Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Unlike Romney's "National Council for a New America," Free Republic is a conservative site!
Refer to Romney's Council for a New American Socialist State formed in HIS Image ^ | May 2, 2009 | Jim Robinson

Posted on 05/03/2009 12:32:07 PM PDT by Jim Robinson

I'm going to try one more time to explain what FR is all about.

Free Republic is a conservative site. That does not necessarily mean it is a Republican site. In fact there may be many Republicans we don't support and some Republican issues we cannot agree with.

I'll throw in Arlen Specter as a prime example of a Republican we cannot support. Should be obvious to all why not. Should also be just as obvious to all that we cannot support Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, John McCain and his lap dog Lindsay Graham, Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, et al.

Some of the issues we cannot support as conservatives even though sometimes initiated by so-called Republicans include TARP, or any kind of government bailout of private enterprise, federal intrusion into free markets, federalized education systems, government provided or controlled health care systems, abortion, gay marriage, amnesty, global warming, gun control, etc.

I guess there is more than one definition of conservatism floating around out there, and this won't be text book, but the one we use involves defending, preserving and protecting our constitution, our unalienable rights, our traditional family values, our American heritage, our nation, our borders and our sovereignty.

We aggressively defend our rights to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness!

We aggressively defend our rights to freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom to keep and bear arms, right to due process, right to equality under the law, right to be governed under the rule of law, right to constitutionally limited government, right to corruption free government, right to self-government and our private property rights, etc.

We also aggressively defend our right to state and local government for all issues not expressly delegated to the central government by the constitution.

We aggressively defend our rights to free markets and our rights to live our lives free of government intrusion, interference, coercion, force, or abuse of any kind.

We aggressively defend our rights to national sovereignty, state sovereignty and individual sovereignty!

And this definition also includes aggressively fighting against all enemies foreign and domestic who may try to deprive us of our rights or sovereignty. This would obviously include all foreign enemies, but also we defend against RINOS, Democrats, liberals, socialists, Marxists, communists, militant feminists or homosexualists, radical environmentalists, etc, etc, etc.

And we expect our elected representatives to also aggressively defend our rights and fight against all enemies foreign and domestic. We do not elect people and send them to DC or our state capitals, etc, to reach across the aisles or to be bipartisan or to negotiate or compromise away our rights. If you're not going to aggressively fight for us, and for our rights, STAY OUT!!

We bow to no king but God!

Our God-given unalienable rights are NOT negotiable!

Do NOT Tread on US!

Thank you very much!


TOPICS: Activism/Chapters; Constitution/Conservatism; Free Republic; Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: bugzapper; conservatism; conservative; donttreadonme; duncanhunter; elections; fr; freerepublic; giulianitruthfile; goawaymittlovers; jimrob; liberty; mccaintruthfile; mittbots; mittromney; nc4na; ncna; nomorerinos; purgetherinos; romney; romneybots; romneytruthfile; slickmitt; slickwillard; teaparty
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 1,251-1,3001,301-1,3501,351-1,4001,401-1,449 last
To: reaganaut

There is no law that says it has to specifically be the Democrat and Republican parties.

Now, obviously, my first choice BY FAR would to be go with name recognition and take back the GOP. But the GOP is leaving me.


Winner takes all relegates against most 3 or 4 party races at the State and Rep levels, and effectively eliminates *any* competitiveness for extra party candidates and independents at the Presidential level. Perot’s billions may have made him a bit of a recent exception (although he didn’t follow through well) - but what Perot/Soros type financing can grassroots Conservatives expect? Come on - we’ve got to be realistic and adobt sensible strategies.


1,401 posted on 05/06/2009 11:42:55 AM PDT by SeattleBruce (God, Family, Country and the Tea Party! Take America Back!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1396 | View Replies]

To: Deb

Anymore tired cliches and ridiculous generalizations you’d care to rescue from the hack files?

- - - - - - -
How about Romney is REALLY a conservative? He is not a RINO, he is just misunderstood. /sarc


1,402 posted on 05/06/2009 12:00:59 PM PDT by reaganaut (Ex-Mormon, now Christian "I once was lost, but now am found; was blind but now I see")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1398 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut
I'm not a real strong Romney supporter, but I'm feeling lots warmer towards him with all the trashing by malcontents like you and the other thumb-suckers on this thread.

What did he do, pants you in the third grade?

1,403 posted on 05/06/2009 12:07:23 PM PDT by Deb (Beat him, strip him and bring him to my tent!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1402 | View Replies]

To: kevinm13

Thank you for your response. I too long for a return to wholesome party goals.


1,404 posted on 05/06/2009 12:13:28 PM PDT by DoughtyOne (Pres__ent Obama's own grandmother says he was born in Kenya. She was there.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1399 | View Replies]

To: Deb

I do not support any candidate who lies about being Pro-life, pro-gun, and pro-marriage when his record states otherwise.

