Free Republic does not and will not support RINOS!! Not now!! Not ever!!

And you didn’t answer the question, or address the words of President Reagan: if your choice is 0% or 75%, which do you choose?

I’m not saying only accept 75%; I’ve said this many times on this board that the time to get conservatives into position is the primary. You vote offensively in the primary, but in the general you vote for the candidate that will do the least amount of damage - you vote defensively.

Here in the State of Washington we have a “top two” election system, where the top two of the primary races advance to the general. Often we end up with no GOP or conservative, and write-ins are ignored. Meaning often your choice is a staunch marxist or a moderate liberal.

Sitting out often means the staunch marxist wins; I’ll take a moderate liberal over a staunch marxist. And I’d take McCain every time over Obama.

But back to the Reagan quote: why do you turn your back on a 75% win? What’s wrong with Reagan’s quote?

By the way, Ronald Reagan was adamantly opposed to socialism and socialized healthcare plans like RomneyCare:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRdLpem-AAs

Me, I want to go in the opposite direction altogether.

And you assume I don't? HELL NO! I'm about as extreme as you can get, but I'm also pragmatic. I'll work within the GOP (and I do) to get conservative candidates elected. I push the conservative candidates in the primaries.

But when it comes to the general, if my conservative candidate didn't advance to the general, I'll take the most conservative person I can find. And if that's someone who's maybe 10% of the conservative agenda versus someone who's 0%, then I'll take it.

Please read the words of Reagan I posted here. I'm complete in agreement with President Reagan and his truth about compromise. Failing that, we are condemning the conservative movement to eternal wandering in the wilderness.

John McCain was spouting the “climate change” mantra before he realized we don’t like it and that he needs to get re-elected next year.

You're 100% correct - and it shows that the conservative base can have an impact on the GOP. Same with Harriet Meyers and GWB. And with the GOP Congressional caucus this year.

So what's our influence and effect if we leave the GOP? If they no longer get our vote at all? Do you think the Democrats will listen to us any more than the GOP?

It's fine to want perfect ideological purity, but if you cannot get that, do you accept what you can get (the President Reagan approach) and keep fighting for the rest, or do you simply walk off the field and go home?

Bingo! That’s what I’ve been trying to say all evening.

And you’re dodging again. Was President Reagan wrong when he said you take the 75% when you can get it and keep fighting for the rest?

If you wish to promote socialist RINOs that’s your business, but you won’t be doing it on FR.

Then I assume you disagree with President Reagan. So be it. The man built a conservative movement and legacy, and we’re going to be sorely punished for ignoring just what and how he did it.

Romney doesn’t come anywhere near 75%. Not even 50%! He’s a flippin gun-grabbing socialist abortionist. A liberal. The enemy within.

You’re an idiot.

Wow! It doesn't seem like promoting a socialist when one works to get a conservative on the ballot but they don't get through the primary and you are left with a less desirable candidate in the general.

What would you have the people on this site do, sit at home for the general? Again, think of Boxer and Fiorina. Two cut from similar cloth but Boxer will for sure vote against us every time and Fiorina will vote with us sometimes.

This is the same thing Reagan was speaking of.

We wo’t be supporting Romney, that’s for sure.

Hey, Jim, I really like the video and this!

Romney Truth File

Have I once supported or pushed Romney in this entire thread, or anywhere on FR, ever? Find it, and I will close my account here.

Can you answer the question: would you accept someone (a hypothetical candidate) who was 75% of what you wanted, and then keep fighting for the balance? Or would you turn your back on them and accept a 0%?

Think about it - read Reagan’s quote again, and think about his wisdom. Think about what the man did, what he accomplished, and how he did it. It wasn’t with anger and hatred and pitchforks. It was with an open exchange of ideas, a presentation of his ideology, and his willingness to let anyone come along side him and help.

If someone comes along side us and helps with the conservative movement - say, the Log Cabin Republicans helping in stopping Obamacare or pushing for deficit reduction - I welcome them! I will be up front and tell them I will not support gay marriage, but I will welcome them on the points we find common ground.

It’s called compromise, it’s not a dirty word as President Reagan sagely advised. We’d do well to stick to that advice and approach; look at the legacy and landslides the man garnered. We’d do a lot worse trying to emulate any other model, for no other model has proven anywhere near as successful.

