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

My day after Thanksgiving message | 11/26/200 | Jim Robinson

[Jim Robinson]

Apparently there are still some posters on FR who are fast asleep. Wake up! Dammit! We are in the middle of a conservative rebellion! While you were sleeping we, along with millions of other freedom loving grassroots Americans have participated in hundreds of tea parties all across this great land and fully intend to keep it up until all of America is awake. We are fed up and mad as hell! We grassroots Americans are delivering a message to the ruling class: NO MORE!!

No more big government! No more high taxes! No more government bailouts! No more government takeovers! No government healthcare! No more corruption! No more global baloneyism!!

We're sick and tired of liberals and RINOs running roughshod over our God given Liberty!

We want our country back! We want our freedom back! We want it all back!!

No more socialism!!

Cut the taxes! Cut the spending! Cut the government!

Restore the constitutional limits on government! Restore our freedom!!

And not only no, but HELL NO to liberals and RINOS!!

Free Republic will not support RINOS!! Rudy McRomney, et al, can go straight to hell!!

The strategy is we win, they lose.

Any questions?

[Windflier]

you just described what could have been the GOP.

Let's hope that I was divining the future of the party.

[Windflier]

You need to get out more.

I get out plenty, Bob. Do you disagree that FR should remain a bastion of conservative thought?

[Windflier]

I stand by what I have written, but I truly do resonate with much of what you write. Thank you.

Well, we meet halfway, at least. That's a good thing, but I do hope that what I said resonates enough with you that you see that we must always press forward toward the ideals which made America great. Those ideals are the roots of conservatism.

[WVKayaker]

They shouldn’t have to bear each and every wrong for all of union criminality. ...

... We don’t like it when we are tarred with a brush of robber baron or race supremitist when there are a few like that wearing our school colors. ...

Sorry, but we disagree.

While you are trying to trivialize the criminal enterprises, your apologetics don't rise to a truth. Unions are antithetical to individual initiative. "All for one", and "one for all", is not a "conservative" position. There is no such thing as a level playing field. there are just rules imposed to stifle competition.

Your experience on both sides doesn't justify their existence. Knowing "first-hand" about construction unions should reveal that to you. I have been an employer most of my life. I reward achievers.

Most of the people within our borders are our "countrymen", and they aren't a group. The Constitution does not give us group rights, it explains our individual rights. It promises us an opportunity to achieve.

[chicken head]

GO SARAH GO

[Quix]

What’s the old saw . . .

“Between me and thee, I don’t think those other blokes are quite all there . . . and sometimes I wonder about thee.”

One of the hazards of . . . ‘narrow’ ‘Orthodoxy’

is that it tends to get defined increasingly narrowly.

And then IN-GROUP/OUT-GROUP dynamics set in.

And THEN comes

THE INQUISITION.

. . . which . . . MAY be all well and ‘good’ for the power brokers . . . IF the heretics are a small minority. Off with their heads etc.

However, once those heads have rolled, the compulsively prissy set about examining the next category of ‘potential heads to roll.’

Populations can be shrunk dramatically over time, that way.

I think it’s good to have some minimal standards for

WHAT IS A FREEPER?

and even

WHAT IS A REALLY KOSHER FREEPER?

However, I don’t think that Conservatives are quite near enough of a majority at all to have the luxury of willy nilly trotting people off to the ZOTTERS with prissy arrogance.

We need all the help we can get . . . as long as it’s true help and not 5th column stuff.

imho.

[narses]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2395726/posts?page=26

[ICCtheWay]

Just a comment on your post...

The back of the liberal/moderate Republican Establishment that has (and still is) controlling candidate placement MUST BE BROKEN at all costs...

What ever happens in the mean time - just happens...

Lead - Follow - or Get out of the way...

[County Agent Hank Kimball]

“right wing conservatism.” Yeah, right. The biggest theme I’ve seen at tea parties is “OBEY THE DAMNED CONSTITUTION.” These days that’s pretty right wing.

But since a cursory examination of your posting history shows you have expressed contempt for, among others, Antonin Scalia, Sarah Palin, JD Hayworth, Tom Tancredo and Alan Keys - and I didn’t go back more than 2 pages - I don’t think you’re much of a fan of ANY type of conservative - “right wing” or otherwise.

Hank

[DoughtyOne]

JVeritas, I believe you make some decent points as far as they go.

You state (at least I believe you did, perhaps someone else did), that we cannot expect to see Conservatism triumph these days because things have changed. I couldn’t agree more with that concept.

Let’s think about that another way though.

We have as a nation drifted so far left, that we dare not go any further. As far as I am concerned, going further left is out of the question. Hence, RINOs are completely unacceptable.

Right now we have less than half the Navy we had under Reagan. Out nuclear stockpile is being dismantled. Our old allies are being shunned. Our economy is in a worse situation than when he came into office. And now I am being asked to vote for people who should be registered as Democrats.

Does that really sound like a winning strategy to you?

Look, if we’re going down, I want to go down with guns blazing, not with my hat in hand begging voters to support Democrats in my own party.

I understand where you’re coming from, and this isn’t meant to disparage you at all. I just can’t back what you want me to. We see it differently. I still think you’re a good person and I’m not unhappy with you at all.

