We will not waste our limited resources on FR in support for a liberal progressive LIAR

well said

The only chance we has was with Newt.

If so, we were screwed from the beginning.

That’s some pretty fancy copy and paste, but it does nothing to support your smear job claiming that Reagan promoted the homosexual agenda.

[[However, the current “purist climate” would have killed Reagan’s nomination if the same standards were applied today.]]

Which is exactly what I’m not understandign in this thread- It appears there are folsk statign that voting romeny in order to defeat a much worse candidate means disobeying God, violating our consciences, falling in the sewer, being spineless... (insert insult of choice here) but apparently there is some arbitrary cutoff point for compromise that I’m not aware of- for isntance it might be ok apparently to vote for someoen who supports gay rights but doesn’t support gun control- or perghaps gay rights and gun control are ok, but hte cutoff point for compromising coems at pro choice support? Or perghaps the purists think that lonly a candidate with ALL them oral values hat hey personally subscribe to qwill do- if one isn’;t found, then oh well- America ‘gets what she deserves’ and it’s apaprently ok to leave an extremist marxist in office.

In one breath, soem advocate stayign away from one candidate, but then in nexct breath’ suggesting htat everyoen hsould just vote straight party ticket line regdless if oyu know hwere the candidates stand apaprently- Makes no sense- then we’re told it’s our God given duty to ‘resist tyranny’ Yet apaprently we’re to ignore the current tyranny (evidently because ameirca is ‘gettign what she deserves’) and not vote and leave the much more dangerous current tyranical leader in office another 4 years- (doesn’t sound liek ‘resisting tyranny’ to me- Soundsw morel iek capitulating to, succumbing to- the much worse tyranny that currently holds the office- but oh well- symanticsw always seem to get i nthe way of a good argument I guess)

Apaprently allowing Obama to appoint another liberal to the supreme court sits ok with those who think america is ‘gettign what she deserves’ and we who worry about such things are ‘just being alarmist and shoudl just shut up and toe the extreme purist teaparty line’

As Mark i na few posts up declares, We indeed ARE o nthe cusp of a fukll blown marxist society- The view hereo n Fr seems to be so extreme as to suggest that Romeny too wants full blown marxism- it’s absolutely mind boggling to me that soem would even sugest such a thing- liek Mark says, Yes, Romeny is a ‘small chance’, but liek it or not *(and most don’t liek it and riughtfully so) it’;s the ONLY chocie we have- either we elect him, or keep an over hte top extremist marxist MUSLIM Sympathisor in office another 4 years

Slim chance is better than NO chance=-

ABO means what it means. Anybody but Obama. That includes Newt. But since this thread has turned into some kind of harsh 'FU' thread, it seems pointless to continue.

This is not a discussion, it is a tantrum.

You got that right.

If Willard gets the nomination, I'll be curious to see if Newt throws his support behind the nominee and, if so, what happens here.

I can't say that you both are wrong, because you both evidence sound reasoned logic. As far as your arguments go, I understand you and agree with you. Unfortunately the sound logic you present here is the code Conservatives have operated under for decades. So I ask you now, has our nation grown stronger over those decades? At some point we have to be honest with ourselves. For me, the answere is a clear, "No."

So instead of saying you are wrong, I want to give you something to think about. Perhaps it will help you see things a little differently.

What we have been trying hasn't worked. We slide farther left every single year. At some point this has to stop, or we lose the nation we love no matter which party is in power. Take a good look at Mitt Romney and tell me he could have been elected president in 1990, 1980, 1970, 1960... I don't think he could. His stance on certain fundamental rights is screwed up. On just one topic alone, I can't vote for him. He's a gun control advocate. Bad as that is, it runs much deeper. I don't need to tell you about all of it. You know what I'm talking about.

Carter was universally scorned in 1980. Obama, arguably much worse, isn't. He is still wildly popular with the Left. Has our nation changed? It's my take that it is undeniably worse and in danger of cratering if we don't change direction. And where is the voice of the loyal opposition? That's right... crickets.

