Posted on 08/14/2012 1:53:35 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
Well, folks, it happens every four years or so. The presidential election cycle really brings out the RINOS. I have to state and restate FR's positions more and more frequently, because the true blue RINO types simply cannot stand that a conservative site will not support a gun grabbing, abortionist, homosexualist, big government statist.
Last cycle it was Rudy McRomney. Boy, did we ever catch hell for not supporting the big RINOs of the day. Hundreds of true blue RINO supporters fled grassroots conservative FR in disgust when they couldn't get their way and called us every name in the book on the way out, especially, the Rudy cabal.
Where did it get them? The abortionist/homosexualist Rudy didn't get the nomination. We on FR finally decided to support McCain after he was the last RINO standing and he selected Palin as his running mate, but that will not happen this time. And McCain proved not up to the task anyway. He was far too undependable to make it as a conservative, but he was at least pro-life and pro-family and a war hero and that's why I finally relented and gave my reluctant no other choice endorsement.
But Myth Romney is without a doubt the most leftist, flip-flopping, lying, two-faced politician ever to be nominated by the Republicans. We have the most leftist Democrat ever sitting in the White House which ANY Republican should be able to defeat in a Reaganesque landslide, but in their infinite RINO wisdom, the GOPe pushes the most leftist Republican ever.
Why, oh, why would the GOPe risk it all by pushing for and giving the nomination to a man with Romney's abortionist, homosexualist, gun grabbing, big government statist Keynesian record? Do they have a death wish or are they simply trying to move the goal posts even further to the left? Romney is the grandpappy of ObamaCare for crying out loud. He made ObamaCare possible. ObamaCare gave birth to the grassroots tea party movement. The GOPe has done nothing but torpedo the tea party conservatives when they should have embraced us. Sarah Palin was the best thing to happen for the Republicans party since Reagan and the tea party the best thing in a century. Why would they try to kill us off?
We can take a clue from the Rudy McRomney cabal that left FR last time. They exclaimed on the way out that, "The conservatives have held their boot to the GOP's neck for far too long. Never again will guns, abortion, and the gay agenda be important issues for Republicans."
And now the abortionist/homosexualist/shamnesty Rudy McRomney cabal and the anti Palin RINO crowd have teamed up to come after FR again. They couldn't hack it with their wideawakes wankers for Rudy site or their trueblue RINOs for Romney site, so they are now posting their current anti-FR screeds on facebook and on any blog site they possibly can.
Hell hath no fury like a RINO scorned.
One of the RINO's we're talking about is our old friend Luis Gonzalez. He was a big Rudy pusher and would relentlessly trash any conservative who objected. We eventually had to invite him to leave FR and go with the wankers for Rudy. But it turns out he had a sleeper account on FR called "Lancelot Jones."
He recently registered a mole account on FR called "The Duke of Pearls" where he attempted to post the anti-FR screed pasted below. I pulled it and banned his account(s), but it is the one he's now plastering all over the net aided and abetted by his pal and anti-Palin RINO troll, EveningStar.
By the way, it's telling that Gonzalez in his Lancelot Jones mole persona posted the following quips to FR just a couple of days ago:
"If you can't rely on something at the precise moment that you need it the most, because that thing that you need to rely on is only reliable when the circumstances suit it, then get rid of it."
"If the GOP realizes that "purists" will only supprt the GOP when the Party's candidates meet their test, then it may be best to not count on them at all."
"The lesson that the GOP will probably learn from your scenario, is that it needs to jettison purists once and for all."
So, I guess my pro-God, pro-life, pro-family, pro-small government, pro-gun, pro-liberty constitutional stance makes me a "purist" who must be hated and persecuted and run off the net even though my positions on these causes are exactly the same as the official Republican party platform. Very strange.
Here's Gonzalez' latest anti-FR screed that he's trying to make go viral:
Once, a long time ago, if you were an individual seeking reasonable and intelligent political discourse in the Internet, from a right-wing perspective, there were few places as prominent and respected as Jim Robinson’s freerepublic.com. The site counted among its members such luminaries as Tony Snow, Barbara Olsen, and Andrew Breitbar; even Robert Bork was rumored to post in FR.
