Ryan is a good man, but does not redeem the abortionist/homosexualist statist Romney

Aug 11, 2012 | Jim Robinson

[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.

[Finny]

I believe I only saw one freeper actually apologize for it and say he’d never vote for a RINO again. The rest are probably still here, pushing for RINOs.

That may have been me, though I didn't apologize -- I don't offer apologies except in extreme personal circumstances and I NEVER expect them nor do I give any weight at all to an apology presented because it was demanded; I think demanding apologies is usually an act of vanity and that an apology delivered because it is demanded is a charade.

THAT SAID -- I have often posted here that I learned my lesson with Schwarzenegger, and am applying what I've learned. Voting for liberals is a bad move. I didn't vote for McClintock because I thought it would help Bustamonte -- "be the same as a vote for Bustamonte," does that sound familiar? If I had it to do over again, I'd vote for McClintock even if I knew full well Bustamonte would win, because Bustamonte in the long run would have done less damage, I believe, than Arnold.

This will the be the FIRST EVER election in my life, and I've been voting in every election since I came of age in 1976 and have NEVER declined a Republican on ANY ballot, EVER --- this will be the first time I'll decline voting for a Republican, let alone at the top of the ticket. But I DON'T VOTE FOR LIBERALS. The last liberal I voted for was Meg Whitman, and at that, I chickened out, because I believe even now that had Whitman won, she'd be doing more damage than even Jerry Brown because she is a Republican who, like Romney, buys the whole global warming claptrap and is a pure statist at heart, but, also like Romney, fools naive Republicans into thinking otherwise because she's been a "successful business executive." Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, and Michael Eisner -- three of the biggest liberals on the planet -- have been successful business executives.

ABO is an affliction and I pray that conservatives and Republicans get over it before November. Voting for a liberal, no matter what party he belongs to, guarantees a BAD OUTCOME.

We're going to get a liberal statist either way -- I'm going to use my vote to weaken the victory of whichever statist wins; I'm voting for a plurality. The last two times we had a president elected on a plurality, conservatives made significant moves forward in Congress.

Palin's "Dead fish go with the flow" -- voting for Romney is the path of least resistance. It is going with the flow, and Palin disappoints extremely. Romney will take folks exactly where all the dead fish end up.

[Kevmo]

Thanks for being willing to learn.

Is there anything we could have said at the time that would have accelerated your learning curve? It’s applicable to today’s situation.

There are RINOs & CINOs everywhere on Free Republic now. They’re in the majority. JimRob might as well call this FreeRepublican.com

[Kevmo]

And this sums up the justification for centuries of misguided “Christians” for doing their best to wipe out the Jews via conversion.
***bowlsheet. How would jews be wiped out if they all turned to Jesus as Messiah? You yourself have said that He could be the Messiah and when He returns it’s our perspective as a second coming and your perspective as a first coming.

or outright slaughter.
***again, bowlsheet. If christians are involved in slaughtering a group of people, they do it directly against God’s stated commandment of Thou Shalt Not Murder.

I notice that you obfuscate a lot. You deflect. You lash out at christians. By the mormon definition, it’s easy to see that you act as a gentile.

[Finny]

WELL SAID, BLACK ELK!

When you have to hold your nose because something stinks -- your nose is trying to protect you because the "something" is either toxic or rotten.

People, don't hold your nose, heed your nose!! It is a faithful and wise guide. You CAN use your vote a better way: vote for a plurality so that whichever liberal gets in office is opposed by the majority of the popular vote. REMEMBER how conservatives in Congress advanced so siginficantly the last two times a president was elected on a plurality.

STOP being sucked into the "We can't survive another four years of Obama" hysteria that has been whipped to a froth by the likes of Rush and Levin. IT IS FALSE. We can survive another four years of a weak, despised Obama elected on a plurality, and that's the best he could get because he is rejected and vulnerable to an extreme degree in his own party.

Risk is the price you pay for opportunity. Romney is an exeedingly BAD risk, virtually guaranteed to be a mistake. The BETTER risk is in a plurality win for either liberal.

Pray for a plurality and vote for a plurality. HEED your nose! As Snoopy said, "The eye can be deceived but the nose knows."

[Kevmo]

Standard librul tactic: Knock Reagan down to prop up your candidate.

[greyfoxx39]

With a conservative majority Congress writing legislation, I highly doubt Romney would be widely different than Reagan or GW Bush on the pro life issue

You bigots eventually get around to bashing President Reagan when your arguments are failing, don't you?

[Tennessee Nana]

Christians calling me a heathen and telling me that my soul will burn in hellfire for all eternity are met with the same response.
____________________________________

What post was that ???

[Williams]

Well guess I’ve never focused on Jeff’s posts.

[reaganaut]

LOL!!

BTW, I named a stray kitten (white with black patches) Elsie after you. I will try to post a pic (if I can ever get back on photobucket)

[greyfoxx39]

Well guess I’ve never focused on Jeff’s posts.

You obviously haven't focused on the Religion Forum either, especial in 2007 forward.