For this reason, I simply cannot fall back on the lesser of two evils rule of thumb we have always fallen back on. I say this because IT IS NOT a change of direction. If that hasn't worked, and it clearly hasn't, what reasoned argument is there for doing it again now? Well, to my way of thinking there is no reasoned argument other than the ones that have always been used to advocate for it. And that tactic having failed, the arguments in support of it have also failed. We have tried this and failed. So now we must come up with something different. I, for one, will not sit by and play the business as usual game.

Here's the political spectrum we should be operating under.

1780 [L---------c---------R]

This is the political spectrum that would reveal us to be adhering to our Founding Father's vision and our Founding Documents. This is precisely what the goal of Conservatives should be, to return to this model, and to do it as rapidly as possible. Are we trending back toward that model?

I see something like this.

1980 [L---d---r-c---------R] *
1984 [L--d----r-c---------R] *
1988 [L--d---r--c---------R] *
1992 [L--d---r--c---------R]
1996 [L--d---r--c---------R]
2000 [L--d--r---c---------R] *
2004 [L-d--r----c---------R] *
2008 [Ld--r-----c---------R]
2012 [Ld--r-----c---------R]

With the exception of Ronald Reagan in 1980 - 1988, we have been spoon fed our candidates. I'm not saying the spoon fed us the exact candidate, but they did take advantage of trends to make sure what types of candidates would get the nomination. How did the RNC manage that? It allowed it's Primaries to be held under conditions that made it possible for Democrats to participate in the Republican nomination process. Did anyone think that was going to give us more Conservative candidates? No, it was a given that we were going to get more Leftists. And more Leftists we got.

The RNC also continually talked up our more Leftist candidates, and made it clear they frowned on our more Conservative ones.

Several years ago Californians voted to open up their primary process. California Democrats can now vote for Republican nominees too. Did the Republican leadership fight this? No. It was absolutely mute regarding this ballot initiative. (This may only apply to state-wide candidates at this point, but that's also very bad.)

Why would the Republican Party do this? For some time the leadership has been convinced that the nation was heading Left, and it didn't see any possibility of Conservatives being elected. Rather than look at our rich history and notice that our widest victories were realized when we played on our differences with Leftist policy, they decided to adopt more Leftist policy in an attempt to look more appealing.

Look at the graph above, and see how that worked out for us. Ronald Reagan was our last president who won with a large margin of victory. Starting with the elder Bush, that margin either disappeared completely or was so razor thin that we had a public percecption of a Constitutional crises arise in the aftermath of two elections.

Moving to the Left only assured us that the real Democrats would get support. Why vote for a moderate Leftist when you can vote for the real thing? Did the RNC learn anything from McCain? No. Here we go again with Rove, Card, and the usual suspects trashing better candidates and singing praised to Romney from the get-go.

And so we have come to the point in our nation's history, where the Repbulican party is now willing to promote people who don't give a damn about our sovereignty, our Founding Documents, the sanctity of life, our Second Amendment Rights, and more. At what point do we admit we have full blown Leftists running for office in our party, and refuse to play along any longer?

If Romney were running as a Democrat there isn't even the remotest of chances that you would vote for the man. But now, because he's running against Obama, you entertain the thought. And what happens in 2016, when a member of Hamas runs and our guy is only as bad as Obama? Do we then vote for the mirror image of him?

Look folks, at some point we have to let the (R) party know, that they have jumped the shark, and we can no longer support what they want us to. You see, if we don't, we'll forever be voting for McCains, Romney's, and worse of their ilk.

If they can get a Leftist like Romney elected, it's effectively the end of Conservatism. No Conservative will ever get the nomination again. Should that be our goal? No.

Why do I say that there will never be another Conservative nominee in the future? Take a look at this election cycle, and realize it only gets worse from here if Romney can get elected without the Conservative vote.

