Mitt has already shown us his path. Some don't want to see or hear the real message. He's selling the Brooklyn Bridge, honest. Graphic credit to freeper FrankR.
Posted on 04/17/2012 4:47:30 PM PDT by Williams
Well it's been about 13 years forgot my initial sign in name, so pretty much from the beginning.
Never wanted to write a Free Republic Opus, love reading news stories here and commenting every day.
Would rather not go out in anger seems pointless.
Then today the owner of the site called me a RINO (I'm not), surrender monkey (not) and told me to write my opus and get out.
My sin was fighting with someone who suggested Obama losing in the latest poll is "bad news".
I could list all the insanity of what is going on here. I've tried to approach Jim Robinson in email to gently suggest the problems we are facing. It's clear from that he is not interested in discussing and resolving anything, which is a shame.
But what kind of man, American, conservative will I be if I worry more about losing my 12 year old screen name versus standing up to people who are espousing the advisability of reelecting Barack Hussein Obama, and yes if I fail to stand up to the owner of a site for calling me a liberal when I am a proud conservative?
What Jim Robinson is doing cannot work because first of all he is NOT attacking the posters who say it is best to reelect Obama. He's offended by anyone who says he is thereby supporting Obama. But he doesn't mind calling us names when we attack the pro Obamas.
OK folks, it's not going to work. You can't really oppose Obama's reelection if you may also oppose the republican's election.
Free Republic has become a house divided against itself and it cannot stand.
I'm a conservative I love my country, I have to wish away to the cornfield anyone who would assist in the reelection of Obama, from whatever misguided motivations.
I stand with Dick Cheney. The other day I had to fight with someone disparaging Cheney here. They were not criticized by the owner.
Jim Robinson owes me an apology. Not planning on getting one. The sad fact is I am not writing this because I'm offended. It's because I want to no longer assist here in the destruction of my country by those who will, to varying degrees, assist in Obama's reelection.
Six or seven liberals on the Supreme Court? Maybe atomic destruction down the pike after our disarmament. Israel destroyed. 2nd Amendment neutered. Obamacare used to deny people medical care based on age and political beliefs. Racial strife. A welfare socialist state. US attorneys going after republicans.
My wife is a cancer survivor who reasonably fears that in the future they will deny her care because she is a registered republican. And she's no RINO, she hates Obama and she won't read Free Republic stories anymore because of what is going on here.
We have a real country and real lives out here that go beyond Jim Robinson's ill advised name calling against sincere conservatives who dare to disagree with him.
So F anyone who calls me a RINO for standing with Dick Cheney and against Barack Obama. I hate RINO's and I despise misguided so called conservatives who do anything to reelect Obama.
13 years, but it's nothing when put to the wall on my beliefs against the left wing democrat party. I have too many mirrors to look in. The people here who are every day posting that it will be best to reelect Obama, should be thrown off. Instead, well...
It's over.
Luckily I didn't say that or anything like it. Nor would I ever say anything as idiotic as "following my principles isn't principled." LOL
As to your “principle”, I don’t want to put words in your mouth, ...
You already did.
Laz "hit it".
Your times up Duke!
How many chances do you need to get it right?
I voted for McClintock in the recall, but I did vote for Schwartzenegger over Angelides for his reelection.
It might be an interesting thought exercise to imagine what California might be like if Gray Davis had never been recalled. It's like people suggesting that an Obama second term would be somehow acceptable, after looking back at in another 9 years.
I suspect he would have ended up like Blagojevich, had Davis not been recalled.
-PJ
You heard it here first then.
Again...If you care to explain to me how one ‘takes off’ his conservatism like a sweaty pair of socks, goes and votes for a rabid liberal with an “R” behind his mane, then puts them (conservative ideals) right back on like nothing ever happened, I’ll do it too.
Are you seriously saying that you will vote for Romney and that doing so is an act of conservatism?
Can you PLEASE explain how it is that one can vote for a lib without taking off their conservative creds to do it? You and a number of others here have been asked this question. In fact on multiple threads I have posed it to all ABO types.
