Skip to comments.Ryan is a good man, but does not redeem the abortionist/homosexualist statist Romney
Posted on 08/11/2012 4:42:48 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
Except for his unfortunate go along to get along support of TARP, bailouts, stimulus spending and the increased credit limit, etc, Ryan is a pretty good choice. Probably the best choice of the RINOS that were on Romney's short list. I support Ryan for the vice presidency. Wish he were at the top of the ticket, though.
But I still cannot and will not support the grand father of ObamaCare. Romney still loves and brags about his bastard brainchild, RomneyCare, even today when he knows what an anti-liberty socialist POS it is.
And the fact that he advocated that abortion should be safe and legal in America for over three decades of his adult lifetime and even advocated that Roe v Wade should be supported and sustained as settled law precludes any consideration whatsoever by this pro-life Christian for Myth Romney for the presidency.
And the fact that he boasted that he would be better for "gay rights" than Ted Kennedy, and proved it just increases my resistance.
That, and his penchant for gun control, his continuing support for global warming, gays in the scouts, gays in the military, and his record of appointing liberal judges makes it all but impossible for me to support him.
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. Well, if being in opposition to false prophets and false prophecy makes a Christian believer a bigot, then I guess I'm a bigot. I've posted before that I flat do not believe that the Book of Mormon is the true word of God. Nor do I believe that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God. The Christian bible warns us to be weary of false prophets and that I am. Romney being the presumptive Republican nominee does not change that fact.
Once you've finally managed to define "conservative" downwards to the point where all it means -- literally, the ONLY thing it still means -- is "Not Obama": then you're no longer part of any coherent, principled or intellectually defensible political ideology.
All you're doing, at that point, is taking part in an imbecilic, nation-wide version of "Shirts Vs. Skins."
Which is absolutely fine. For children.
I've seen so deplorably many FReepers, on this thread, proudly fetishizing their fears; maniacally attempting, literally, to OUT-DO their fellows in some freakish, Dodo-esque attempt to come out (ultimately) as Craven Coward Numero Uno.
("I fear The Kenyan so impossibly much, I'd vote for C'Thulhu and all his assorted Elder Gods, instead! Booga-Booga-Booga!" "If you wouldn't gleefully chop your own grandchildren up into mincemeat -- and then fry up and messily gobble the remains -- in order to vote for Mitt Romney, then YOU DON'T FEAR OBAMA ENOUGH TO LOVE AMERICA AND *ARRGLE*BLARRGLE*AAAAAIIIIIEEEEEEEEEEEEEE -- !!!")
I've never seen sweaty, bug-eyed cowardice -- unalloyed and unabashed -- elevated, by a delusional few, into an actual exemplar of "patriotic reason" (or whatever), before this thread.
Would that I had gone quite a bit longer still, before being accorded such an opportunity... particularly on Free Republic.
Hi Resettozero! Hi Kent!
Nice to see you guys. Epic thread. Anybody get the zot yet?
Oh look! The turkey buzzards are sitting on the dead tree with their wings spread!
Gotta get some curtains for these dang distracting windows.
I have two wethers; and they’re STILL aggresive!
Or, that you are afraid of the power of the United States Government.
~ Wilford Woodruff, 4th LDS President
THE BOOK OF JACOB
THE BROTHER OF NEPHICHAPTER 224 Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.
25 Wherefore, thus saith the Lord, I have led this people forth out of the land of Jerusalem, by the power of mine arm, that I might raise up unto me a righteous branch from the fruit of the loins of Joseph.
26 Wherefore, I the Lord God will not suffer that this people shall do like unto them of old.
27 Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none;
28 For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts.
29 Wherefore, this people shall keep my commandments, saith the Lord of Hosts, or cursed be the land for their sakes.
30 For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.
31 For behold, I, the Lord, have seen the sorrow, and heard the mourning of the daughters of my people in the land of Jerusalem, yea, and in all the lands of my people, because of the wickedness and abominations of their husbands.
32 And I will not suffer, saith the Lord of Hosts, that the cries of the fair daughters of this people, which I have led out of the land of Jerusalem, shall come up unto me against the men of my people, saith the Lord of Hosts.