You never answer my question. You just keep saying "Not Romeny". This concept goes across the board. We need to work at all levels of government and when we are met with choices, we need to vote to our advange, whereever that advantage comes from.

I can't stand Romney but this is about more than just him.

The below is from your profile page. But somehow I don’t believe you have the intestinal fortitude foor freedom fighting.

In Defense of Freedom

Many here know that I am, at best case, an extreme right-wing zealot; at worst I would surmise that many would consider me a political revolutionary from the furthest Right side of the spectrum. Yet you all know me as a fair, knowledgeable and personable man. My political position does not create ill will among us, nor should it if exercised in the ways proper between men. The reasons for my stances are many and are rooted not just in a philosophical belief but by history and actions of Government against me. You may know the actions I have felt; let me now expound on the beliefs underlying.

Fundamentally, I believe in Freedom. I take to heart those immortal words that ALL men are created equal, and that we are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights, among these being the rights to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. Those words are sage and immortal, unique in the history of Man. A Government that would willingly cede power and authority to its people - never tried before, and while run as conceived that same people produced the greatest economic, military, and cultural force ever known on this planet.

To the core I believe that we do have the rights to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. And not just that we possess these rights but that we possess them in that order! It is our duty as free and wise men to support these rights; they do not arise from Government but are extra-Governmental in their source. As such it is the duty of men reveling in those rights to protect them; we cannot rely upon Government on its own to care. Governments are instituted among men to assist in protecting these rights, but fundamentally it is the role of such men to defend and retain claim on these rights.

To start, I have the right to Life. My life cannot be forfeit at the whim or will of another. My right to exist is inarguable and - as it comes from the Creator - divine. This right is sacrosanct and is only to be relinquished when I refuse to acknowledge the same rights in all other men, and choose to extinguish their life for my own selfish desires.

This right has been significantly corrupted over the last 40 years. Once a nation that believed firmly and deeply in this right, we have become a nation that will throw life away for convenience. Not just in war or conflict with other regimes (where, I might add, this right is not even acknowledged and rarely practiced) but on our own population by our own willful actions.

Yes, I am referring to abortion. Once considered an evil action it is now held up by many - including many here - as a sign of “intelligence” and “compassion”. That we would kill a child - even after being born (such as Barack Obama’s position on children born after a botched abortion) - is in my mind an abomination. Many attempt to justify it as compassion for the child or for the mother, yet who among us would trade our own Life simply for the convenience or whim of another? To lay our life down to save our brother is noble; to sacrifice for the comfort or appeasement of another is folly.

And I find it to be wallowing in the depths of hypocrisy for those same self-righteous defenders of a woman’s “right to choose” to murder (as if that right is above the right to Life) condemn Sarah Palin for choosing where to birth her child! You hypocrites would applaud her murdering a child and even hold it up as an “enlightened” choice, yet condemn her for CHOOSING to keep and birth her child as she sees fit. Apparently choice and freedom extend only to the survival of that child; how the child is “treated” is not for the woman to choose!

I argue that not only is the right to Life sacrosanct above all others, but that if a person chooses to relinquish that right for the least among us then they have NO right to dictate - or even discuss - how those lives are lived. If you do not actively protect and encourage the protection of life then you forfeit your moral and intellectual position to dictate how those lives come to being or continue, even to the grave.

The second right we were given - Liberty - is ultimately what is at stake with this election. I readily decry - along with most here - the loss of liberty we have in this nation. Our Liberty - our ability to carry on that promised, Creator-granted Life - is continually and inexorably removed as the Government we are to implement and monitor grows because of ignorance, sloth, or both. We have seen how Government has already extinguished the primary right to Life; it is now fully and ravenously devouring our others.

Liberty is the right to self-determination. The right I have to live my life as I want, provided I do not limit the rights of others. Government exists to institute rules and controls on our life. These rules and controls should be done within the confines and understanding of the limited powers enumerated further within those hallowed documents set forth eleven score years ago. Vigilance of dutiful men is to be the check on Government.

We have - as a society - failed in our duty to each other and to the Government in our loss of vigilance. Many here decry the intrusion of Government in every day life. Those on the left - correctly so - rail against “Government spying”. Those on the right - with full justification - clamor for the removal of the yoke of economic constraint, or the rights to protect one’s own life via possession and use of firearms.