I hope you'll join me in sending a message to the Republican party. That message states these things...

1. I will not vote for Leftists(R)
2. I will no longer support the perpetual movement of this nation to the Left
3. I will no longer remain an active member of the Republican Party as long as it fails to support a return to Constitutional governance
4. If you want my support and the support of other Constitutional Conservatives, you'll talk up people who share our ideals, and criticize those who do not share them
5. You will seek to change rules and tighten up processes thus enabling more Constitutional Conservatives to win elections
6. Failing that, adios...

Thanks folks. Take care...
t need to tell you about all of it./fontfont color=----

Jim: Could John possibly modify the reminder we see when posting? As it stands now: "NO profanity, NO personal attacks, NO racism or violence in posts."

I respectfully submit that a minor re-wording is in order: "NO profanity, NO personal attacks, NO racism, NO RINO supporting or violence in posts."

Given how easily the "NO personal attacks" thing is ignored--FU, FU2, idiot, wuss, etc.--why bother rewording?

>"Mitt Romney is a fake."

No he's real. He's just the DNC #2 pick.

No, at best, Willard is the DNC's #3 pick.

Because come November, rather than Willard, any 'RAT would be ELATED to hear we're voting for ANY write-in or third-party conservative candidate because that splits the anti-Obama vote.

I only wish we could convince any of them to cast write-in votes for Hillary. (Of course, the mere mention would make me out to be a racist bigot in their minds.)

Oh brother...and I am no wuss. 4’ 11” petite gal who survived being beaten to a pulp by a 6’ 4” man. Yeah, let’s talk about wussies. And I am well acquainted with incivility, evil, and true wussies (like big guys who pummel women), so don’t talk to me about your version of evil. Like you know it. I’ve looked it square in the face. And that’s why when I hear people use the term loosely, it’s aggravating.

OMG, the hyperbole is enough to wear me down.

Yeah, I’m sure they’ve prepared the ovens and Zyklon B
as we speak.

While I don’t want to see our country go up in “flames” via
the horrendous debt or destruction of our freedoms, my hope is in
Christ alone.

Freep You, idiot!!

Jim, I stood by you on the corner of Blackstone and Shaw to support our troops back in 2003/2004. Those were great times. I no longer reside in Fresno so I don't get to participate in those rally. However, you have resorted to personal attacks against fellow freepers that stood with you for so long and your own site rules and I'm sorry to say that your vendetta against Romney is ruing this site and fellow Freepers that have been faithful for years.

While I agree with and appreciate many of your anti-mormon rants, saying Mitt Romney will just be a puppet of Mormon leaders is ludicrous. I wish Mormons like Harry Reid showed some semblance of following typical mormon conservative principles, but that has never happened. The argument that Romney will somehow be an arm of the mormon church is a non-starter and is an argument running from your emotional disgust with LDS rather than a logical construct.

Amen and amen, brother.

oh gee. Like I should know your height and past before I post. Give me a break!

so don’t talk to me about your version of evil

I don't have a 'version'. Evil is Evil. It is what it is. It comes in all forms, not just yours.

Just because mitt didn't assault you, he isn't evil? Tell that to the defenseless babies that were slaughter for $50 a clip under his ROMNEYCARE. Sad you don't think they don't need a voice, also, because it wasn't you.

He's a backstabber and a LIAR that can KILL someone's spirit and reputation. Not every injury is visible. As you know, through your experience.

That said, what was done to you by his knowledge that he could overpower he deliberately assaulted you. He wouldn't try that with someone he had doubts about, lest wussy got hurt. He is a little man. Thank God but by the grace of God you survived.

I wish Mormons like Harry Reid showed some semblance of following typical mormon conservative principles, but that has never happened.

#1...there's a HUGE gap in power ... I mean HUGE ... 'tween a member of Congress & the White House...

