Posted on 10/31/2011 8:11:08 PM PDT by Fred
In an email to POLITICO this afternoon, Robinson admitted that the site routinely blocks Romney supporters from posting -- and offered no apologies for the practice:
Free Republic is a pro-life, pro-family, pro-gun, pro-small government, pro-constitution, pro-liberty site. Governor Romney is none of the above. His record is that of an abortionist, gay rights pushing, gun grabbing, global warming advocating, big government, mandate loving, constitution trampling, flip-flopping liberal progressive with no core values. That and the fact that he is the chief architect and advocate for ObamaCare disqualifies him for any consideration whatsoever on Free Republic as a potential nominee for the presidency. ...
Liberal progressives and other enemies of the constitution and or of Liberty itself are not welcome here. Accounts registered here by liberal progressives and other assorted trolls, malcontents and disruptors will be removed on sight or at the convenience of the site administrators.
The site came under fire from Ross Abraham, a blogger for Mitt Romney Central, who wrote today that Free Republic is just one of several sites (along with RedState, he says) on the right-wing Internet that are pretty much off limits to Mitt Romney's supporters.
(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...
Agreed.
Mitt Romney is far too liberal for the G.O.P. base. There is a disconnect here people, between the G.O.P. elites and it’s base. The base is so far to the right from the party that they scare the party because they want ACTUAL change. Change within the party and change within the nation.
This is why the recent smear on Cain using “unnamed sources.” Cain scares the HELL out of these people. You know who doesn’t scare them? A RINO, milquetoast who is so far to the left that he was electable in MASSACHUSETTS! I don’t care what Mitt Romney SAYS NOW, I care about his RECORD.
Jim Robinson has Mitt nailed dead-on. There is not one plank in the Republican party platform this man has ever lifted a finger to support. Not one. He’s running in the wrong party. Why do you think he can’t break out of the 20’s in the polls? That is his ceiling and he’s hit it.
I hope Herman Cain has REALLY good security willing to take a bullet for him because I wouldn’t trust these power elites as far as I could throw them..
We were fooled with that idiot from Texas in 1999. We thought “Oh, he’s a Texas Governor, you just KNOW that he’s a conservative.” Really now? Seriously? So a Massachusetts Governor is going to be to the left or right of what that Special Ed escapee turned out to be? No thank you G.O.P. elite, no friggin’ thank you.
I thank you for admitting that you are a Romney supporter. I have suspected that there are several here pretending to support other candidates but in general just acting like jackasses.
You being up-front with your wrong-headed support of that stinking liberal is courageous and honest.
Thank you.
I should give credit, that post was made on politico under the article by a “Michael Harp.”
Barring something really unforeseen at this point, Romney will GET the nomination. This thing is as fixed as it was in 2008. Notice how every RINO challenger dutifully drops out (Huck, Rudy, Daniels, Pawlenty, Christie, others) to clear the field for Romney. The RINOs have it down. In contrast, the conservatives are balkanized among a mish-mash of lesser wannabes.
In due time, some conservatives inside the party will endorse Romney too. DeMint could be the one to swing So Car his way, and that’ll be it. DeMint backed him in 2008.
It’s fine all this venim opposing him. Personally, I can’t stand the guy and am planning to write in for Palin. (But then again my prez vote in Maryland means NOTHING.)But more broadly we all have to face reality here: we’re linked to a party that nominated McCain last time and likely will nominate Romney this time and stuck us with Boehner for all our hard work in 2010.
It just ain’t making it.
ty.
All "bigoted" means = intolerant
All "cannot stand" = intolerant
So you are intolerant of Mitt Romney based upon his stances
Now here's the interesting part. Mormons are my relatives. Highly valuable people. Worth the love.
Yet, for a reason, you have "personalized" what you can not stand -- personalized it in a person (Mitt Romney).
Me? I get along with the Mormons in my life. They are worth the love exchanged. I make a distinction 'tween the "ISM" and the person, much the same way many will treat the homosexual well and yet vehemently oppose the homosexual agenda.
You've bought into the liberal, homosexual activist worldview that if you oppose the agenda, you oppose the person, and are therefore guilty of bigotry. (You can thank the MSM and your liberal campus educators for such a perspective gleaned from them)
According to your perspective -- if you were to embrace any modicum of consistency, that is, the Christian and conservative elements in society should shut down any and all opposition to homosexual activist demands because that, too, is deemed as "bigotry."
Here's the fact: Everybody is tolerant and everybody is intolerant of something. Everybody draws the line somewhere on what they won't oppose. But opposition in and of itself does not = "hate" (I get the feeling some people grew up in homes of conflict and project any disagreement as hate-filled)
Yet you are bigoted toward religious views (like mine) because you draw the line at some point. It shows you are intolerant of some things. I say, "Well, good for you. Everybody's intolerant of some things. And some people are tolerant of false teachers, deception, and counterfeiters." (That's just the way things run)
But bottom line, "tolerance" is not touted as any great virtue in the Bible. Why? Because it's so dependent upon what is being discussed! It actually falls more into the licentious camp.
Good for FR and good for JR!
After experiencing the 2008 election where the “good” guy was a total disaster and we got avalanched with libdims and then Obamster health care, as tough as it is sometimes to stick to it....
NEVER AGAIN!!!
NO RINOS - NEVER!!!!!
No, not all of us.
Among those who carry an (R) after their name, there is no bigger enemy of the Constitution than John McCain. Romney is only a close second.