To thIn threads totaling over 4000 posts in the last week, not a single person has attempted to address that issue. So again, here’s your chance to step up. Tell us definitively how it is that we can sidestep everything we believe in for one vote and just keep on being conservative when that vote gets us more abortion, not fewer; more gay rights’, not fewer; more mandates, not fewer; and the rest of the list.
Please help us understand how. You say you are not, then explain how that’s possible.
sorry but it is far too late to change horses now. Romney will be the nominee so get used to it....it is practically impossible for any other outcome.
Republican is whatever those who are a majority of the “Republican Party” claim it to be. While it is quite ocnceivable that, in a particular election at a state or local level, the majority who choose that candidate could well choose someone who, on a national level, would be outside the norm for the “Republican Party”, you simply cannot argue that the person chosen nationally by the representatives of that party is not, in fact, the “norm” for that party.
Your premise is also largely wrong, btw, in this matter, but we are prohibited from that discussion.
Further, even if you assumed that the national nominee of a party might not actually be a member of that party (the definition of “RINO”), it is absurd to suggest that casting a vote for the person listed as “Republican” would make someone a “RINO” (as if voting for an OPPONENT of the “Republican” on the ballot would make one a real republican).
In fact, even endorsing a RINO doesn’t make one a RINO. It can be a piece of information that might indicate that someone is a RINO, but it is not what defines someone as a RINO.
After all, lots of conservatives voted in the 2008 democratic primary — voting for actual liberals. Somehow they managed to avoid a conversion to a non-Republican.
On an anecdotal note, there are dozens of clear conservatives (not the same as republican), who are clearly solid members of the republican party, supporters of the party, committed to the platform and advancement of the party (and therefore clearly by proponderance of evidence NOT “republican in NAME ONLY”) who have endorsed RINOs in the past.
Newt Gingrich endorsed Dede Scozzafosa, who was so clearly a “Republican in Name Only” that she turned around within weeks of that endorsement, dropped out of her OWN republican nomination, and endorsed the democrat in the election.
But, by the clear statement of a majority of Free Republic, including the site owner, Newt Gingrich is NOT a “Republican in Name Only”, despite that endorsement and others.
Of course, RINO has become pretty much a meaningless term used as a cheap, lazy insult.
Hysteria? Hardly. We’re almost there... just need a little more “flexibility” - open your eyes:
______________
Congressional Record—Appendix, pp. A34-A35
January 10, 1963
Current Communist Goals
EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. A. S. HERLONG, JR. OF FLORIDA
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Thursday, January 10, 1963
Mr. HERLONG. Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Patricia Nordman of De Land, Fla., is an ardent and articulate opponent of communism, and until recently published the De Land Courier, which she dedicated to the purpose of alerting the public to the dangers of communism in America.
At Mrs. Nordman’s request, I include in the RECORD, under unanimous consent, the following “Current Communist Goals,” which she identifies as an excerpt from “The Naked Communist,” by Cleon Skousen:
CURRENT COMMUNIST GOALS
1. U.S. acceptance of coexistence as the only alternative to atomic war.
2. U.S. willingness to capitulate in preference to engaging in atomic war.
3. Develop the illusion that total disarmament [by] the United States would be a demonstration of moral strength.
4. Permit free trade between all nations regardless of Communist affiliation and regardless of whether or not items could be used for war.
5. Extension of long-term loans to Russia and Soviet satellites.
6. Provide American aid to all nations regardless of Communist domination.
7. Grant recognition of Red China. Admission of Red China to the U.N.
8. Set up East and West Germany as separate states in spite of Khrushchev’s promise in 1955 to settle the German question by free elections under supervision of the U.N.
9. Prolong the conferences to ban atomic tests because the United States has agreed to suspend tests as long as negotiations are in progress.
10. Allow all Soviet satellites individual representation in the U.N.
11. Promote the U.N. as the only hope for mankind. If its charter is rewritten, demand that it be set up as a one-world government with its own independent armed forces. (Some Communist leaders believe the world can be taken over as easily by the U.N. as by Moscow. Sometimes these two centers compete with each other as they are now doing in the Congo.)