What the Mormon "prophet" may find not worth the risk of attempted manipulation @ the Congressional level can in no way be compared to temptations extant re: the White House...especially when we're talking about informal behind-the-scenes "favors."

While I agree with and appreciate many of your anti-mormon rants, saying Mitt Romney will just be a puppet of Mormon leaders is ludicrous...The argument that Romney will somehow be an arm of the mormon church is a non-starter and is an argument running from your emotional disgust with LDS rather than a logical construct.

#2...You phrase things correctly when I view Romney as a potential "puppet & arm" of the Mormon church. IOW...past performance as gov will in no way be comparable to future performance as POTUS. Why? Because in neither case does Romney have to assume any initiative to do things on the sly for the Mormon church.

I'm frankly not all that concerned what Romney might initiate on his own...

#3...Since you're interested in a "logical construct..." hey, so am I. Otherwise, I wouldn't have spent some time constructing the chart below.

In this chart
-- which were not dredged up from ancient Mormon history (except for the first three statements, ALL of them were made by Lds leaders between the 1960s and 1980s...and even the third statement was being reprinted in official publications ranging from 1984 in a book -->July 7, 2011 in the Lds church-owned Deseret News!)...
...we find logical overreaches of Mormon leaders into the political sphere...

Now...you couple these kind of precedent-type statements from the recent past from Mormon leaders...
...and mix them with a present or future Mormon "prophet" who can't resist extending his arm too far...
...and viola!

So...since you challenged me on this...I expect a logical construct from YOU as to why you think these statements from this chart would suddenly be non-applicable?

I mean if they were applicable in less tempting political arenas when the Mormons have not had the White House, why is your gut impulse to move away from Lds leaders using these principles when the power is a phone call or visit away???

