La-la-la-la-la-la..........{subtitle}: Pay no attention to that man in the white house, he's just fine, he's not really a Marxist, he doesn't really hate America....hit me baby one more time......
Posted on 07/10/2012 2:39:24 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
Received yet another FReepmail message regarding the underground campaign to get disgruntled freepers to move on over to the latest anti-freeper site.
I'll save them the trouble of having their moles to do their underhanded dirty work underground.
If you're totally fed up with me and my absolute refusal to support the GOP-e's outright plunge into supporting the progressive/statist agenda and no longer wish to resist tyranny, please by all means go join the RINO squishes over on TrueBlueRINOS.com ( actual address: http://www.trueblueliberty.com ).
But when you join them, please do us all favor and don't come back. It'll save us all a bunch of grief.
Thanks for the memories. It was fun working with you when we all agreed on our pro-God, pro-Life, pro-family, pro-small government, pro-liberty causes.
By the way, those caught continuing their underground campaigns against FR will be zot on sight.
Like this guy:
-------------------------------------------------------
From Pasadena2k | 07/10/2012 1:22:46 PM PDT new
try a site at which it’s OK to discuss alternatives to Obama at least for a short period during this presidential elction season.
Many of us ( over 550 in the last two months ) spend some of our time at trueblueliberty.com
-------------------------------------------------------
Goodbye, Pasadena, we hardly knew ye.
No one appreciates moles. Filthy animals.
We keep hollering back and forth at one another, saying THIS politician will ruin us and THAT politician will not, and various scenerios are bandied back and forth as to Americas future state, as though POLITICS will save this once great country.
It's CONSTITUTION this and CONSTITUTION that; when we REALLY need to get back to the MAyflower Compact!
I also know he wouldn't be dumb enough (particularly in the situation we find ourselves today) to allow a tried and true tyrant who wants to destroy every good and decent thing in the US to remain in the highest office in the land.
You can't really believe that these two have "the same masters"......heck, at least get your conspiracy theories straight, the mormon tyrants are not on the same page as the Marxists.....:-)
Kidding aside, they are hugely different. Pretending they are both "socialists", therefore the same, is simply not the truth. Mitt is far from a conservative, but he ain't into destroying this country with a pro-Marxist, anti-American group of cadres that want to punish America for its so called sins.
I'm sorry, you really need to rethink this one. Palin, Newt, Cain, Santorum, every one of the candidates you once supported (some you have supported with great enthusiasm) have come to a very different conclusion than you have.
Mitt may be a RINO squish that will disappoint conservatives, but he's not in the same league as Bambi. Not even close.
If the Republicans take Congress and Romney wins, the conservatives will oppose any liberal policies coming from Romney.If the Republicans take Congress and Obama wins, the conservatives and the Republicans will oppose any liberal policies coming from Obama.
It’s quite the quandary.
Not quite apples and oranges. The latter ignores the whole Executive Order issue, which Obama has demonstrated his willingness to use without limits. It also ignores the regulatory agency appointments (EPA, DOE, FDA, etc) as well as a, likely, SCOTUS appointment next term.
I, without a doubt, believe that the House and Senate races in this cycle will be of greater consequence than the POTUS. We will need to temper, and to a degree, control the Executive branch through strong majorities of principled members of Congress. We don't have that now, but we darn sure better find a way to make it happen.
When did Palin endorse Romney or did she give a vague statement like “I’ll support who wins” or “in a brokered convention, I will step up”.
Every time I see Palin mention Romney, she shivers like she can’t hardly get his name out, Romney did what he could to destroy her why would she be a big supporter now?
Obviously they're not precisely the same. No two things in all the universe are, but Mitt and Obama's records fit like hand and glove on all of the big things:
Anti-gun - check
Pro-abort - check
Pro-gay 'marriage' - check
Economic malaise on watch - check
High unemployment on watch - check
Lib judge appointing - check
Government mandated health care - check
Anti-Reaganite - check
Tax raising - check
Pro-Global Warming agenda - check
Pro-Amnesty for illegals - check
Kidding aside, they are hugely different.
Yeah??? Where? At the end of the day, their agendas, and the effects they've created, are the same on everything that counts.
This rebuttal that 'Romney's not a Marxist, bent on destroying the US!' only goes so far. So what, if he doesn't have a personal history of association with Commies and Marxists? He's done the same things in office that every good little Commie wanna-be has, so what the hell is the real difference? There IS no substantial difference!
Screw the labels. They don't matter. Only effects do.
I don't vote for politicians who create those kinds of effects.
She did say this recently: “I have said from Day One and Sean … it has been anybody but Obama. We have a presumptive nominee now in the GOP process after a good competitive and very spirited competition to find that presumptive nominee and, yes, if that vote were to be taken today, obviously I would vote for President — for Gov. Romney over President Barack Obama in a heartbeat. I wouldn’t blink because I go back to what I said at the beginning — anybody but Obama.”
Certainly not a rousing endorsement. But it is clear she is strongly in the camp of "vote for Romney". Since I don't believe Sarah Palin will be accused of selling out, or of being a RINO, or of lacking vision, or not understanding consequences, or denouncing conservatism, or destroying the Tea Party, I think that her position on this matter should carry some weight, even here.