Or even HERE:
1 Timothy 3:2-3
2. Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach,
3. not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money.1 Timothy 3:12
A deacon must be the husband of but one wife and must manage his children and his household well.Titus 1:6
An elder must be blameless, the husband of but one wife, a man whose children believe and are not open to the charge of being wild and disobedient.
DOCTRINE AND COVENANTS
OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTSSECTION 1325157, Emma Smith is counseled (commanded) to be faithful and true; 5866, Laws governing the plurality of wives are set forth.51 Verily, I say unto you: A commandment I give unto mine handmaid, Emma Smith, your wife, whom I have given unto you, that she stay herself and partake not of that which I commanded you to offer unto her; for I did it, saith the Lord, to aprove you all, as I did Abraham, and that I might require an offering at your hand, by covenant and sacrifice.52 And let mine handmaid, Emma Smith, areceive all those that have been given unto my servant Joseph, and who are virtuous and pure before me; and those who are not pure, and have said they were pure, shall be destroyed, saith the Lord God.53 For I am the Lord thy God, and ye shall obey my voice; and I give unto my servant Joseph that he shall be made ruler over many things; for he hath been afaithful over a few things, and from henceforth I will strengthen him.55 But if she will not abide this commandment, then shall my servant Joseph do all things for her, even as he hath said; and I will bless him and multiply him and give unto him an ahundredfold in this world, of fathers and mothers, brothers and sisters, houses and lands, wives and children, and crowns of beternal lives in the eternal worlds.
Hey all that counted was going out in a blaze of glory. We died, but with the utmost dignity.
I wonder where most of the folks, who are talking this way now, ever were during the primaries. When Sarah Palin declined, the Herd of Cats couldn’t even agree on a single candidate to rob Mitt (who had made a big splash in 2008) of the dominance he was about to inherit by default. Wouldn’t anyone take Perry, Bachmann, Cain, West, Gingrich, Trump, or Santorum in a heartbeat? The trick was to agree on one instead of letting it turn into a fizzle in the sub ten percents.
When the Great Depression hit, it was on Hoover’s watch. Republicanism was damaged for decades. Wouldn’t you prefer that it had happened on a democrat’s watch?
Ah! The lilting, dulcet siren song of sweet reason! ;) Missed ya like holy heck, ma'am!
Epic thread. Anybody get the zot yet?
Nowhere nearly as many as have deserved it, plainly, for the hateful, spittled invective being spewed at JimRob, alone... but, as a notorious 20th centery con artist once piped: "KEEP HOPE ALIVE!" ;)
Oh look! The turkey buzzards are sitting on the dead tree with their wings spread!
"Here, you lazy, worthless feathered b@st@ards! DOWN HERE -- !!!" ;)
Is one named Stormy and the other, Sultry?
The trick was to agree on one instead of letting it turn into a fizzle in the sub ten percents.
***I posted that upthread. Traditionally, the VP from the previous administration is given the lead in primaries. But Cheney was never going to run, and GWB knew it. He should have replaced Cheney in 2006 with an heir apparent. So, in effect, today’s mess is... Bush’s fault.
That’s the laws
I want to know how to be RIGHTEOUS.
Well, we now can’t accuse Mitt of the same problem. Ryan would beat the pants off of any effete Democrat. Poor Joe Biden. Like someone said it would be like debating quantum physics with your cat.
It is the NOW; that it is critical; and from whence our future turns; and for all 'intents and purposes' our past; is just that. We need to deal with today's realities so as to 'best' move forward.
The fat fellas on the left.
The girls are Gracie and Ellie Mae.
This thread is bidding fair to become FR's equivalent of "War and Peace." Has any broken into the tens of thousands of comments? This one might. Good luck noticing everything in it.
I’m sorry but Mr. Resettozero is not available by digital transmission at this time but he said that if TOL called asking for him, then I am to ask if you will vacuum up and empty the trash cans when this thread has concluded. He said he would settle up with you later, perhaps when you two meet up in Amarillo. Thanks! Flourine
It is the NOW; that it is critical; and from whence our future turns; and for all ‘intents and purposes’ our past; is just that.