Lds Leader	Chronological 'Prophet' or Fundamental # (or Other Title)	Overlap Areas: Could the President of the U.S. become a 'puppet' to an Lds 'Prophet?' (The Lds Prophets -- in their own words)
John Taylor	Lds 'Prophet' #3	“The Almighty has established this kingdom with order and laws and every thing pertaining thereto…[so] that when the nations shall be convulsed, we may stand forth as saviours…and finally redeem a ruined world, not only in a religious but in a political point of view.” (Journal of Discourses, vol. 9, p. 342, April 13, 1862)
Orson Hyde	President of the Lds Quorum of the 12 Apostles for 28 years (1847-1875)	“What the world calls ‘Mormonism’ will rule every nation...God has decreed it, and his own right arm will accomplish it. This will make the heathen rage.” (Journal of Discourses, vol. 7, p. 53)
Heber J. Grant	Lds 'Prophet' #7	"Elder Marion G. Romney recalled the counsel of President Heber J. Grant: 'My boy, you always keep your eye on the President of the Church, and if he ever tells you to do anything, and it is wrong, and you do it, the Lord will bless you for it.' Then with a twinkle in his eye, he said, 'But you don't need to worry. The Lord will never let his mouthpiece lead the people astray'" (in Conference Report, Oct. 1960, p. 78)." Cited in Official Lds publication Search the Commandments: Melchizedek Priesthood Personal Study Guide, p. 209 (1984)
Harold B. Lee	Lds 'Prophet' #11	...President Harold B. Lee said: 'We must learn to give heed to the words and commandments that the Lord shall give through his prophet, '...as if from mine own mouth...(D&C 21:4-5)...You may not like what comes from the authority of the Church. It may contradict your political views. It may contradict your social views. It may interfere with some of your social life. But if you listen to these things, as if from the mouth of the Lord himself..." Cited in official Lds publication Remember Me: Relief Society Personal Study Guide I, p. 27 (1989)
Spencer Kimball	Lds 'Prophet' #12	"President Spencer W. Kimball said: '...We deal with many things which are thought to be not so spiritual; but all things are spiritual with the Lord, and he expects us to listen, and to obey..." (In Conference Report, Apr. 1977, p. 8; or Ensign, May 1977, p. 7) Cited in official Lds publication Come, Follow Me: Melchizedek Priesthood Personal Study Guide 1983, p.12 (1983)
What about Marion G. Romney, cousin to Mitt's father?	Who was he in Lds hierarchy? (Title: 'President' - Top 3 of church as 2nd counselor to both #11 & #12 Lds 'prophets')	"Elder Neal A. Maxwell has said: 'Following the living prophets is something that must be done in all seasons and circumstances. We must be like President Marion G. Romney, who humbly said, '..I have never hesitated to follow the counsel of the Authorities of the Church even though it crossed my social, professional, and political life' (Conference Report, April 1941, p. 123). There are, or will be moments when prophetic declarations collide with our pride or our seeming personal interests...Do I believe in the living prophet even when he speaks on matters affecting me and my specialty directly? Or do I stop sustaining the prophet when his words fall in my territory? if the latter, the prophet is without honor in our country! (Things As They Really Are, p. 73). Cited in official Lds publication, Search the Commandments: Melchizedek Priesthood Personal Study Guide, pp. 275-276 (1984)
Ezra Taft Benson	Lds 'Prophet' #13	Benson speech given 2/26/80 @BYU. Summary: “…remember, if there is ever a conflict between earthly knowledge and the words of the prophet, you stand with the prophet…” (See excerpts re: 3 of 14 'fundamentals' below) Source: Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Prophet
Benson (cont'd)	Fundamental #5	5. The prophet is not required to have any particular earthly training or credentials to speak on any subject or act on any matter at any time. (My Q: Ya hear that Mitt Romney?)
Benson (cont'd)	Fundamental #9	9. The prophet can receive revelation on any matter, temporal* or spiritual.* (My Q: Still listening, Mitt?)
Benson (cont'd)	Fundamental #10	10. The prophet may advise on civic matters. (My Q: What say ye Mitt?)
B.H. Roberts	LDS Historian and Seventy. Note: Roberts was an elected Democratic Congressman from Utah in 1898 -- but was NEVER seated by Congress because of grass roots uproar vs. Roberts, who took a THIRD simultaneous wife in the early 1890s. Grass roots America collected 7 MILLION signatures on 28 banners and presented them to Congress...in pre-mass media 1800s!	“[T]he kingdom of God... is to be a POLITICAL INSTITUTION THAT SHALL HOLD SWAY OVER ALL THE EARTH; TO WHICH ALL OTHER GOVERNMENTS WILL BE SUBORDINATE AND BY WHICH THEY WILL BE DOMINATED.” The Rise and Fall of Nauvoo, 1900, p. 180
Mitt Romney as POTUS???	Aside from above prophetic impositions, why would Mitt not only honor what these 'prophets' have spoken, but what a future Lds 'prophet' may tell him to do?	The Law of Consecration Oath Mitt Romney has sworn in the Mormon temple (done before marriage/sealing in temple): "You and each of you covenant and promise before God, angels, and these witnesses at this altar, that you do accept the law of consecration as contained in this, the book of Doctrine and Covenants [he displays the book], in that you do consecrate yourselves, your time, talents, and EVERYTHING with which the Lord has blessed you, or WITH which he MAY bless you, to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, for the building up of the kingdom of God on the earth and for the establishment of Zion." Source: What is an LDS Church/Mormon temple marriage/sealing? [Q: Please define 'Zion': The LDS PR Web site (lds.org) defines its primary meaning: "membership in the [LDS] church."]

OMG, the hyperbole is enough to wear me down. Yeah, I’m sure they’ve prepared the ovens and Zyklon B as we speak.

I'm not one given to wild conspiracy theories, but have you been watching Obama's moves these last three years? During the Bush years, most people would have pronounced you totally delusional and ready for a straight jacket, if you'd predicted everything Obama's done since being president.

I, for one, believe what's gone on behind closed doors to be much worse than anything we've seen reported. The man is a monster with no equal in US history. You have to look to the histories of other countries to find any parallel to this guy.