Yet both sides are losing sight of the forest because of introspection of single leaves fallen from trees! Government gains its power from one source, and one source only - the consent of the Governed. As long as we consent, then Government will exist and grow, as its function is necessary, but diametrically opposed to the concepts of Liberty. We debate and howl about perceived injustices and demand solutions to the fall of individual leaves yet ignore the exponential growth of the forest.

At its root, Government exists to consume. It exists to consume Liberty - as its purpose is to function as adjudicator and protector of our rights, it will inevitably come to friction with those same Liberties. LIberty and restriction are diametrically opposed, and while both are necessary a balance must be thoughtfully and vigilantly maintained.

And Government exists by consumption of our life energy - our economic output, which is an expression of our time. Today Government fully consumes 21 percent of our total life energy. Consider this fact: of the 24 hours in each day, we yield the results of 5 of those hours to be used by Government. Time is the single resource none can purchase; you cannot gain back nor sue for time lost. Yet we give – willingly or by the smallest of consent – more time to Government than many spend with their family and friends!

Government continues to exist and grow in both size and intrusion because of an ever-increasing source of nourishment - taxation. Again, I do not argue against all removal of taxation, for I do not argue that Government is not needed! Rather I argue that Government is to be restricted, controlled, and kept manageable, answerable to the Governed.

The decision we face in November is singular, for it promises to be the last picket on the forest of Government. One candidate, John McCain, is an ardent foe of unrestrained growth. He has 25 years of a consistent, proven track record in fighting to rein in the beast of Government, and his positions and pledges are a continuance of that record. The solution is not to grow Government; the solution is to let Free Men address problems and use Government to act on those same solutions.

The other candidate, Barack Obama, believes that essentially Government is too small. Government does not give enough to all, it does not redistribute wealth among its people in a way he deems equitable. Wealth is not “spread around” in a way he sees as fair, and to compensate he has promised a full 33 percent increase in the spending of Government, bringing it to be one in four of every unit of activity in our nation - nearly 7 hours of every day consumed to support Government.

But it goes beyond. He further promises to grow this forest by at least another 15 percent, simply by nationalization of health care. Free men will give 10 hours of each day to support the forest, and Obama hopes to buy those hours with the promise of a pile of leaves, equal to each other. You will not control your own harvest; rather the forest will dictate what you receive.

And it does not stop there. The more radical elements of the Democrat Party have called for nationalization of the energy industry, a further 15 percent of our economy. When - not if - such nationalization occurs under their leadership, Government will fully own over 13 of each of your 24 hours, and you will be a subjugated people, forever committed to caretaking the forest because the forest demands it, not because the woodsmen desire it!

Our nation rebelled over a taxation of just 3 cents on the dollar on a luxury item - tea. This injustice brought to a head the chafing our founders felt from the yoke placed on them by Mother England. Because of a 3 percent taxation, the harbor at Boston was turned to tea, and this nation with its ideals was launched.

Now today we see greed and malice and envy - the roots of death for the first right to Life - sewn and cultivated by those who desire a larger, more involved Government. Many decry Government’s intrusion into life, yet willfully - even vociferously - call for a larger Government! How do such men think Government has the ability to act and interfere and intrude? It is because it gains footholds and grows from the feeding trough of our wallet via taxation.

Ultimately, our loss of Liberty comes from one singular source: the growth of Government. A small Government does not have the resources to intrude, it cannot oppress, it cannot restrict our fundamental rights. Yet too many - swayed by the siren songs of greed couched in terms of “fairness” - give up an ever larger portion of their time, and exhibit consternation and confusion as that same forest overruns their fields.

This election is a watershed - it is more than race or eloquence. It is about Government’s all-consuming desire to grow. If you are angered by intrusion of Government in your life - from the right or left of the spectrum - the solution is not to change the type of trees, but to fundamentally REDUCE the size of the forest! Remove the ability of Government to act or grow, and freedoms will be restored.

