Posted on 04/13/2012 12:13:14 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
A reminder for those who are not receiving the message:
Romney is a pathological compulsive liar. Lie after lie papered over with more lies. Doesn’t even flinch when caught in bald faced lies, simply tells another big whopper to cover up or dodge the issue. Funny thing, the man actually seems to believe his own latest lies and simply ignores the glaring record of his past actions/lies. And you have true blue establishment elite RINO Republicans like Karl Rove enabling and backing up his lies. Their motivation is simply to hang on to power (and riches) any way they can.
I’ve stated many times since Romney started running for the presidency way back when that I’d never vote for him and I will not. He cannot lie his way out of his decades long record of support for abortion, Roe v Wade, planned parenthood, gay rights, gun control, global warming, amnesty, liberal judges, big government, compulsory or socialized health care (RomneyCommieCare), mandates, Keynesian economics, support and approval of TARP, bailouts, stimulus packages, i.e, every damn liberal progressive issue that comes down the pike.
C’mon. These are the reasons the tea party sprang up and the reasons he and Rove loathe the tea party and our tea party conservative candidates. Romney famously expressed his loathing for Reagan-Bush conservatism several years ago when he was trying to run to the left of Ted Kennedy and now he’s cloaking himself in Reagan conservatism, knowing full well that it’s a lie, but he knows it’s the only way he can possibly win, er buy the Republican nomination.
Screw Romney!! I absolutely will not support or vote for a proven compulsive liar with a known record of abortion and big government socialism, liberal appointments, etc. He still lies about RomneyCommieCare today. Calls it a “conservative solution.” Get real!!
Listen to what Ronald Reagan had to say about the elites pushing socialism on America via compulsory health insurance:
Ronald Reagan speaks out against RomneyCommieCare
There will be no campaign for this Massachusetts liberal liar on FR!!
Damn the libs and RINOS, full steam ahead!!
But no matter what happens we must turn out in November to vote IN as many conservatives and vote OUT as many rats as possible at all levels of government. If we don't have a conservative at the top of the ticket we must turn out anyway and vote straight conservative DOWN ticket!! Just think of it an off cycle election and pour on the TEA!! It'll be doubly important that we control both houses of congress and as many statehouses as possible.
Restore the 10th amendment!! Impeach the leftist president whoever he may be!! Restore Liberty!! Rebellion comes from the bottom up!!
WOO HOO!! I CAN SEE NOVEMBER FROM MY HOUSE!!
No Bama!! No Romney!! Go tea party rebellion!!
I'm not one of them. I don't care if I am the ONLY person in the whole damn country who won't knuckle under and vote for Romney, I WON'T ever cast a vote for the slime.
He represents the enemy. I won't be voting him into power with my vote.
Wow, it almost appears that your dislike list is so big you probably couldn't find anyone you would like to vote for.
Maybe you should write in your own name.
I would have voted for anyone that ran except for Paul and Romney.
And it’s a tempting suggestion, but I think not.
I stand corrected. I must have missed one of your quotes, and assigned that line to you. Please accept my apology.
___________
Since you and I are on the same page, I believe that this is the time to oppose the GOP-E and their endorsements of the most liberal Candidate in the field.
The GOP-E has learned NOTHING from their failures of the past.
It will be time to take over the RNC if the Tampa Convention does not produce a Nominee that gives America a clear, and distinct choice between the present policy of “both” political parties: DEBT, DECLINE, and DIVISION, and a National policy of cutting Federal spending to be below the average of the previous 2 years total Federal income.
It is disappointing to read that Newt is making more remarks about supporting Romney than he is making about what the RNC needs to do to provide America with a distinct choice in November.
If Newt thinks that Romney will choose him for Veep, that may explain his change of position.
However, The Romney Road to Ruin is so similar to that Wrong Track of Obama, that even the “clothes pin voter” will not be swayed by Newt being on the ballot.
Time for Newt to make his pitch to reform the RNC by challenging the GOP-E now. What odds do you give for that happening?