The site’s users, known as FReepers, were considerable in number, dedicated, and passionate, and Jim Robinson’s conservative brigades were able to launch either spontaneous roadside rallies, or organized nation-wide protests from Texas, to Florida, to Georgia, to Washington DC itself.
- It was a FReeper that ended Dan Rather’s career.
- It was a FReeper that coined the term Sore/Loserman during the Bush/Gore recount wars.
- It was a FReeper that posted the first known report of trouble with the Columbia, as it disintegrated over Texas and Louisiana on re-entry.
- It was a FReeper that photo-shopped the infamous image of John Kerry standing side-by-side with Jane Fonda in an anti Vietnam war rally.
Those were the Golden Days of Free Republic, but the site shines no longer. Mr. Robinson fails to realize that it was individual members of his forum that brought gravitas to the forum, and not the other way around. To be fair, Robinson created what could very well be the best softweare of its kind, but it was the massive interchange of ideas between members, all driven by the e-wave of the late 20th Century, and the animosity toward the Clinton administration that brought the forum into the spotlight.
Alas, Mr. Robinson convinced himself that the message was the medium, when it was the messengers that raised the medium to glory.
Internet blogs are buzzing with reports of a massive crack up in FR, with anti-Romney sentiment standing toe-to-toe with open anti-Mormon bias, FReepers are abandoning Jim Robinson’s burning ship in droves, populating sites like www.gopbriefingroom.com to discuss the chaotic status of Free Republic.
In facebook, exiled FReepers stand amazed at the realization that Free Republic and Daily KOS, bitter Internet blog political ideology enemies, are actually supporting the same candidate for the Presidency this cycle, as FReepers openly support the idea if an Obama win, as such a victory will “teach the GOP a lesson”.
This post from FReeper “Leep”
"Crash and burn America. Hopefully, we can rebuild in 10 or 20 or 50 years…?" The signs are visible to even the naked eye.
Check this statement by the site’s founder, Jim Robinson, just a few nights ago:
“Lastly, we’re having a bit of changeover on our moderator staff. At least two moderators resigned this afternoon after I flatly refused to rein in a so-called anti-Mormon “bigot” on FR.” In today’s Free Republic, no one will be critical of anti-Mormon statements. Jim Robinson once again:
“This website considers the Mormon religion as false doctrine. Period.” It’s nearly impossible to cross the line on criticism of Mitt Romney’s Mormonism at a site where the proprietor dismisses the entire religion as a “false doctrine”.
Robinson, in his refusal to support the GOP ticket seems to understand that he has become a minority within a minority, within a diminishing number of supporters, as he says:
"I doubt there are 10% of the FReepers in agreement with me on this." Ten percent of a rapidly diminishing number of posting members could spell financial troubles for Robinson, as some of the site’s most steadfast financial supporters quietly melt into the night.
Then again, even as Free Republic fades into irrelevance, Robinson’s legacy lives on in an unintended cottage industry of forums offering refuge to FReepers wishing to distance themselves from Robinson.
As one of the members of The Briefing Room quipped recently:
"The FR meltdown is good for business, people are looking for a sanctuary, and a place where sanity still reigns. Our membership rolls are increasing hourly, and they all come to ask the same question…”what in the world happened to Free Republic?”
Sad thing, that what was once such a great notion will crumble and fall under the weight of such a negative and destructive actions, and that in the end, the great things accomplished by the many, will be dragged down into the mud by the few.
When I lived in NJ decades ago (don’t look at me that way), it was obvious the “country club republicans” were trying to isolate their conservative wing. They were pushing Bob Franks over Burt Schundler.
Now I live in Pennsy & the same thing happened when the same group dissed Toomey (who, thank goodness has since been voted in).
They were all in on the trashing of Palin.
There’s no doubt in my mind that there is in the Republican Party a core of so-called moderates who are now feeling very threatened by the inroads by the Tea Party and the like.
*********************
I wish that I could add to the recipients of this post all of the names of the FReepers who have been instrumental in making Free Republic the influential and informative site that it is, but there isn't enough space.