And that brings us to our third right, the Pursuit of Happiness. The founders of our nation exhibited great wisdom with this right. We are guaranteed the right to the PURSUIT - not achievement - of happiness. Inevitably it is the role and responsibility of each man to choose his path to best fulfill his life. Success or failure should rest on no one but himself. If another provides opposition or limit to your path, then it is the role of Government to adjudicate and protect. When two paths cross, it is the role of Government to direct. However, when paths are separate or complementary it is the individual who should reign supreme.

The growth of Government - that all consuming cancer that restricts our Freedom - also serves to restrict our pursuits. By the ever-increasing size of Government, the forest overcomes and obscures once fruitful and adventurous paths enjoyed by our forefathers. We are limited and restricted from our own desires.

And why? Because Government preys on the greed and envy within the heart of man. It uses the language of “fairness” and “equitable results” when deciding which paths to expand and which to overgrow. Your choice in your pursuits is limited, and those unwilling to forge their own path are placed in the carts of those making their own ways. We are forced to guarantee the minimal happiness of our fellow man, regardless of his desire to even choose a path, let alone tread it.

What is the difference between a robber demanding from you your wallet, jewelry, or car and Government demanding from you your energy and time and economic success to be given to those who did not earn it? In each case those with envy and malice of soul receive through ill-gotten means your own results and rewards. It is taken by threat of force and given.

We are presented a choice between two candidates. One believes in the inherent Rights as enumerated - an inexhaustible list at that - in the foundational writings of our nation. He believes that we should keep what we make, that a man should be free to choose, and that Government should serve the people, should only involve itself with the free men when conflict or strife arises between those same men. That Government exists to provide an equal starting point, but that ultimately it is the choices we make as free men that determine our own rewards.

The other candidate promises another, more sinister song. He promises to restrain those who succeed, to obliterate paths of success oft-tread by our ancestors, and to take from those who against the pull of the branches of the forest still make an abundance of fruits and give to those who not just stumble on their own path but even refuse to choose to begin the journey. For him it is not the equality of the position and the freedom to choose but the division of the results to be shared and shared alike, regardless of individual contribution. And that government is the only force that can choose your path - you have no will of individuality but only the care and feeding of the forest matters.

The latter approach, couched in terms of compassion and caring, are in fact the foundations of the most murderous philosophy ever attempted by man - Communism. Fundamentally we are at a crux as a nation regarding our keeping with the principles of individual accomplishment rooted in the principles of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness are diametrically opposed to the imposition of restrictions and rules that were inconceivable to the Founders of our Country. Fully two billion people are running head-strong towards the rights and foundation of our Country, while one of our candidates promises us the pain and constraint of those same billions.

My fellow citizens of these United States of America, my fellow Free Men of all Republics and Democracies, my fellow Men of nations of subjugation, I call upon you to read these words and consider carefully how you choose to be governed. Do not let a leaf here or there become your stumbling block. Look at the forest as a whole, consider it carefully as it seeks to consume, and weigh heavily on the decisions you face daily.

Freedom was won for America by the blood of thousands. Righteous and Good men stood and bled and died for the prinicples that ALL Men are Created Equal. That we All – corporately and individually - have the Rights to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. And that Governments exist because of the Consent of Men, not in spite of it.

It is that same blood that has led to not just the rise of America – the penultimate power in this world – but to the foundational changes across the globe. The freedoms gained daily by those once oppressed as the indisputable promises of our success roll ever forward. In spite of what many say, America is still the dream of billions, and the role model of success and freedom.

Citizens, as we vote do not let your concern over perceived Government injustices cloud your vision. The solution is not to change the injustices or the clouds; the solution is to eliminate the ability of Government to harm or hamper. We do not hate each other because we have different beliefs; we only rise in anger when we come to conflict, or one man attempts to force another to his will. Government is the ultimate expression of such force and conflict, and if not guarded against we will choose from our jailers, rather than between which fields we wish to sow.

You’re an idiot.

1 Peter 3:9:

Do not repay evil with evil or insult with insult, but with blessing, because to this you were called so that you may inherit a blessing.

I wish you a calm, peaceful refreshing slumber, that your mind may be clear and your spirit at peace.

Bye.

I’ve already answered your question. I do not support liberal abortionist socialized medicine pushing RINOS. Neither would Reagan.

Bye.

No, we do not support RINOs on FR. That’s the topic of the thread and the answer to your silly question. It was answered before you posed it, same as the other guy’s.