***The question was about the past, so I answered it.
Excuse me for butting in to your conversation here, however I believe I have a relevant point to share:
First, let me say this, you are correct in your larger point in that "a vote not cast for Romney is not a vote FOR Obama". That's just simple mathematics and thus, I do not feel requires further elaboration here.
However secondly, I feel I should point out the following: Your pictorial analogy of the voting tally is not entirely accurate. As people vote, they fill a certain "glass"; to look at the final outcome (as your pictorial analogy does) is irrelevant as far as what effect a certain vote has on the final outcome. Indeed, what your pictorial analogy would represent is a tie between Mitt, Barak, and some fortunate 3rd party candidate. A tie, at the end of an election; we don't redistribute votes at the end of an election (unless we're in some third world hell hole or unless we're talking about deciding who should be Wisconsin's US Senator but I digress) ...
No, the best analogy is simply looking at a more limited voting pool for easier comprehension. To whit: Say there are only 100 votes available and necessary to become President. Then also say that 50 people vote for Obama, and 49 vote for Mittens. Then let's say I (or you, or anyone) has the final vote. Then let's say this final vote is cast for "other" (doesn't matter who that is).
That makes the final tally: Obama 50, Mittens 49, and "other" 1. In this scenario, one can't say I voted "for" Obama because I didn't, but clearly my vote for "other" ALLOWED Obama to win so...what's he best way to describe my vote?
I would say as others have said: My vote was, "IN EFFECT", "for" Obama or I "INDIRECTLY" enabled Obama to win. So, when one or both of these caveats (the ones in quotes and capitalized in the previous sentence) are employed, when describing the third party "protest vote", it is correctly stated. IMO.
Just as mathematics forbid the flat out statement, "A third party vote is a vote for Obama", mathematics permit the statement, "a third party protest vote is in effect an (indirect) support of Obama". The above analogy I provided proves this.
So I'll say this now, and probably not again: If one is willing and able to abandon one's conservative principles to indirectly support Obama, then they are free to do so". It's all anyone can say, as each man is free to vote as he wills.
Awwwwww. And in the Ewe Essay.
When Sarah Palin declined,
***There’s a whole story there for conservatism, isn’t there? It’s not like she knew the GOP would have her back; in fact, she knew the GOP would actively sabotage her. Rush Limbaugh commented on that even today.
Today, the GOP is among the enemies of conservatism.
Let’s not hope that the puzzling, waffling Mitt Romney will beat Obama’s pants off, but let’s certainly hope that a gaggle of Congress critters with a nominal (R) will find the collective moxie to impeach Obama afterwards. (At which point we get President Biden and lose none of the apparatchiks! ‘Swonderful, as Gershwin would have put it.)
Has any broken into the tens of thousands of comments?
***The last time we had this many CINOs in an uproar was the bugzapper thread. more than 18,000 posts
If it weren’t so durn immoral, it would have actually served better if Sarah Palin had been a bull dyke. No Democrat would dare cross her.
Then you'll be the very first Mittens supporter to so state, calmly and in a straightforward manner.
That should make you feel proud. That should also make you feel appalled.
Your pictorial analogy of the voting tally is not entirely accurate.
For those of us, regrettably, presently locked into residence in unalterably blue states (or, I suppose, unalterably red ones, as well) -- which, obviously, is my particular point of reference: yes. Yes, it absolutely is.
So I'll say this now, and probably not again: If one is willing and able to abandon one's conservative principles to indirectly support Obama
Once again, #3401: Once you've finally managed to define "conservative" downwards to the point where all it means -- literally, the ONLY thing it still means -- is "Not Obama": then you're no longer part of any coherent, principled or intellectually defensible political ideology.
Period. End of sentence. End of paragraph.
Do you adhere to the Noahide laws?
I would say as others have said: My vote was, “IN EFFECT”, “for” Obama or I “INDIRECTLY” enabled Obama to win. So, when one or both of these caveats (the ones in quotes and capitalized in the previous sentence) are employed, when describing the third party “protest vote”, it is correctly stated. IMO.
***I’ve heard that right now there are democrap party aparatchiks browbeating democrats by saying that a vote for a third party librul is a vote for Romney. By that same reasoning, a vote for a third party conservative, we are constantly told, is a vote for 0bama. That means that a vote for a third party is worth 2 votes. That’s how all this fuzzy math ends up in the crapper where it belongs.