But without your vision, patriotism and sacrifice this Free Republic would not exist.
Thank you, Jim.
Point well taken on your CINO vs RINO.
Amen...And he did a great job in nudging it in the right direction.
>>If you’re going to “Give Up on the USA” no matter how rotten the future looks, you’d best rethink it.
There is NO other country Left to retreat to.
I agree. There is no other country on Earth to retreat to unless we create one. We are not going to create a nation worth living in as long as we embrace this multi-culti, transnational progressive BS. Until we are prepared to tell Americans that they are Americans and NOTHING ELSE, we will continue to circle the drain on our way to the sewer. Our only hope (short of the return of Christ) is to split this nation up, let the Blue States starve to death, and then recombine it under the US Constitution as it was written.
Did you mean Bret Schundler?
ola Veritas wrote:
Jim...whenever someone takes a moral, principled stand, verses a pragmatic one, they will be persecuted for it. That just makes you a good guy!
IF someone calls me a “purist” for having a basic set of reasonable standards and sticking to them....then I know they are NOT truly conservative...they are only conveinently so.
You are taking a stand when all the others are selling out to Romney’s nonsense. They do this because of fear of Obama. Well, common sense tells one that you don’t fight wrong with wrong. Obama is wrong and Romney is wrong. We don’t have to sell folks on Obama being wrong....it is self evident. However, I find it extremely disturbing that folks cannot see that Romney does not meet minimal standards of acceptability. To vote for him would be to violate one’s personal standards of morality and ethics. At least for a sensible person...like you Jim.”
Well, those of us who not going to sit out this election and are going to seize the opportunity to vote for Romney/Ryan, are also taking a moral and principled stand by ridding this beloved nation of the most radical and dangerous administration this country has ever seen, and WE are being persecuted for it.
And for you to equate the Romney/Ryan ticket as evil as that Marxist/Socialist/Communist/Muslim, illegal alien, thug in the White House, including his out-of-control Justice Department that is superseding states rights and MURDERING American citizens, tells me that YOU are not a real conservative.
By the way, everyone from Sarah Palin to Rush Limbaugh has been called a RINO on this website, so who is a “pure” conservative?
“If this were true - all of the nanny state lovers would have been gone years ago - but they are permitted to remain, no matter how ignorant they get with those of us who refuse to accept any of it.”
It has been my experience that those that scream the loudest about “nanny state” are libertarians. That is just another form of anarchy.
Of course, I would have to see examples of what you call “nanny state.” If you mean keeping illicit drugs illegal....that IS NOT nanny state, that is keeping a safe an ordered society.
Now IF you mean someone legislating the fat content of food, then that would be “nanny state.”
That may be the choice the GOPe thinks they’ve left us with, but socialist A vs socialist B is what a commie state serves up, not the liberty-loving USA. There’s always a better choice than godless socialism. I’ll vote straight conservative thank you very much.
Obama should be impeached not re-elected and we all know that, even the democrats. If Romney’s not up to the task of defeating him, then I hope all of us conservatives and grassroots tea party types have elected a sufficient number of constitution loving, liberty loving conservatives in the congress and senate to impeach his corrupt usurping butt forthwith.
“Well, those of us who not going to sit out this election and are going to seize the opportunity to vote for Romney/Ryan, are also taking a moral and principled stand by ridding this beloved nation of the most radical and dangerous administration this country has ever seen, and WE are being persecuted for it.”
No sir, you are taking a “pragmatic” stand; not a moral one. You are trying to convince yourself and others, that supporting slime like Romney (I leave Ryan out of this) is better than four more years of Obama. Well, that means that pro-life, blocking the homosexual agenda, stopping big government statism don’t really matter to you...you just want to be rid of Obama. With Romney...ALL those things..abortion, homosexual agenda, etc. will continue and a rubber stamp GOP congress that votes based upon “party loyalty” first. You may get your wish and get a temporary warm and fuzzy feeling to remove Obama (who wouldn’t really), but the long term pain that will result will give you serious buyer’s remorse later. You will have replaced a liberal with a liberal.
The ONLY persons that will, long term, benefit from a Romney victory are the GOP establishment and the Salt Lake City Mafia.