12. Resist any attempt to outlaw the Communist Party.
13. Do away with all loyalty oaths.
14. Continue giving Russia access to the U.S. Patent Office.
15. Capture one or both of the political parties in the United States.
16. Use technical decisions of the courts to weaken basic American institutions by claiming their activities violate civil rights.
17. Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers’ associations. Put the party line in textbooks.
18. Gain control of all student newspapers.
19. Use student riots to foment public protests against programs or organizations which are under Communist attack.
20. Infiltrate the press. Get control of book-review assignments, editorial writing, policymaking positions.
21. Gain control of key positions in radio, TV, and motion pictures.
22. Continue discrediting American culture by degrading all forms of artistic expression. An American Communist cell was told to “eliminate all good sculpture from parks and buildings, substitute shapeless, awkward and meaningless forms.”
23. Control art critics and directors of art museums. “Our plan is to promote ugliness, repulsive, meaningless art.”
24. Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them “censorship” and a violation of free speech and free press.
25. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.
26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as “normal, natural, healthy.”
27. Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with “social” religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity which does not need a “religious crutch.”
28. Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the ground that it violates the principle of “separation of church and state.”
29. Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old-fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis.
30. Discredit the American Founding Fathers. Present them as selfish aristocrats who had no concern for the “common man.”
31. Belittle all forms of American culture and discourage the teaching of American history on the ground that it was only a minor part of the “big picture.” Give more emphasis to Russian history since the Communists took over.
32. Support any socialist movement to give centralized control over any part of the culture—education, social agencies, welfare programs, mental health clinics, etc.
33. Eliminate all laws or procedures which interfere with the operation of the Communist apparatus.
34. Eliminate the House Committee on Un-American Activities.
35. Discredit and eventually dismantle the FBI.
36. Infiltrate and gain control of more unions.
37. Infiltrate and gain control of big business.
38. Transfer some of the powers of arrest from the police to social agencies. Treat all behavioral problems as psychiatric disorders which no one but psychiatrists can understand [or treat].
39. Dominate the psychiatric profession and use mental health laws as a means of gaining coercive control over those who oppose Communist goals.
40. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.
41. Emphasize the need to raise children away from the negative influence of parents. Attribute prejudices, mental blocks and retarding of children to suppressive influence of parents.
42. Create the impression that violence and insurrection are legitimate aspects of the American tradition; that students and special-interest groups should rise up and use [”]united force[”] to solve economic, political or social problems.
43. Overthrow all colonial governments before native populations are ready for self-government.
44. Internationalize the Panama Canal.
45. Repeal the Connally reservation so the United States cannot prevent the World Court from seizing jurisdiction [over domestic problems. Give the World Court jurisdiction] over nations and individuals alike.
That’s what I was thinking. LOL!
That was a nearly useless response.
I explained what my interpretation of your statement of principle was, while noting that I wanted you to correct my statement if it was in error.
Why don’t you want to clarify what you said? Why don’t you want people to understand what your principle means?
The way you reach understanding is by discussing, not by dismissing.
As to the first thing you quoted, that was a general argument, clearly not directed at your specific statement, and I don’t know why you choose to partially quote my statement just so you can misunderstand it.
“Get used to it” is code for support a liberal, right?
...
They can vote how they like. They can vote on whatever criteria they want.
But there should be ONE PLACE on the internet where core conservative values aren’t changed at the whim of the moment. Let that be Free Republic.
There should be one place on the internet where truth is not ignored or avoided because of the needs of a weak candidate. Let that be Free Republic.
There should be one place on the internet where the political “pragmatists” aren’t allowed to subvert conservatism in the name of “winning”. Let that be Free Republic.
These posters can vote how they like. They can co-opt themselves and their own principles all they need to feel better about “having to” vote for the likes of Romney. BUT do NOT co-opt the principles of Free Republic!
Vote how you like, that far- no farther!
