Just sad. I hope you can live with yourself. Maybe one day you'll be pro-life again.
Posted on 10/29/2011 8:05:02 AM PDT by mnehring
Edited on 10/29/2011 2:08:48 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
The editors at Red State and Free Republic (among others) have had the wool pulled over their eyes. They seem to actually believe the lies originally propagated by supporters of President Obama and, in some cases, even by President Obama himself. Now, for some reason, these editors/moderators are so insecure in their prejudice against Gov. Romney that they ban people who openly support Gov. Romney. Free Republic (mostly because of it’s owner Jim Robinson) has purged all of the Romney supporters they could from the site in two waves of purges over the last few years. The anti-Romney and anti-Mormon bigotry evident at Free Republic now is absolutely sickening.
I haven’t been to Free Republic quite as much as I used to partly because I have been banned from posting. During the 2008 election, Mitt was accepted and lauded by many at Free Republic like he was by most conservatives. One of the best summaries of Gov. Romney’s accomplishments was actually from Free Republic. However, Jim Robinson seemingly fell in love with Sarah Palin and initiated purges of anyone who wouldn’t pledge allegiance to her. A few months back, I tried to make a new account and see if I could post about Gov. Romney’s jobs plan and I was promptly banned and called a few derogatory names implying that I was a Mormon. Besides the fact that I am not Mormon, I can’t for the life of me figure out how a site like that, filled with such hate, can find enough donors to keep it going. When I think of Free Republic, I’m reminded of the scene from Star Wars Episode IV where Luke is warned that he is entering “A Wretched Hive of Scum and Villany”.
Red State has been fairly hostile to Gov. Romney for awhile, but they have crossed into new lows now as well. The guys from WhyRomney.com [3] have been working very hard and diligently to refute some of the many misconceptions about Gov. Romney, and I hope this unfortunate episode won’t dissuade them or anyone else from trying to correct the people endlessly smearing Gov. Romney. What so many of these people who don’t like Gov. Romney don’t seem to realize is that they have been fed reasons to not like Gov. Romney by highly-funded democratic think tanks. It’s abundantly clear now, no matter what Rush Limbaugh says [4], that President Obama is scared to death of facing Mitt Romney [5] in the general election.
If you want to check out the three open letters posted to Red State, you can read the one on mandates and health care here [6], the one about abortion here [7], and the final one on miscellaneous issues here [8] unless Red State removes the posts now that they have cowardly banned the authors of the letters. Also, I’ve saved a screen shot of the admin belittling the efforts of our friends from WhyRomney [9] and giving his/her bogus reason for banning them which you can read here [10] just in case the admin tries to cover his/her tracks in shame. If you want to see how rude Free Republic is without actually subjecting yourself to the hate, just click here [11] for a screen shot of the reason they banned the author of a similar open letter.
I know there are bastions of bigotry against Mormons on other sites besides Free Republic and that Free Republic and Red State aren’t the only sites that have ever banned people they disagreed with, but I’ve concluded that they are the grandparents of this anti-Romney crusade that fortunately seems destined to fail. Some other sites seem predisposed against supporting Mitt, but not at the dangerous level of these two.
The motives of people like Mark Levin and Rush Limbaugh [12] to not want Gov. Mitt Romney to be the GOP nominee are easy to understand (hint: they make more money with President Obama in the White House), but I believe many other sites and conservatives are simply following their lead reinforced by the disingenuous people at Red State and the sheltered leader of Free Republic. Most other conservative sites that support candidates other than Mitt at least vow to support Mitt if he is the nominee, but I worry about what is festering at Free Republic and now, Red State. Once our nominee is selected, we will need all hands on deck to defeat President Obama. The members of these two sites should realize how detrimental the actions of their leaders may end up being to the ultimate cause of making President Obama a one-term President. I hope they will ask for their leaders to act in a more responsible fashion.
WELCOME TO FREE REPUBLIC!
NOTE: FR's "editor" (namely, me) is not shy about stating FR's conservative principles, purposes and goals or about stating why liberal progressive RINOS are not acceptable on FR and so adds the following links for reference:
One more time: FR's God-given Life & Liberty constitutional conservative activism agenda!!
The truth about Romney straight from HIS progressive big mouth
--Jim Robinson
I won’t.
What hypocrites! Mormons believe they will BE different gods.
My plan exactly!
Just sad. I hope you can live with yourself. Maybe one day you'll be pro-life again.
Sad...and true. :)
Ya know...I don't vote for...
* New Agers or Hindus trying to realize the god within them...[so that, coupled with him being a "D," ruled out Dennis Kucinich in '08]
* Nor any pagans who might think of themselves as a "god"
* Nor orthodox Christians from the East if they think they will be "deified"
I'm not going to start making exceptions for Mormon "gods in embryo" just because they share other values with Christians.