“You are an insensitive and sanctimonious jerk!
Do not waste my time with your self-righteous drivel!”
I’m sorry. I assumed you were a conservative who was conversant with issues and ideas - possibly even interested in truth. My mistake.
Please continue in rearranging your presuppositions and assumptions.
I’ll defend life from the likes of your candidate.
To the contrary, I think it is you who hasn't read the quote you offered very closely. That quote wasn't about success, or some strategic plan for eventual victory by sticking to your principles. It was simply about feeling good about yourself because you insisted on 100% purity. When my kids are in a country with a 6-3 liberal majority on the Supreme Court, with electoral demographics permanently skewed because of liberal immigration policies, me self-congratulations won't be of any solace to them.
You have children? Then the best thing you can teach them is to be true to your principles. Even your political principles. Do not compromise your values. Hold fast to your fundamental truths.
I don't see voting for an imperfect candidate as a compromise of values, or a failure to hold to fundamental truths. You can vote for a less than perfect candidate on the basis that he is better than the alternative, and also be vocal about opposing anything he does, or attempts to do, that is inconsistent with your principles.
In essence, you are voting for that person, warts and all, because that's the nature of the two-party system. But you are still free to speak out and oppose him/her to the extent they push policies you do not support.
I also am in agreement with those who believe that internal party pressures and the need for the candidate to retain support will compel any Republican nominee to be more conservative than the Democratic alternative once elected.
HEY ROMNEY!
Look us in the eye,
And never, EVER lie!
If you mean what you say,
Then say what you mean!
Stand and deliver
What you plan to do,
In case you haven’t noticed,
No one likes you.
Our line in the sand,
Puts your “Romney Road to Ruin”
Alongside “Obama’s Wrong Track.”
So stop your damned “Smiley-Face,”
And attack, Attack, ATTACK!
We will oppose you in Tampa,
For what you lack,
We want America to be back
On the Constitution Track.
Do you have it in you?
I doubt that you do,
You see a Pinko future,
And we see Red, White and Blue.
Who says everything is hopeless? (I don't)
Sure, it appears "hopeless" for the conservative humanists among us who like to trust in political solutions & political "saviors." That's not where I place my trust.
One man -- even Romney or Obama -- doesn't make or break a country alone. God is sovereign; and the corruption extends well beyond Romney & Obama as reasons God could economically judge this country.
I would say that the reality that we have so many conservatives -- and so many Christians -- willing to vote for a guy who claims he is a "god in embryo" and will one day rival THE God for worship, reception of prayer, adoration, creative right of souls, etc...would simply be another reason for God to IMMEDIATELY judge this nation beyond mere economics. (For some reason, God hasn't appreciated idolatry -- especially coming from people claiming to be His people).
Let’s say that you know of a boss who is abusing employees- is brutal, cruel, hates his employees, and does whatever he can to make life miserable for them- and let’s say that life has becoem unbearable under that boss- now let’s say a person is running to replace that boss- and is the only choice we’ve got to replace that boss but hwo isn’t everythign we had hooped for- woudl it be better to keep the abusive cruekl boss inplace? Or go with htel esser of two evils for the sake of easing some of he cruelty agaisnt the abused employees?
Let's say THE Anti-Christ was a Dem & he was in office. Let's say an (R) guy came along -- said he was Hitler reincarnated -- and a vote for him would get THE anti-Christ out of office...Would you vote for the "lesser of two evils?" Would you promote evil and endorse evil? Do you vote for one socialist to rid yourself of another? Are you not "evil" and a socialist supporter either way?
You see, your formula -- and that of many FREEPERs & other conservatives -- trains the next two generations to vote for a guy to the left of Obama down the line...just because the there will always be a worse (d) candidate!
I;m sorry, but I don’;t understand how leavign someone so brutally and blatantly antiamerican in office is better than gettign someone in who at least does have soem conservative values- obama has none- zero- zip- nada- Hell, he isn’;t even proud of this country!