Well, I’m not going to vote for a known gun-grabbing, abortionist/homosexualist lying statist no matter what Palin or Limbaugh say or do. But that’s just me. One man, one vote. If Romney needs my vote to win, sorry, he lost.
But I had them with those damned strawberries.
Bottom line is, Jim, even though I’m supporting the Romney/Ryan ticket after opposing Romney in the primaries, you have the right to have your opinion without being ostracized for not joining with the “in-crowd.” The GOP is supposed to be a big-tent party, right? This guy is actually insulting you for being a “minority?” How does that help the GOP’s image? Principles are about doing what you believe is right, not about doing what’s popular.
Even if Romney wins, I would be more comfortable with a Romney presidency if he and other party leaders are reminded as much as possible that the base will not accept him reverting back to the type of liberal policies he had in Massachusetts. Romney being scared of the base is almost certainly one reason we got Ryan selected as V.P. If Romney had felt comfortable about winning the normal constituencies, he would’ve surely picked a boring choice who was unlikely to make any waves or start any difficult battles on policy. Just as the elevation of Palin did a lot of good even though McCain lost, the elevation of Ryan is going to do a lot of good no matter what. So that is already something that the conservative base gained for themselves by being lukewarm or outright opposing Romney.
As far as I’m concerned, the biggest risk facing us is that Obamacare goes into effect and takes hold. Such a big government takeover presents enormous risks to our economy, our standard of living and American freedom. I believe Romney will repeal it and, like with all of Romney’s potential policies, I think conservatives have a better chance of influencing him to do something better than they do Obama. There are several other things I know Romney would do differently from Obama such as opening the Keystone pipeline, not forcing churches to pay for birth control and not bad-mouthing Israel behind their back. I think the Tea Party will face a test of strength in making sure they don’t let Romney get away with much if any liberal policy, but they have a chance at pulling it off, just as conservatives stopped Bush from nominating Harriet Myers to the Supreme Court. When it comes down to the old “lesser of two evils” choice, I think the fact that the Supreme Court upheld Obamacare more than anything else has resulted in Romney/Ryan being the clear lesser of the two this time around.
These other forums ought to work on developing their own identity. They’re going to fall in the Recycle Bin of internet history if their entire identity is built around whining about FR.
Been lurking here since right before the 2008 election, and posting less than a year. I love FR. Being a newcomer, I missed a lot of great stuff, but I feel sure there’s more to come.
I still don’t understand what all the uproar is about. All I’ve seen is you pretty much saying “I won’t vote for Romney, but you do what you must.” Why get all hormonal over that?
One more thing...speaking for myself, I don’t want a pure candidate. There’s no such thing. I just want one who doesn’t push abortion and love sodomites.
The RINOs forget that the GoP is only 29% (and dropping) of all registered voters.
If we wanted somebody to the left of LBJ for POTUS, the Dems have been around long enough to host that kind of support.
Some of you have opposed the Democrat, liberal, and homosexual attempts to change the Boy Scouts' stance on homosexual leaders.
So...Since Romney has long opposed the Boy Scout stance on homosexual leaders, are you going to militate against the Boy Scouts like some of you (especially EX-freepers) have done toward FR leadership?
Obama, Romney opposed to Boy Scouts ban on gays
So, because JimRob and FR stay true to the Boy Scout stance -- and Romney and Obama don't -- you ex-FREEPERs (& a few FR mole-catalysts among us still) all don the (R) uniform and start attacking those of us who don't "cave in" on that???
There's usually several typical reactions to a link like the above:
1. There's the deniers...they will either blame USA Today for printing the article; or me for linking it...certainly the fault could NEVER be romney for saying what he said.
2. Then there's the responsibility-shifters...they don't want to hold Romney accountable for ANY of his stances...Why? Because Obama's stances are either the same -- or on some issues, worse...
3. Then there are those who engage in personal attacks...usually they are either RINOs or they are heretical conservatives who have turned into pragmatic post-modern relativists...They don't want to concede that they've "converted" to the other side on social issues...or concede they've become what author Douthat referenced as a "Nation of Heretics"...hence, they lash out...
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.