Somebody who thinks they are "god in embryo" on their way to becoming a full-grown god is both operating at the height of gullibility as well as self-pride. Both reflect the character of that person.
It's therefore -- bottom-line -- a CHARACTER issue.
And anybody trying to tell me that character doesn't count when it comes to POTUS is foolish.
POTUS is NOT simply a "desk job" full of making wonk-like admin decisions.
Character includes discernment. I don't want an easily duped POTUS who would be easily fooled & "give in" on foreign affairs.
Besides, Romney & other true-believing Mormons can't even properly define "Christianity" as a world religion. Since they believe Pearl of Great Price, Joseph Smith - History as their "scripture" -- they define us as corrupt apostates. If they can't even get it right on who their "base" is...not exactly "inspirational."
Very well said post!
“Maybe one day you’ll be pro-life again.”
You obviously don’t know who I am. Have you ever sued Planned Parenthood?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/554893/posts
People can change. Bernard Nathanson was once a very successful abortionist who saw the light and became a pro life activist. The Roe as in “Roe v. Wade” later became pro life. Loads of politicians and ordinary folks have changed their minds about abortion.
ALL: This wannabe open defender of Mitt -- a fellow Mormon -- shows you why Mormons simply CANNOT escape the mind control of Mormonism.
Think of it. It's 2008. Romney's on the ballot in Utah and Nevada. What % of MORMONS voted for Romney in BOTH states?
Answer? 94%
Imagine if you would...if Huckabee...an Evangelical...had rec'd 94% of the vote in states like Mississippi and Iowa?
Had that happened, we'd never had heard the end of that from the MSM, Dems, non-Christians, and even Mormons. We'd been accused of being mind-numbed robots who vote for a fellow Evangelical in a kneejerk way. We'd been accused of engaging in "identity politics" to the nth degree.
But...somehow...when Mormons do this...they get a MAJOR free pass from...
...the MSM...
...Dems...
...non-Christians...
...and every other group, too...
Why?
Mormons are simply "programmed" to vote for fellow Mormons. Yet no charge of "bias" or "bigotry" (intolerant of non-Mormon candidates) is seemingly ever presented?
The Salt Lake Trib -- in early Feb of '08 -- even said that exit poll data of Utah voters showed that they bucked national trends of voters in other states (who voted on the "issues") -- and instead voted for Romney based upon "personal qualities." "Personal qualities" was just "Mormon talk" for "Romney's a fellow Mormon."
Hence, we have Mormons like Saundra who can't seemingly separate where Romney has been on the "issues" from who he is as a fellow Mormon.
Why is that Saundra?
“an overweight grandma”
Hey hold the phone; I’ve lost weight recently. Did you watch the video “Marry Me Mitt”? Here it is again:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VJnYFU4v9a4
She is absolutely right. If you don't care for ObamaCare; then you don't want its architect in the White House.
But, hopefully our awesome mods realize that there are sleepers here who hate the military and wish to take down the best of us!
Anyways, the news in IL is good for Cain, thanks to FR we have an insanely awesome campaign growing exponentially each day.
Remember boys and girls, "Just say no, to RINOs"!!!
Other than three marriages, squishy on AGW, Nancy Pelosi and Dede Scozzafava, I can't think of thing.
FUMR!
Your Faith zero reason for my dissent and opposition to your candidacy.
You are a lying sheep and your stance on any issue is multiple choice.
The only thing consistent about you is your character is the caricature of an Oklahoma Weather
Vane.
No matter what way the wind blows you can’t stand fast to a position.
I don’t care about the author or his ilk. Ban em.
And now I’m off to invest in Perry, Cain, Bachman and Santorum.
Those people make sense to me.
Saundra...the "issue" isn't that WE have failed to "notice" Mitt's "change"...[ALL: Note the "blame game" that Saundra plays on these threads: She essentially "blames" US for our lack of "literacy" -- of somehow not keeping up with Mitt's latest pro-life stance]
No, Saundra...the TRUE ISSUE isn't that WE have somehow failed to notice that Mitt has "changed" on abortion...
...Actually, it's that we HAVE notice that he changes on abortion...
...and changes on abortion...
...and changes on abortion...
...and changes on abortion...
...and changes on abortion...
...and changes on abortion...
...and changes on abortion...
How long are we suppose to "wait" for Mitt to "stay" at home in protecting the womb?