It's called having a choice in this country. If we want -- for the rest of our nation's history -- to be choosing between two socialists...choosing between two pro-aborts...choosing between two liberals...then go ahead with your scheme.
Instead, if you want to be part of the rebellion and tell the RINO GoP-e that "No, there aren't enough pro-abort, big govt. socialist-liberal voters in this country to support two mainstream pro-abort, big-govt. socialist-liberal candidates," then vote third party.
Otherwise, once the pro-abort, Big Govt Socialist-liberal "Waterloo" is crossed, there's no turning back. THIS IS the "make or break" time...At some point, "tough love" needs to show some boundaries instead of just letting the GoP-e take you for granted and walk all over you...belieiving you'll always cave because of your cowardice motivated by fear.
Stand up and take it like a pre-born baby. Instead of being the milquetoast men we see around us, stand up and at least be like a pre-born baby! Half of them die -- most due to the liberal agenda of abortion & abortion drugs; you don't hear them whining about "survival," do you???
Read up on a couple of kids named Patti Davis and Ron Reagan. Their father loved them and supported them no matter what path they followed.
Well said, Chuck.
But, it’s not all group think (yet?) because, as I check to see whose accounts are still viable, it appears he’s not ZOTting everyone who’s unwilling to fall on their sword and unleash the Marxist by gift-wrapping a second term for him.
Posts like this make most conservatives cringe and give liberals so much to play with
It`s just that I have no confidence that he will appoint Conservative Judges. I have more confidence that he will appoint a moderate Republican, to me that is of no value.
Really I am mostly concerned about Pro Life/family values!
I would like to see Romney and Obama state their positions publicly, perhaps in a forum like Rick Warren held with McCain/Obama.
But I do not want it to be with Rick Warren, have little respect for him, perhaps Focus on the Family James Dobson, talking tough questions, not like what phony Warren had....that`s my idea.
[[That argument was blasted about in 2008 and many of us knuckled under the threat. We’re not going to be insane and do the same thing in 2012 we did in 2008 and expect different results.]]
you most certainly ARE doign hte same htign regardless of how you try to convince yourself otherwise
[[Pound sand.]]
I aasked you to tryo to be civil- but it’s apaprent that you don’;t care to be-
[[We do not care what you scare-mongering Romneybot RINOs think anymore. ]]
woops- my mistaske, I thoguht I was conversing with an adult- I apologize for the mistake
tsk tsk, shame on you.
Yes, he loved his children. No, he did not push the homosexual agenda.
[[One man — even Romney or Obama — doesn’t make or break a country alone.]]
One man IS breakign htis country- and if we think the first 4 years was bad, we ‘aint seen nothin yet’ IF he gets back i n again- My point right along has been that obama has made it very clear his itnentions IF he gets reelected like he htinks he is entitled to be-
God is soveriegn yes, that s true- but as The Soveriegn God, He has also empoered we His creation to work alongside Him- Not that He has to use us, but He has said it is His desire that we deo so-
I agree with you Romeny is a bad choice— I hate that he’s our only choice- I hate that the GOP has rammed him through, I hate that the GOP has slid so far left that they are hardly recognizable from the left anymore- However- they are our only chocie right now IF we want obama, who is aq much more evil person, out of office
[[and the corruption extends well beyond Romney & Obama as reasons God could economically judge this country. ]]
I agree- and if it comes to obama being in 4 more years per God’s order- then we’ll simply have to deal with it and take our lunmps, aqnd watch as our rights are eropded away- but I don’;t intend to just throw my hands in the air before the election and let obama walk away with the election uncontested regardless of how much I’d like another gop candidate
[[I would say that the reality that we have so many conservatives — and so many Christians — willing to vote for a guy who claims he is a “god in embryo” and will one day rival THE God for worship, reception of prayer, adoration, creative right of souls, etc...would simply be another reason for God to IMMEDIATELY judge this nation beyond mere economics.]]
and what do you think abotu conseratives who do nothign to kick a purely evil person out of hte white house- Our votes are NOT in support of romeny- they are votes agaisnt obama
[[Let’s say THE Anti-Christ was a Dem & he was in office. Let’s say an (R) guy came along — said he was Hitler reincarnated — and a vote for him would get THE anti-Christ out of office...Would you vote for the “lesser of two evils?” Would you promote evil and endorse evil?]]
first of all- this is an unreasonable analogy- Are you comparing romeny to hitler? (I’ll allow hte comparison of obama to antiChrist- as his actiosn ARE very blatantly antiChristian)
[[Would you promote evil and endorse evil?]]