Take care.

[Snurple]

lol

[Snurple]

Awwwwwwwwwwww, night snookums.

[two23]

Fire them ALL.
Plundering pirates,liars and thieves—the whole dern lot of them.

[Eric Blair 2084]

Robinson, I agree with you. Government exists to protect human life, not to perform social engineering or redistribute wealth. But you should get the permission of the founder Jim Thompson before posting a vanity like this. I don't want to see you get banned...sort of like this guy/gal was banned from life....

He/she may have found the cure for cancer. Too bad.

[Kevmo]

It’s not so much as a ideological litmus test as it is not accepting any of the deal breaking issues.
***The litmus test issues ARE the deal breaking issues.

___________________________________________________________________

I’m a big tent republican.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1821435/posts?page=6245#6245
Here’s an analogy to work with. Take a small box and fill it with some rocks. Then add some rice, filling it to the top. Now take all the same stuff, but in a different order. Put in the rice first, then add the rocks. What you’ll find is that if you put in the big stuff first, the small stuff will fit around it. But if you put in the small stuff first, the big stuff won’t have room. The republican tent is the box. The Big issues are the socon issues, to be put in first. The little issues are things that can be accommodated around the bigger stuff. A candidate who tries to focus on the smaller issues first and leave out the bigger issues has no way of getting all of us into the tent. He splits the party. The candidate who gets the big stuff right and as much of the little stuff that will fit, he can fit more into the tent. We’re often amazed at how much rice can keep fitting in. Rudy Giuliani flunks some of the big issues, and on some of the little issues it looks to me like anyone else’s rice would do just as well. All that remains for us to agree on is which are the bedrock principles and which are not. Why would there be so much invective aimed at rudy from the right? Because there are some bedrock principles that he is leaving out. Bad move. I see rudybot postings all the time saying that they would vote for Hunter, and I see socon postings that say they would not vote for rudy. That’s a BIG indicator of a few bedrock principles that are being left outside the tent in order to let in some rice.

___________________________________________________________________

[Kevmo]

Actually a relatively decent litmus test is written every four years at the RNC national convention.
***And it gets ignored every four years. Not only that, but RINOs are allowed to operate freely on this website. If we can’t get a litmus test going here, there’s no freeping hope of having one with the GOP platform.

[dsc]

“Vote for the unelectable conservative. That got us Ronnie! And will get us Sarah!!”

I love that kind of talk.

Think I’ll find out where the Republican Party hides out in this town, and see if I can’t make some waves. Or perhaps just ripples.

[Dream Warrior]

If Simcox got out (4% of the vote) and Deakin (2% 0f the vote)got out it would be McLame 45%, JD 49%.

[JSDude1]

I think you, and the other defiant Mitt Supports might want to read this!

[broncobilly]

I keep seeing a video posted about Romney on abortion.
Romney pomising to govern without changing MA’s pro-choice law desn’t make him pro- abortion.
You can raise exactly the same issue about Sarah Palin. Note the article in Mother Jonew that does just that and puts Romney and Palin in the same category:

Anti-Abortion Group to Protest Palin

When Palin touts her book in Indiana, pro-lifers will be there—because they don’t believe she’s one of them.
—By Stephanie Mencimer
Mother Jones, Tue November 17, 2009 3:00 AM PST

“ARTL launched a new website this week called Prolife Profiles that prominently features a report calling Palin’s record on abortion “shocking to the conscience.” ARTL has given Palin a “Tier 4” designation that lumps her in with other allegedly fake pro-lifers like Romney, George W. Bush, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, and Rep. Ron Paul. Tier 4 members “use the pro-life title but deny the personhood and God-given right to life of the unborn.” By that measure, Palin has many strikes against her, according to ARTL, including:
* Her failure to endorse legislation and amendments that would extend equal protection laws to unborn children
* Her description of the morning after pill as contraception rather than an abortifacient
* Palin’s statement to the Anchorage Daily News that she opposes the “use of public funds for elective abortions.” This means, according to ARTL, that Palin supports taxpayer funding for non-elective abortions.
ARL takes particular offense at Palin’s belief that voters and individual states should decide whether abortion should be legal or not. “If you’re personally against slavery but say that the states have the right to decide if they can trade in slaves, then you’re a hypocrite,” explains Enyart.
One of Palin’s biggest violations of pro-life orthodoxy was her political partnership with John McCain, whom the National Right to Life Committee dubbed a “significant threat to future advances by the pro-life movement” back in 2000. (It endorsed him in 2008.) ARTL is also not happy that Palin and McCain supported stem cell research.
The group also blasts Palin for her position that public schools should teach evolution as “an accepted principle” (a belief she seems to have repudiated in her book, according to some leaked reports). This might seem to be a tangent for the group, but Enyart says creationism is central to the abortion issue. “We have the right to life from our creator. If we come from animals, you can kill one another without consequences. A fish can eat another fish and it’s not a crime.”

This is not an attack on Sarah, since I think she is outstanding on the issues. It is a call to be a bit more consistent in the way you evaluate candidates. Even when you know you are right on an issue, it still improves your cause if you are fair and consistent.