ALL: I enter "Exhibit A" on Mitt's "changes" that Saundra tolerates -- @ great costs to the pre-born!
| YEAR | Obvious Pro-Abortion Romney | Romney Feigning ‘Pro-Life’ |
| Romney, goin’ back to 1970 when Romney’s Mom ran for Senate | ”I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country. I have since the time when my Mom took that position when she ran in 1970 as a U.S. Senate candidate. (October, 1994 Senatorial debate vs. Ted Kennedy) | ”’He’s been a pro-life Mormon faking it as a pro-choice friendly,’” Romney adviser Michael Murphy told the conservative National Review..., says the Concord Monitor = So I guess that made him a below-the-radar “flip” acting like a “flop?” |
| 1994 (Campaign) | ”I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country. I have since the time when my Mom took that position when she ran in 1970 as a U.S. Senate candidate. I believe that since Roe v. Wade has been the law for 20 years that we should sustain and support it, and I sustain and support that law and the right of a woman to make that choice.” (October, 1994 Senatorial debate vs. Ted Kennedy) = Mitt the flipster from what most LDS represent their faith as being...BTW, Romney uses the strongest word possible for support ¨C ¡°sustain¡± ...Note for non-Mormons: Lds use the word ¡°sustain¡± for support for their own ¡°prophet¡± | Romney has since invoked a “nuanced stance” about what he was in 1994: He says ”Look, I was pro-choice. I am pro-life. You can go back to YouTube and look at what I said in 1994. I never said I was pro-choice, but my position was effectively pro-choice. (Source: Source: 2007 GOP Iowa Straw Poll debate Aug 5, 2007) |
| 1994 (Planned Parenthood ties) ¡ú 2001 | (a) Romney’s wife gives donation to Planned Parenthood... (b) On June 12, 1994, Romney himself attends private Planned Parenthood event at home of a sister-in-law of a Planned Parenthood board member where the president of Planned Parenthood recalls talking to Romney: ”Nicki Nichols Gamble, a former president and chief executive of Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts, said today that the photo shows Mitt and Ann Romney at a private home in Cohasset in June 1994.” Source: See http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1941932/posts; ”Gamble said the pic was snapped at an event at GOP activist Eleanor Bleakie¡¯s house and that she ¡°clearly¡± remembered speaking with Romney at the event.” Source: See http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1941627/posts; ”In fact Romney personally attended the Planned Parenthood event in question on June 12, 1994. Gamble, the President of Massachusuetts Planned Parenthood in 1994, also attended the event at the home of a Republican, Eleanor Bleakie, the sister-in-law of a Planned Parenthood Board member. Both Romney and Michael Kennedy, who appeared on behalf of nephew of Ted Kennedy, attended the event.” Source: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1941240/posts | 2001: ”I do not wish to be labeled pro-choice.” (Mitt Romney, Letter to the Editor, The Salt Lake Tribune, 7/12/01) = So he doesn’t want to be known as a “flop” (so what is he?) |
| 2002-2004 | ¡°I will preserve and protect a woman¡¯s right to choose, and have devoted and am dedicated to honoring my word in that regard¡(Nov. 2, 2002) = Well, now guess what? He’s solidly pro-abortion AGAIN! See also: ”I respect and will protect a woman’s right to choose. This choice is a deeply personal one ¡ Women should be free to choose based on their own beliefs, not mine and not the government’s.” (Stephanie Ebbert, “Clarity Sought On Romney’s Abortion Stance,” The Boston Globe, 7/3/05) = Ah, back securely in the “flop” saddle again? | Nov. ‘04: Romney & his wife had simultaneous pro-life “conversions” linked to stem cell research: Romney met w/Dr. Douglas Melton from Harvard Stem Cell Institute: He recalls that it happened in a single revelatory moment, during a Nov. 9, 2004, meeting with an embryonic-stem-cell researcher who said he didn’t believe therapeutic cloning presented a moral issue because the embryos were destroyed at 14 days. “It hit me very hard that we had so cheapened the value of human life in a Roe v. Wade environment that it was important to stand for the dignity of human life,” Romney says. Source: Time Mag, March 9, 2007 = (So the pro-abortion-but-no-pro-choice-label-please-is-now-a-pro-life-convert?) |
| 2005 | May 27 2005: Romney affirms his commitment to being “pro-choice” at a press conference. (”I am absolutely committed to my promise to maintain the status quo with regards to laws relating to abortion and choice.”) = OK, this is at least a flop from November ‘04! | What about his gubernatorial record ‘03-’06? Mitt later says his actions were ALL pro-life. I assume somewhere in ‘05 some ‘pro-life’ decisions. ”As governor, I¡¯ve had several pieces of legislation reach my desk, which would have expanded abortion rights in Massachusetts. Each of those I vetoed. Every action I¡¯ve taken as the governor that relates to the sanctity of human life, I have stood on the side of life.” = So, THESE ACTIONS were not only an ‘02 commitment reversal, but his May 27, ‘05 press conference commitment as well. So “flipping” is beginning to be routine |