And yet many Freepers voted for McCain on the shaky grounds that they liked his VP choice.
"Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions."
-- G.K. Chesterton
I am against the conservative movement denouncing Mormon theology, because most Mormons are otherwise disposed to support conservative ideas and candidates.
And every Republican candidate feels as I do on the latter point, at least insofar as I can glean their opinions from their debate responses.
Any GOP nominee who denounced Mormonism as a cult or Satanic could kiss a couple of states goodbye. You may think that's worth it, I beg to differ.
Nope. Used oats are useful............
Just posted this on the Politico website responding to people who say Free Republic isn’t free if it bans some opinions:
“I’ve been a Freeper since 2006. I read much more than I post. Jim Robinson owns the site and his decision not to allow people to post is no different than any newspaper refusing to hire a reporter or run a letter to the editor. I’ve had my own spats with some Freepers but I’ve never disputed the right of the owner to what he wants with his own property. That’s basic to conservative principles.”
Well, this is a sheer utilitarian view...A practical political posture that has zilcho to do with honoring truth and contending vs. falsehood. (And if you're not being counterfeited, then the less compulsion there is to be provoked by it)
For some reason, it's when you yourself are being counterfeited that the tendency is there to suddenly get all up in arms about that presence.
Mormons don't like it when the fLDS are id'd as LDS. Why? Because ultimately they regard them as either yesteryear Mormons, a skin they'd like to leave up against some rock, or more likely, counterfeit Mormons.
Yet supposedly, Christians are not supposed to have this same "privilege," eh? Is this simply because the "Christian" brand is coveted; but the "Mormon" one is not?
Just try not to be offended when candidates who want Mormon votes decline to pile on.
Just try not to be offended when candidates who want Mormon votes decline to pile on.
______________________________________
Mormons rend to vote in a block...
Thery vote lock step they way they are told to by their Mormon leaders...
Most will vote for the Mormon Romney...
In 2008 94% of Mormons voted for him...
It wont be any different this time...
Illegal aliens, Mormons...why would a Conservative be chasing after their votes ???
Used oats as in bovine processed... or equine... in general, effluvia. Quite accurate in describing Politico’s drivel.
Thank you for saying this. It yields significant clarity and allows me to offer a contrast in this post & my next one...
(1) Too many FREEPERs have said that...
...while they wouldn't vote for Romney in the primaries,
...if it came down to Romney vs. Obama,
...they'd vote for Romney.
Bottom-line: The GOP RINO wing of the party believes it can shove Romney down our throat because we have nowhere to "walk."
(2) Here we have a candidate, Mitt Romney, who says:
"I know there are some people hoping that I will simply declare in some way that my church is all well and good, but that I don't really believe it and I don't try to follow it. That's not going to happen. I'm proud of my faith. I love my faith. It is the faith of my fathers and mothers. I do my best to live by its teachings." (Source: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1929161/posts)
That leads to an interesting compare & contrast, does it not, NS? For what has "the faith of" Romney's family said about Christians?
(a) We've been AWOL (100% apostate) going back to between the 2nd & 4th centuries.
(b) We embrace 100% creeds which are an "abomination" to their god (Pearl of Great Price)
(c) We are "corrupt" professors of our faith (Pearl of Great Price)
(d) We are the "church of the devil" (1 Nephi 14, Book of Mormon)
Wanna 'xplain, NS, why we see so much lovey-dovey MSM & some FREEPER "feelies" being extended to the Mormons re: "Oh, you poor dear. That nasty Baptist dude called you poor things a cult"???
Yet when Romney & his faithmeisters publish the Pearl of Great Price in over 100 languages and send over 50,000 missionaries out to diss Christians as "apostates" (they usually mention the so-called "universal apostasy"), we as Christians don't get those same "lovey-dovey" sentiments extended our way???
Why not? Could it be that the ones disliked even more than Mormonism in our culture is Christianity? (And if you haven't seen the avalanche of MSM pieces defending Mormons over the "cult" comment, you haven't looked...It's actually been quite interesting to see how many non-Christian FREEPERS have stood with the MSM on that count)
I'll tell you at least the what involved here: Can you say inconsistent? 2-faced? Hypocritical?
(3) More on this contrast: You, NS, claim that "Any GOP nominee who denounced Mormonism as a cult or Satanic could kiss a couple of states goodbye"
Well, why isn't the reverse also true...from a couple of perspectives?
(Perspective a) A case of religious voters will walk for me, but not for thee?
* Those states you reference -- if it came down to Obama vs. a candidate who labeled Mormonism a "cult" -- why doesn't the RINO urge apply here as well?
* If those voters in those states have nowhere to "walk," why do you assume those states would be lost? The Romney RINO wing isn't making that assumption about us and who we represent, now are they?
* Are you telling us that these states would vote either for Obama or third-party on that mass of a scale?
And if you make that conclusion, please tell us:
* Why are Mormons allowed the political "luxury" of claiming they will "walk" rather than vote for a candidate who considers them a cultist, but some FREEPERS think the Christians should "stay home" and vote for a Romney-who-deems-us-'abominable'-corrupt-apostate-devilites in the national election if we don't have any "choice?"
* IOW, why are Mormons allowed their convictions having to do with the religious sentiments of the candidate; but we are castigated as "bigoted" if we bring up the religious sentiments of the Mormon candidate?
Can you say inconsistent? 2-faced? Hypocritical?
(Perspective b) [Next post]
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.