For my own part, I will be voting for Romney, but I'm not going to attack people who won't. I think they are wrong, but everybody has a right to vote their own conscience, and to argue for their position.
Anti-gun: Never would crusade for it and start Fast and Furious as dear reader did. Not even close.
Pro-abort: At worst he's not going to crusade for it. Bambi wants to kill babies born alive, and has voted for it. Not even close (even if he didn't change as we all suspect).
Pro-gay marriage: Once again, not even close. Bambi forced gays on the military, refused to uphold DOMA, and was the first pres. to full throated support the gay agenda.
Economic malaise, high unemployment: *rolls eyes* Sorry Windy, but this is the one thing that is black and white, one is a Marxist, one believes in free market capitalism. That alone should tip the scales, because it's huge.
Lib judges: You really think he's going to appoint one like Sotomayer or Kagan? Give me a break, you're not being real.
Bambicare: Wants to repeal it, is running on it, if he wins and doesn't follow through, we impeach the bass tird. Bambi guarantees we have it through his veto. Guarantees it!
Anti-Reaganite: Sorry, not even close. A capitalist vs a full bore Marxist.
Tax raising: you can't seriously believe they have the same lust to raise taxes, in the same degree? Get real man.
Climate: One's a squish, the other has prevented drilling in the gulf, on the coasts, prevented the pipeline from being built, destroyed the coal industry, will likely prevent fracking if you have a chance. No contest once again.
Pro-amnesty for illegals: Frankly that's not true, he's actually the only one of the GOPers that didn't go all squishy on this issue. Even Newt went squishy on us, and Romney excoriated him (rightfully) for it. Heck, I almost believe he's genuine on this issue. Bambi, well you know where he stands. The more voters and moochers the better!
I'm sorry Windy, pretending they are the same is nonsense, pretending they end up in the same place is as well. I'm standing by my statement, they are hugely different. I'm not anywhere near thrilled about Mitt, but to allow the one, the destroyer of everything we love and care for another four years is simply suicidal.
As I said in my previous post, Mittens created the same kind of ill effects (as Massachusetts Governor), that the radical left-liberal machine has been foisting on us for decades.
Spin his alleged good intentions all you want, but facts are facts, and that's all any thinking conservative should go on, when judging a politician. His record shows what it shows, and it's a record that cuts across the grain of everything I believe and support.
To wit:
Mitt Romney’s Dismal Record
"As U.S. real output grew 13 percent between 2002 and 2006, Massachusetts trailed at 9 percent.
* Manufacturing employment fell 7 percent nationwide those years, but sank 14 percent under Romney, placing Massachusetts 48th among the states.
* Between fall 2003 and autumn 2006, U.S. job growth averaged 5.4 percent, nearly three times Massachusetts' anemic 1.9 percent pace.
* While 8 million Americans over age 16 found work between 2002 and 2006, the number of employed Massachusetts residents actually declined by 8,500 during those years.
"Massachusetts was the only state to have failed to post any gain in its pool of employed residents," professors Sum and McLaughlin concluded.
In an April 2003 meeting with the Massachusetts congressional delegation in Washington, Romney failed to endorse President Bush's $726 billion tax-cut proposal."
[Cato Institute annual Fiscal Policy Report Card - America's Governors, 2004.]
Romney's "accomplishments".
1. Implemented/created Gay Marriage in MA
2. Supported and forced Gay Adoption in MA
3. Supported Abortion wholeheartedly
4. Raised taxes/fees over 300% while being Governor of MA
5. Implemented a state-level Cap and Trade system.
6. Supported Man-Made Global Warming
7. Supported the Brady Bill
8. Implemented a state level “Assault” Weapons Ban after the Federal AWB was allowed to expire.
9. Supported TARP
10. Supported Amnesty for Illegal Aliens (Citizenship for those already here)
11. Supported McCain-Kennedy (Amnesty)
12. Implemented a socialized medicine in MA called RomneyCare complete with an Individual Mandate and $50 abortions.
13. Nominated 27 Democrats (out of 36 nominations) for judgeships in MA, many of them extreme left-wingers.
I will not vote for another liberal whether they are R or D.
Fortunately, I live in California so I can actually vote the conservative candidate - BHO has already bought this state.
As is your recent wont, you again refuse to answer a simple question.
Lake, I understand your inability to address this and my last question. The one about how can a conservative vote for a liberal without abandoning his beliefs and conservatism to do so. But with your last few posts you’ve gone off into DU territory.
If Adams or any of the other FFs didn’t believe in what they said, we’d all be singing God Save the Queen. Fortunately they stood by their principles. That so many modern ‘conservatives’ will not speaks volumes.
Lets try another one. This one is real easy: Lake, do you feel that principle has any meaning or is it just an outdated concept?
How about this one: If the collective ‘we’ can just cast off our principles for Romney, would we be equally wrong to cast them off and vote for Bill Ayres if the GOP ran him as a candidate in 2016? Why?
