

[aMorePerfectUnion]

“This is a Romney thread, and thus I, a Romney supporter, am welcome on it.”

I certainly welcome you!

“You ex and anti-mormons can discuss your disdain for the mormon faith all your want on separate threads without dragging those of us interested in discussing the future presidency, into your dispute”

Here is where we may have problems. Some of us, who will be voting for President of the United States, and have concerns that one candidate is in a cult (but could possibly be the nominee), want to say, “stop!” do we really want this guy??

It seems that is as much a right on this thread as your desire to support Mitt.

If the thread “degenerates” it is because those who don’t want anyone to say anything about the group he belongs to would also like their side presented. It is their right to do so.

I don’t know of a single person here who “hates mormons” as individuals. Some of us dislike the doctrines of mormonism. We manage to separate those two things in our posts.

Don’t underestimate that we also care about the Presidency and believe that nominating Mitt will hand it to Hillary.

best,
ampu

[greyfoxx39]

Sorry, UG, I mentioned your name in No. 167. Reaganesque, I meant to add you to the ping list.

[Colofornian]

Too many folks fail to see their so-called opposition for what it is: hate...The anti-Mormon quest to turn every Romney thread into Mormon bashing is not free speech; it is a profound lack of courtesy, respect and good will.

Again, you freely superimpose your own perceived motivation onto other posters when you don't know the poster, the poster's background, or their heart. (I believe that is making it "personal" and not sticking to the issues. Why can't we simply address issues & messages without having to attack the messengers?)

You claim that opposing certain viewpoints amounts to a "lack of courtesy, respect and good will." But somehow you opposing others in these rooms doesn't amount to a "profound lack of courtesy, respect and good." (Could you please explain the seeming inconsistency. Exactly why, again, is it "OK" for you to oppose myself or another poster in the manner you do, but our opposition is deemed out of bounds?)

Many folks whose highest virtue is tolerance suddenly seem less tolerant toward others. Why is that?

[Utah Girl]

No problem.

[greyfoxx39]

Thanks..you are gracious as usual.

[Saundra Duffy]

I’m slowly getting over it - all the “attacks” on our Church. It kinda hurts because we love our Lord Jesus so much and it feels like they’re telling us we don’t love Him and don’t even know Him at all. President Hinckley said, “Jesus is my friend.”

I can’t help it; I love our Church and when someone accuses us of being evil and “spreading spiritual death” all over the world - well, it hurts, but I guess we’re not supposed to feel anything.

I find it difficult. Those who say the hurtful things about our Church complain if we have a response. It’s just odd.

I’m not ashamed of my faith. I love my Church. You are a good example for me. Thank you.

[Religion Moderator]

This thread is in the News Forum - not the Religion Forum. The guidelines concerning closed v. open threads do not apply here.

[Utah Girl]

Thanks. I guess I have learned to just stick to the facts, quote from the scriptures, and most of the time realize that we’re talking about religion and faith, which is really hard to prove without the Holy Spirit.

It does hurt me too. But I know what I believe and that is in Jesus Christ. I try to remember that I will be judged by Christ himself at the judgement day. And truly, that is all that matters, that I live my life according to His counsel and commandments, and that I keep my covenants.

[Saundra Duffy]

Amen, Sis.

[TAdams8591]

"Here is where we may have problems. Some of us, who will be voting for President of the United States, and have concerns that one candidate is in a cult (but could possibly be the nominee), want to say, “stop!” do we really want this guy??"

The above point is NO justification or rationalization for much of the ill-inspired ugliness generated on the Romney threads. One can make such an objection to the presidential candidacy of Mitt Romney by similarly stating your point without the thread becoming a theological discussion and further degenerating into Mormon bashing and bigotry, which all to frequently comes to pass.

Some of the people involved in such discussions have had bad personal experiences with Mormons (or so they say) and have obsessively used these threads to exact their vengeance. We, as Romney supporters, are not interested in the Romney threads being used for such a purpose, and do not care to be drawn into or have to talk over and above the hostile conversations among those posters, nor do we wish to have to defend against the hateful, personal comments they invoke. Rather we want an honest, civil discussion regarding our chosen candidate.

Your post reveals either an ignorance about what has been transpiring on these threads or intellectual dishonesty, and is however, not in any way an accurate depiction of the events on these threads to which several of us have referred and with which we take issue.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

“Your post reveals either an ignorance about what has been transpiring on these threads or intellectual dishonesty...”

How quick you are to judge another.

I only speak for me. I oppose romney for two reasons.

1. I disagree with his view of gay rights
2. I do not want to support a candidate who believes he will become a god someday.

I have witnessed as much ugliness from one side as another -
your comment quoted above, for example.

Please not that I have posted a civil comment to you in
return. Me thinks you have some self reflection to do before
you hurl stones...

best to you,
ampu

[redgirlinabluestate]

I heard that Hoekstra has recorded phone messages for Mitt going out to Michigan homes. Hope it helps!