“However, as bad as McCain was, I would give damn near anything to trade the last three years under the socialist Obama for a McCain presidency.”

Then you’re nuts. You can bet that having McCain in the White House would have neutered the few conservatives in the GOP to the point of Obamacare and amnesty being passed by McCain and labeled ‘compassionate MAVERICK conservatism.’ Having Obama has, if nothing else, galvanized the right wing to vote. I won’t vote for Romney or any other milquetoast moderate. But I’ll vote every time, and my vote will mean something—something besides, “He wasn’t as bad as that other guy, so you can put up someone else like him next time, too.”

My logical construct as to why LDS church leadership would not be running things through Mitt Romney is based on 2 things. 1) There is no recent historical precedent of the leaders of the church strong-arming a major political candidate, and, as with Harry Reid, it appears there is absolutely no pressure at all, demonstrated by his uber-liberal politics not affecting his church standing.

2) even if the Leaders wanted to "run things, " Romney would not be their candidate of choice-his politics are also left of the church, and as you and I know, there are strong Mormons in the faith and other, let's say more moderate Sunday Mormons. Just because he is an active Mormon, his belief system may be further away from "the faith" than he lets on. I know this is true of a lot of Mormons, especially these days.

Your own contention makes no logical sense.

If a McCain Administration had attempted the same overreach as Obama, they would have elicited the same reaction. You have no basis for your conjecture that McCain would have attempted to implement socialized medicine. None. You have merely extrapolated your dislike for McCain, to paint him as being as big a socialist as Obama. McCain was no Ronald Reagan, but he was no Obama either.

You have NO clue what you’re talking about.

1) There is no recent historical precedent of the leaders of the church strong-arming a major political candidate, and, as with Harry Reid, it appears there is absolutely no pressure at all, demonstrated by his uber-liberal politics not affecting his church standing.

A Mormon in the WH would be unprecedented; so you make here the logical fallacy error of equivalency: Deeming that the power construct within Congress is somehow approachable to the White House. It's not.

2) even if the Leaders wanted to "run things, " Romney would not be their candidate of choice-his politics are also left of the church...

Well, at least a better try here...but no cigar...

What too many FREEPERs fail to realize is that the Mormon church can be liberal when it wants to...and it's been awfully convenient for that to happen more and more the last few years.

Examples:

* Homosexual rights: Mormon church supports Salt Lake City's protections for gay rights and Mormons Back Salt Lake City Gay Rights Laws

Illegal alien liberal policy nuances... note these headlines:
* 2 LDS branch presidents in Utah deported to Guatemala, El Salvador
* Utahpolicy.com had a headline in 2011: Considering The Disconnect Between Some LDS Church Members and Leadership on Immigration

Abortion: The official Mormon church position (see
http://www.religioustolerance.org/lds_abor.htm) is that it's "OK" for an abortion if...
(a) Incest needs to be covered up;
(b) The baby is disabled and needs to be destroyed accordingly
(c) Mom's "health" (whatever that means...distinct from saying "life" of the mother)
(d) If the abortionist says it's "OK"
(e) If the Mormon god says it's "OK" in prayer...

E alone above could "justify" abortion to individual Mormons as long it overrides the person's conscience!

And if you need further evidence of just how liberal the Mormon church leadership can be when it wants to be, then look at how Harry Reid was welcomed with such warm open arms by an all BYU student & faculty occasion for Reid to speak there: Reid gets warm reception at BYU

Too many FREEPERS somehow think that Romney's wishy-washiness is "unconnected" to his faith. Well, the Mormon leadership has shown it can be morally wishy-washy whenever it's "convenient."

It was "convenient" for the Mormon church leadership to pass homosexual rights for Salt Lake City 'cause they were coming off of what the MSM regarded "negative" media play re: Prop 8 in CA.

It was "convenient" for their missionary program to support aspects of immigrants being here illegally.