I'm not here 24/7/365.25 and could possibly have missed it but miss it 9 times? I seriously doubt it.
On the other hand, I'm the "World's Greatest Grandpa" and I have a coffee cup to prove it!
Flourine! How nice to meet you. I didn’t know that I was meeting Resettozero in Amarillo. I thought the North Texans were coming from Ft. Worth.
But it is all right if Hubby and I do meet him. I hope you’re there too.
I’m going to have a pretty new g u n, and I’m looking forward to using it at the TCMS in Corpus Christi.
Do you adhere to the Noahide laws?
***Name one person who does. Name one law that Jesus broke. Jesus fulfilled the law so that we christians don’t have to.
Oh; missed that; guess I moved on, too quickly. . .
You needn’t miss me, dear. You can always ping me, and if I’m around, you’ll certainly get an answer.
Perhaps Jim is a bit busy right now with the FReepathon and can’t get to cleaning up just yet. I_be_tc (courtesy ping) had a great idea for raising the balance of the goal, and the ‘thon team has been busy celebrating it.
Now, don’t be mean to our turkey buzzards. They do their bit for Mother Nature out there. ;-)
I’d try to stay on topic here, but I forget what the topic is... [giggles]
Heya Deb! How ya doing? :)
The lunatics took over the asylum the minute they decided to make this about anti-Mormons and not politics, turning this site into a laughing stock and fodder for opposition in Congressional races.
There was a vote? When did it happen?
Are we talking about Elsie? Then I vote YES!!
Does he get a trip to Disneyland? A bottle of wine and a basket of cheeses?
You had to avoid answering those questions, as did all the others.
And yet here you are, right in the middle of thread.....so that makes you?
The lunatics took over the asylum
***That’s how you view FR? Then why even post here?
the minute they decided
***JimRob is the one who ‘decided’ — the brouhaha is over the last paragraph in his article at the beginning of this thread. And it was people like you who got into an uproar over mormonism being called a cult, even though there have been mormonism threads on FR for a decade. Where were you when these threads were posted?
to make this about anti-Mormons
***First, they aren’t anti-mormon, they’re anti-mormonism. Second, if it were the lunatics who made it about anti-mormons, that makes you folks the lunatics.
and not politics, turning this site into a laughing stock and fodder for opposition in Congressional races.
***Your concern is duly noted, although your absence on mormonism threads is also duly noted. That makes you a thread troll.
You’re 2 fries short of a Happy Meal
Aw... [::scuffs toe of shoe in the dirt::] ... I don't wanna go around pestering you, is all. You've got... like... you know... important SITE-related things going on all the time, and stuff. ;)
Id try to stay on topic here, but I forget what the topic is... [giggles]
From what little I can make out of the indecipherable aural goulash of trollish chitterings going on, hereabouts: "U NO VOTE ROMNEE Y U H8TE MORMUNS *Grrrrrrrrrrrr* yelp!" ;)
I’m sorry I do not know any North Tesans or how much their fort is worth. I’m just paid to answer his messages when he forwards his calls to me here in Guatemala City. I don’t even know what he looks like since he didn’t send me a picture when I asked. I’m sorry to hear that you have TCMS in Corpus Christi. Perhaps you can take some medication for that. Flourine
Had there actually been a vote, MINE would have gone to one of the following:
ROFL! Forgive me! I thought that you were Resettozero’s wife. I’ll just wait until he wanders back to the thread for some more berating and arguing.
He shouldn’t be too long, I don’t think.
***Thats how you view FR? Then why even post here?
The most obvious answer:
Seriously. No need to over-think it. ;)
Thorougly enjoying your friend, Flourine. ;0)
Good choices.....you can vote for yourself. I would. ;-)
You are confused. What you are referring to is when JC told his small group of followers they didn’t have to perform the 613 mitzvot.
I am talking about Noahide law, outlined here:
You should probably correct yourself, otherwise people are going to think you’re talking about ignoring the ten commandments or something.
"Thank you," he murmured, his face mottling like a Disneyfied tomato. ;)
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.