Woudl you espouse leavign someone as evil as obama in office to continue abusing the right?
[[Do you vote for one socialist to rid yourself of another?]]
IF the only choice I have is between 2 swocialists, and it is clear that the one in office is the MUCH worse choice- then yes- I would vote to have him thrown out of office- Especially when we KNOW he hasn’t ANY right leanign convictions at all an d is actively tryign to destroy this nation of ours in his no holds barred attack on religion, the court system and our constitution
[[You see, your formula — and that of many FREEPERs & other conservatives — trains the next two generations to vote for a guy to the left of Obama down the line...just because the there will always be a worse (d) candidate! ]]
I’m sorry- but that is simply illogical- and you’re beginnign to reach too far in order to try to make your case- noone is espousing voting for the worst of the bunch- I’ve repeteadly stated over and over again it pains me that our only choice is romney- I hate the fact that he was chosen- and we who see another 4 years of obama as too dangerous for htis coutnry given his radical far left agenda would infact teach future generations that we need Godly right of center candidates- however, we also understand that unfortunately, we are not always goi9gn to be given the chocie to choose someone who holds all our values, but that it’s better to vote out someone as blatantly antiamerican as obama than it is to abstain from voting because a candidate doesn’;t hold every last ideal we aspire to
[[Stand up and take it like a pre-born baby.]]
now see- That saddens me- I again mistakenly htought I was havign a covnersation with an adult- either step up your rhettoric to adult levels, or don;t bother responding anymore, because I’ll simply ignore your posts- tyou may feel passionately abotu what you beleive, and that’s fine, but there’;s no need to resort to playground insults in order to get your5 points across- thanjks
[[In a way I seem to be caught between two worlds.Internally forced to support someone who really does not share my values to the degree that i would like but still far better than the other choice.]]
Apparently we’re not allowed to have such a view here on FR- accordign to some in htis thread
[[I understand you have made the compromise so much you are sick of it. For me I really can’t go there. I’m hopeful that we light a fire under all rino butts and slowly but surely get rid of them. But the stakes are so high I am willing to do it incrementally,a little at a time just like the marxists are doing to us. For me “not to” oppose them every chance I get is not an option.]]
You just said in two sentences what has taken me loads of posts to uneloquently state-
The situation reminds me of this old rocky song. We dont have good choices and to many men have died for this country to let the marxist muslim usurper continue to destroy our nation and humiliate us.
I choose ABO not as a Romney supporter but as a man who wants our republic to have at least a small chance of survival. Yes its that bad folks, we are on the cusp of full blown communism. Khrushchev was correct. You all do what you gotta do and if it makes you feel more “holy and pure” to not get this man out of office than so be it. I will still be fighting with you all when armed insurrection breaks out. Till the end.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MwPb7g_BlXQ
However, the current "purist climate" would have killed Reagan's nomination if the same standards were applied today.
No, he did not push the homosexual agenda.
Look up the Briggs Initiative. I also advise you to read "An American Life" by Ronald Reagan and learn that if we had treated him the way we treat our candidates now that he'd have given up politics early.
One, Proposition 5, would be the nation’s toughest anti-smoking law. The other, Proposition 6, would provide for firing teachers who “advocate” homosexuality.
The measures are similar in that they would mean more government (in fact, the author of Prop. 6, State Sen. John Briggs, said in a recent interview “government is the whole ball game”). The two measures also present enforcement problems–Prop. 5 because it would be difficult to enforce except at great cost and Prop. 6 because it could be over-enforced.