Or how about...: If principles do not matter, would you cast them aside to allow 50 YO men to have sex with pre-18 yo girls? No? Why then are ‘some’ principles OK and not others?
Lake, logic and reason tell us that there are absolutes in this world. It just comes down to which point of logic and reason one chooses to ignore. To vote Romney, one must pretend that his documented record does not exist or that it is some liberal plot to discredit a ‘severely conservative’ candidate.
Now in your posts you have acknowledged that Romney is in fact, a liberal. You have also said that you are fully willing to cast your vote for that liberal. By doing so, you give him and everything he stands for, the power and authority to carry out that liberalism on the country.
We have determined through his record that he is pro abortion, pro homosexual, pro gun control and anti-many of the things that make or ‘made’ America what it is.
Logically, if one empowers a person whose documented actions are Anti-constitution and by extension, Anti-American, the person doing the empowering is supportive of that agenda. There is no way around that Lake. You can revert to your Count of Sesame Street routine, holler to high heaven and dance a jig. But logically, reasonably and factually, that’s what you are doing.
200 years from now, assuming humanity still roams the planet after one of the two liberal titans gets done with it, the scenario of ‘conservatives supporting Romney’ will look every bit as bizzare to historians of that era as the actions of the German population circa 1930ish does to us today.
And you are choosing freely to be on that side of history.
You need to remove the stardust from your eyes.
Of course I guess obama could be institutionalized before the convention.
I answered your stupid question weeks ago with another poster.
It's called the Buckley rule, you might look it up again, but I guess that's not your wont.....:-)
Principles do matter. If you let Bambi have four more years by throwing away your vote, then he will finish the country off.
It's simple, you vote Bambi out, or you let him win and destroy everything you love, which means you'll no longer have principles to live for.
Very simple. Your choice. Act like a whiny baby, pretend to be pure, let him destroy you and everything you stand for, or hold your nose and vote for the only other one who can win and help rid the nation of the one who would destroy it.
It comes down to this:
We hold our noses and vote for a RINO squish.
Or we let the worst, most divisive, most destructive, most radically left, most pro-Marxist, most pro-muzzie, most pro-death, most anti-American, anti-free enterprise, anti-everything you love and care for administration have four more years.
You can continue to pretend they are the same, you can continue to post your talking points, but when it comes down to it, you are just plain wrong, and considering what it might achieve (four more destructive bamster years), squandering your vote for some kind of "purity" is one of the dumbest things I can think of.
You have yet to answer ANY of them. Post your supposed answer ‘answer’ and prove me wrong.
The original question, an open offer to anyone, was “How can a conservative vote for a liberal without abandoning his conservatism to do so”?
You have NOT answered that question Lake. You, like the former Rogue Yam, ducked it, dodged it, wrote paragraphs answering questions I never asked, but you NEVER answered this question.
And you never will answer it. Because it’s impossible to answer it. A conservative, in voting for a liberal, must put aside everything he believes in to do so. At which point, he is no longer a conservative. Period.
So in short, Ya got nuthin’ Lake. All you have is DU style ‘logic’ to back your position. Buckley’s choice assumed one of the two had some conservatism in them. SHOW ME where Romney has ANY conservatism. He denied Reagan flat out and very publicly. He himself said his ‘R’ was anything but solid. So again, you got nuthin’.
So all the FFs who refused to abandon principle under far more extreme circumstances were just whiny cry babies? Got it. Shows what you really think.
Reelect the worst, most radical , most destructive president ever by pretending he's the same as a RINO squish. Marxist=RINO squish. Yep, that's it, that's just the way it is......*rolls eyes*..../s
And yes, you're going to sit there, stamp your feet, whine, pretend you're pure, and go crying home like a big baby while reelecting this truly evil administration.
Congrats. I'm sure you'll feel proud if you succeed.
Is there a reason you were unable to post your answer to my question? You said you had answered it. So where is it?
Here’s another...why was Adams incorrect in his quote about voting for principle?
And BTW, YOU are stomping your feet like a tantruming child. I am simply refusing to go along with your plan for America’s suicide. But please, by all means, give your support to the abortion industry, homosexuals, gun grabbers and the rest. Because that’s what your vote is going to.
Good luck sleeping an your all new Gay America. Shouldn’t be too hard...no kids running around or guns making noise (except for all that fresh new grunting from the military showers). And you have no principles to keep you awake. HaZ a happy Lake! HaZ a Happy!!!
And be sure not to cause too much CO2 emissions. Your choice for president isn’t fond of that.
You sure have a strange idea about “America” and what it was intended to be Lake. But you’re voting for it so who am I to question it?
Well said. I do not like Romney, I do not trust Romney. But with a choice of running into a wall or running into a tree, I’ll take the tree. Those who refuse to accept that they are behind the wheel are delusional. “I don’t like where this car is going, so I am going close my eyes and take my hands off the wheel. That will teach them.”
La-la-la-la-la-la..........{subtitle}: Pay no attention to that man in the white house, he's just fine, he's not really a Marxist, he doesn't really hate America....hit me baby one more time......
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.