[fabian]

so what? Obviously Mormonism is off...but they do know it is murder...my point is people change to to hold it against Mitt is unchristian! Period. Don’t change the subject.

[ansel12]

Reagan never needed "rehab", and was never pro-abortion.

Reagan was never pro-abortion, he signed that act years before the phrase "pro life" had even been created. He admits that he got taken when as a rookie, he signed what almost all of us thought was a medical bill, we didn't realize then how the left can twist things, and run for daylight through a crack.

The way the left exploited that bill, leading to abortions, was a big wake up call to all of America, and resistance started building, it was an eye opener for me for instance.

Mitt Romney tells us that he was already pro-abortion at that time, he became pro-abortion in 1963.

Romney remained passionately pro-abortion throughout those years of the 1960s, and after Roe v Wade in 1973, and through the Reagan years (Romney left the GOP when the pro-life Reagan was nominated), and through out the abortion wars of the 1980s and 1990s, and into the mid 2000s, then one day he said 'I switch to pro-life, and am announcing for President as a republican'.

Romney was the most passionate defender of abortion of any one that we can recall, his moving defense of abortion was the most sincere that you find Mitt being, watch the videos.

Here is Romney raising funds for abortions, at Planned Parenthood.

[Tennessee Nana]

My relationship with G-d is not something anyone can insert themselves between.
_________________________________

Oh I dont know if having the Ten Commandments on your door keeps the Mormons away...

They dont care one way or another...

The inventor of Mormonism, Joey Smith managed to corrupt every one in his doctrines...

as for your relationship with God.,.

For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord...Romans 8:38, 39

[Colofornian]

What a sour puss Jim is being...cannot even take Romney’s word that he sees abortion is wrong now and has for some time. holding it against him still!

Let's say you, Fabian, converted to "pro-life" in November.

Then the following spring, you say you are "absolutely committed to my promise to maintain the status quo with regards to laws relating to abortion and choice" -- which is what Romney did May of 2005.

So, of course, Romney has said 'abortion is wrong for some time now' -- didn't stop him from commenting positively upon committing to pro-abortionism, did it?

For documentation, see: Post #2...Romney's pro-abort words & actions since becoming "pro-life"

So, did Romney "part ways" with his pro-abortionism after May of 2005?

No. The following year, he ensured that a Planned Parenthood rep would not be removed as a permanent rep of the oversight board of RomneyCare. (Romney could have passed RomneyCare -- and still vetoed portions of it...which he actually did veto portions of it)

On top of that, some of those 7% of uninsured that RomneyCare covered -- women who chose abortions beyond what MA taxpayers paid for already (beyond rape & incest) -- sacrificed their offspring with RomneyCare dollars and RomneyCare coverage.

Do you think that's a "pro-life" thing to do? (If so, why don't you just walk up & down your neighborhood each Saturday, and offer to pay for an abortion each week...Yes, that will make you a true monster in the eyes of the pre-born, but, hey, at least you'll finally be consistent with your Romney rhretoric)

Oh, and btw, RomneyCare went from $50 abortions to total taxpayer-funded abortions in certain cases. (Way to go, Mitt...leaving your "pro-life" mark upon the carcasses of pre-borns! /sarc )

Then Mitt ran for POTUS in '07...you'd think he would have gotten his alleged "pro-life" rhetoric down pat by December of that year...but no:

Katie Couric was interviewing him that first week of December...Mitt started off sounding quite "pro-life," discussing the adoptability of embryos (was probably referencing the Snowflake adoption process).

He said: "...surplus embryos...Those embryos, I hope, could be available for adoption for people who would like to adopt embryos."

Then he added: "But if a parent decides they would want to donate one of those embryos for purposes of research, in my view, that's acceptable. It should not be made against the law."

(Link above has original source for these CBS quotes -- program was called, "Candidates Reveal Their Biggest Mistakes")

Again, Fabian, please show us how "consistent" you are with Romney rhetoric. If you're a parent, all you have to do is "donate" one of your kids for "purposes of research."

Besides being a monster parent, at least then you and Deb can both keep your illusions going that you both -- and Mitt -- are all "firmly" "pro-life."

You see, Fabian, if you -- or Deb -- won't under ANY CIRCUMSTANCES even pay for abortions in your own neighborhood; and if you won't donate one of your kids to "research"...because you deem that "highly unethical" (as in "monster" ethics), then perhaps you realize why we consider Mitt Romney to be a "monster" candidate.

Remember...all of the above has taken place SINCE Mitt Romney declared his so-called "PRO-LIFE conversion" (November 2004).

Way to give Romney a "free pass" on all of the above Romney supporters & many pro-life & pro-family groups...You've shown us all your true underbelly.

[ansel12]

Also, Romney never had a ‘conversion’, after 40 years of being an eloquent, even emotional defender of abortion, as a deeply held conviction of himself and his family, Mitt says that in a discussion about stem cell research, he became pro-life, as bloodless and unconvincing that tale is, (the scientist he was talking to denies Romney's description), it was fortunately good timing for his presidential run, as he revealed the switch in 2005.