Thank you for articulating that. That's the dilemma I find myself in, frankly. My greatest fear is not that Romney is a RINO, but that he isn't; that he is a true indicator of the future direction of the Republican party and that I, as a conservative already disdainful of tribal politics, am a relic of the past.
I quit the Republican party a few weeks ago. It wasn't anything particularly dramatic, no burning of any card of return of a decoder ring, just a call to the local office to let them know I wouldn't be available for fund-raising this time around. But I think it's for good. I'll still vote conservative but the party's out.
The reason is not that a perfect candidate has not surfaced. I've been around long enough to know that no such thing exists, not even Palin or Cheney or Reagan himself. But what has surfaced is that one way or another I'm going to be forced to vote for something I oppose in order to oppose something else I oppose. That's a fool's game.
There is, to be sure, the usual dram of political hysteria whipped up by the partisans of both sides: 0bama the crypto-Islamic crypto-fascist Machiavellian monster whose re-election will end America as we know it; Romney the only hope, however degraded and frail, that America will gasp out her desperate survival over the next four years. Frankly, it's nonsense. Either man can damage the country and both are highly likely to. To hell with them both.
I am particularly tired of the Manichaean tendencies of both sides - a failure to vote for Romney constituting a vote for 0bama, for one. That, too, is nonsense. A vote for Romney is a vote for Romney. A vote for 0bama is a vote for 0bama. That's how it works. "No" is only an option for school bonds and tax levies and the like, not for candidates. Enough of this.
The issue, I think, is that both parties have veered rather sharply to the left, the Democrats more so but the Republicans not so very far behind, and I do not speak strictly of the Presidential candidates. That's the game, whipped on by both media and academia who tend, broadly, to the left themselves. I drew the rather desolate conclusion that the only RINO, Republican In Name Only, was me. And so no more name only, no more name at all. No more.
The establishment Democrats were very successful in presenting the country with a glamorous celebrity that reflected their own most flattering self-image in the racist incompetent that is 0bama; the establishment Republicans have countered with what may well be equal success in presenting the country with their own plastic mannequin who, like 0bama, is a tabula rasa who will say anything at any time, on whom the hopeful and credulous will project their own illusions. It is a classic case of framing the question such that either alternative gives the same result. As I said, a fool's game.
Could either man win my vote? No. Show me his programs, though, and his staff, and we'll see if I can vote for them, if I believe he'll actually see them through. Otherwise, let me be blunt: I don't give a rat's ass, because the America I know is going to be hunkering down in survival mode while the plastic puppets play on their well-lit plastic stage. It may come to that either way, and that's one hell of a thing to say in a Presidential election year.
Mitt has already shown us his path. Some don't want to see or hear the real message. He's selling the Brooklyn Bridge, honest. Graphic credit to freeper FrankR.
We survived Clinton when the GOP pushed 'the next guy in line' on us.
We'll survive this.
I intend to do the right thing, vote conservative, and leave the rest to God.
My eyes are open. And I'm not a hysteric. I'll vote conservative.
/johnny
All of your posts are useless. Arguing with you is like arguing with Malik Shabazz.
As always is the case in our online debates Charles, you duck the questions I asked and answer questions I did not. Try again.
But I will say this. When ‘Republican’ candidates and elected officials campaign ...
AGAINST
...the party platform, they are not Republicans at all and so cannot logically represent the ‘mainstream’ of the party.
The Republican platform exists as the guide for what the party represents. That is not debatable. If the party does not follow it, they can call themselves anything they wish, but it isn’t ‘Republican’ by definition and it is not a mainstream for the ‘Republican’ platform.
The excuses being made to support Romney are every bit the magical thinking employed by Democrats.
Now will you address my questions or will this turn, yet again into a multi page exercise in avoidance?
And Boehner and McConnell are still there, being just as weak.
That's why the down-ticket voting is so important.
But the bodies have to show up at the polls to vote, or nothing changes.
That's why the MSM will use Romney to depress the Republican vote, keep the voters home to stop them from voting down-ticket.
-PJ
Well stated, FRiend.
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.