| 2006 | April 12, 2006—Mitt signs his “Commonwealth Care” into existence, thereby expanding abortion access/taxpayer funded abortions for women—including almost 2% of the females of his state who earn $75,000 or more. (Wait a minute, I thought he told us post-’06 that ALL of his actions were “pro-life?”). Also, not only this, but as governor, Romney could exercise veto power to portions of Commonwealth Care. Did Romney exercise this power? (Yes, he vetoed Sections 5, 27, 29, 47, 112, 113, 134 & 137). What prominent section dealing with Planned Parenthood as part of the “payment policy advisory board” did Romney choose NOT to veto? (Section 3) That section mandates that one member of MassHealth Payment Policy Board must be appointed by Planned Parenthood League of MA. (See chapter 58 of the Acts of 2006, section 3 for details). | ”As governor, I¡¯ve had several pieces of legislation reach my desk, which would have expanded abortion rights in Massachusetts. Each of those I vetoed. Every action I¡¯ve taken as the governor that relates to the sanctity of human life, I have stood on the side of life.” = So, then THESE ACTIONS were not only a reversal of his 2002 commitment, but his May 27, 2005 press conference commitment. So “flipping” is still routine |
| Early 2007 | On January 29, 2007 during South Carolina visit, Romney stated: ¡°Over the last multiple years, as you know, I have been effectively pro-choice.” (Bruce Smith, “Romney Campaigns in SC with Sen. DeMint,” The Associated Press, 1/29/07) = OK how could ”every action I’ve taken as the governor that relates to the sanctity of human life...” AND this statement BOTH be true? | Another South Carolina campaign stop has Romney uttering ”I was always for life¡±: ”I am firmly pro-life¡ I was always for life.” (Jim Davenport, “Romney Affirms Opposition to Abortion,” The Associated Press, 2/9/2007) = Oh, of course as the above shows, he’s always been pro-life! |
| Summer 2007 | ”I never said I was pro-choice, but my position was effectively pro-choice.” Source: 2007 GOP Iowa Straw Poll debate 8/5/2007 = OK...looking at ‘94 & ‘02 campaigns, both his public statements, his 2002 voter guide responses, & his actions (which are a major form of expression, ya know!) how could he say he ”never said” he was ”pro-choice?” | Then comes his 8/12/07 interview with Chris Wallace of Fox: ”I never called myself pro-choice. I never allowed myself to use the word pro-choice because I didn’t FEEL I was pro-choice. I would protect the law, I said, as it was, but I wasn’t pro-choice, and so...” = Whatever he was from ‘70 when his mom ran as pro-abortion senator & he sided w/ her, to 5/27/05, w/whatever interruption he had due to a pro-life altar call in Nov of ‘04, whatever that was...well, he assures us it wasn’t a pro-abortion ‘inlook’ or outlook ‘cause he didn’t feel “pro-choice...” = So does that make him a life-long pro-lifer? |
| December 2007 (Anything ‘different’ from embryos’ perspective than June 2002?) | 5.5 years before ¨C June 13, 2002: Romney: ...spoke at a bioethics forum at Brandeis University. In a Boston Globe story filed the next day, he was quoted as saying that he endorsed embryonic stem cell research, hoping it would one day cure his wife’s multiple sclerosis. And he went on to say: ”I am in favor of stem cell research. I will work and fight for stem cell research,” before adding, “I’d be happy to talk to [President Bush] about this, though I don’t know if I could budge him an inch.” When pressed, however, Romney and his aides declined to offer an opinion on “therapeutic” or embryonic cloning. Source: Weekly Standard | December 5, 2007: Romney: ...surplus embryos...Those embryos, I hope, could be available for adoption for people who would like to adopt embryos. But if a parent decides they would want to donate one of those embryos for purposes of research, in my view, that’s acceptable. It should not be made against the law.” Any “inquiring minds” want to try wrapping their minds around how a politician in one sentence mentions “adopting” embryos out (yes, a great thing to mention!) — but then in the very NEXT breath says if a ”PARENT” wants to be “pro-choice” (Mitt used the word ”decides” which is what “pro-choicers” say they want) ”to donate one of those embryos for purposes of research, in my view, that’s acceptable.” Say what???? How about 8-month gestationally-aged infants in the womb, Mitt? Or already-born infants, too, Mitt? If a ”parent decides they would want to donate one of those...for purposes of research, in my view, that’s acceptable...” No??? What’s the ‘pro-life’ difference, Mitt? Here you call an embryo’s mom&dad “parents” — but “parents” w/ ”research” give-away rights? How bizarre we have such schizophrenic “candidate!” |
:) Bet he’s a fat old thing.
Ron McRombeeani from the last election. All Squishy moderate liberals. Not a conservative in the lot from the last election and damned few in this election.
But sorry, Romneycare? Naaaaaaaah.
Newt can kick Obama’s butt in any debate and doesn’t have the negatives that Mitt, Perry, and Cain do.
Newt has more negatives than anyone right of Huntsman.
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.