Proposition 5 sets out to protect non-smokers from the fumes of those hooked on the weed. It would prohibit smoking in nearly all public places, but the hitch is that it defines private places of employment as “public.” Shades of newspeak in Orwell’s “1984.” Restaurants would be required to have smoking and non-smoking sections. And, as with offices and factories, the owners would have to foot the cost for the “No Smoking” signs. Ironically, the measure would permit smoking in public auditoriums when a rock concert, roller derby or professional boxing or wrestling match is the attraction, but not if the fare is an amateur event or a jazz concert.
Short of recruiting an army of smoking police, the measure seems unenforceable. Smoking is already prohibited in many public buildings, but this measure goes well beyond, to restrict both personal liberties and private property rights. That reasonable smokers and non-smokers can use a little common courtesy in working out their differences seems not to have occurred to the proponents of Prop. 5. If it passes, it won’t be the first time a false assumption found its way into law and made government grow.
Proposition 6 rests on several assumptions. The two most frequently mentioned are that teachers can influence the sexual orientation of children because they are “role models” and that homosexual teachers will molest their pupils. Briggs told an interviewer the other [day] that “Everybody knows that homosexuals are child molesters. Not all of them, but most of them. I mean, that’s why they are in the teaching profession.”
Although statistics are not kept nationally, informed observers usually put the percentage of child molesting cases by homosexuals at well under 10 percent. The overwhelming majority of such cases are committed by heterosexual males against young females.
As to the “role model” argument, a woman writing to the editor a Southern California newspaper said it all: ”If teachers had such power over children I would have been a nun years ago.”
Whatever else it is, homosexuality is not a contagious disease like the measles. Prevailing scientific opinion is that an individual’s sexuality is determined at a very early age and that a child’s teachers do not really influence this.
Had Proposition 6 been confined to prohibiting the advocacy in the classroom of a homosexual lifestyle (and sex-before-marriage, “swinging.” and adultery, for that matter) it would no doubt enjoy much wider support than it does. Instead, the measure calls for firing teachers who engage in homosexual activity (something already covered by California law) or homosexual “conduct,” which it defines as “advocating, soliciting, imposing, encouraging or promoting private or public homosexual activity . . . ” It is that passage–and especially the word “advocacy” — that has generated heavy bipartisan opposition to the measure.
Since the measure does not restrict itself to the classroom, every aspect of a teacher’s personal life could presumably come under suspicion. What constitutes “advocacy” of homosexuality? Would public opposition to Prop. 6 by a teacher–should it pass–be considered advocacy?
The measure would require formal school board hearings if a teacher is accused. Under the present law an informal investigation can be conducted to determine the merits of charges against a teacher. Though the formal hearings under Prop. 6 would be private (unless the accused wanted them public), how do you keep such charges private in a small community? And how do you prevent an overwrought child with bad grades from seeking revenge by accusing the teacher of a homosexual advance or “advocacy”? Under Prop. 6, you don’t.
Will California rewrite that old line to read, “As California goes, so goes the nation”? Here is one heterosexual non-smoker who, where Props. 5 and 6 are concerned, hopes the answer is “no.” If blue jeans and drive-in churches weren’t enough to convince you that California sets trends, Proposition 13 should have left no doubt. Californians aren’t stopping with the tax revolt, however. The Golden State’s November ballot contains two controversial measures which, pass or fail, have the potential for setting more national trends.
Conservatives who vote for liberals don’t know how to cringe but they sure can make believe. And liberals will have enough to play with how easily conservatives can fold like a cheap suitcase.
Yer wasting your time trying to convince me of your viewpoint, I made that mistake in 2008, I will NEVER make that mistake again.
If Romney is the nominee, I will work my arse off to get as many people to vote Conservative as possible, and either write-in someone else for the top spot or go 3rd party.
You can take that to the bank. This is war, not politics.
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.