I used to just dislike him, and definitely not trust him, but you sycophantic Romney supporters have show me how bad he really is.


1,405 posted on 05/06/2009 12:13:35 PM PDT by reaganaut (Ex-Mormon, now Christian "I once was lost, but now am found; was blind but now I see")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1403 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut

You really are insane. Why don’t you just not vote for him? All this hysteria is so odd.


1,406 posted on 05/06/2009 12:16:49 PM PDT by Deb (Beat him, strip him and bring him to my tent!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1405 | View Replies]

To: Deb; ejonesie22; colorcountry; Colofornian; Elsie; Tennessee Nana

Wow. I can now add “insane” to the list of names I have been called my Mittbots this week. Getting to be a long list there.

How is it “insane” to hold a candidate accountable for what he says and does? How is it “insane” to look at a politician’s RECORD over his sound bites?

I did not vote for him. I also do not want to see him drain the coffers of real conservative candidates. Romney has NO chance of winning a general election yet he will try again and take money away from better candidates.

Are you really that blind? Or is it you just don’t like my tagline. :)


1,407 posted on 05/06/2009 12:23:45 PM PDT by reaganaut (Ex-Mormon, now Christian "I once was lost, but now am found; was blind but now I see")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1406 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut
Um...I really don't care about you or your tag line and the fact that you need to call the usual Mormon-hating loon patrol, is kinda proof that there really is something seriously wrong with you.

Maybe you're feeling a little fragile after your hissy fits.

Just rest a while. It'll be okay. I promise I won't say how weird I think you all are anymore. Promise. I'm going now...um.. to play racquetball (tip-toeing out) so try to stay calm, okay? Stay happy....bye. (Geez, what a wanker)

1,408 posted on 05/06/2009 12:33:43 PM PDT by Deb (Beat him, strip him and bring him to my tent!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1407 | View Replies]

To: Plutarch
...may later be denounced by JimRob as dirty socialist RINO scum

I haven't seen those words used by Jim to describe McCain, Romney et al.

Perhaps you have a link?

Oh, and you have no problem with McCain, Romney, Snowe, Collins, Specter, Matthews, democrats et al defining the republican party?

1,409 posted on 05/06/2009 12:51:15 PM PDT by Syncro (Obama: the Muslim call to prayer is "one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1331 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

I was looking at the National Council for a New America and decided to make a few commits, seems this will be as good a place as any to post them.

First I would like to say that I think that these areas and to what extent the government is involved in them is/or should be a concert to all on this forum - if we don’t become involved in the National Council then what is a alternative to them. Second, although three of the ones evolved in this are people I would like to see in contention for the next presidential election I find it strange that all the listed “experts” are politician, why are people like the Heritage Foundation, and other relevant groups listed?

These are three quick comments on the topics they have listed, and I think the government is far too involved in/and should have little/no involvement (beyond criminal behavior) over anything except National Security. Personal innovation will restore the economy (which should be focused on production, not consumption). Although many areas of the country had people who couldn’t read (and still do), I think the education system worked much better when the government had less control over it.

Health care is approaching a state of crisis and much of it is because of government intervention and tort. Any involvement (besides minimal regulation) should be directed to areas of health care where the private sector does not/can not meet the needs of the citizens. The EMS system has interfaced very well with private medical practice, and emergency room crowding has been alleviated by private (mostly) clinics that are run by hospitals. I think this could be extended to make home health care more prevalent (as it has been in the past), we could have the same government /private interface here and people suffering from things like the flu (which normally not handled by EMS) could obtain medical care GMTs?)without having to get out of bed and go sit in a doctorss office.


1,410 posted on 05/06/2009 1:01:49 PM PDT by Peter Horry (Never were abilities so much below mediocrity so well rewarded - John Randolph)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Peter Horry

Socialism is never the answer.


1,411 posted on 05/06/2009 1:03:11 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1410 | View Replies]

To: Peter Horry

This site is dedicated to advancing the cause of liberty. If you want to push for socialism, take a freaking hike!


1,412 posted on 05/06/2009 1:04:41 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1410 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson; wagglebee; bvw
We, as conservatives, MUST promote the idea that we don't have to hold our noses to vote for the best of the worst. The libs don't do this...how did we become this way?

I'm tired of justifying my vote by saying...I'll hold my nose and vote for (McCain). He was a lousy candidate, he was a RINO. Romney is the same. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) - same. Now people are trying to promote Utah's Governor as a potential runner in 2012. As a Mormon, and a current resident of Utah...I say NO WAY!

However, 2 questions that beg for answers: 1)When do we stop holding our noses and supporting RINO's; 2) When will we pick a REAL conservative candidate - dare I say - regardless of the outcome of the election?

IMO, it's question #2 that is what we fear worst...losing. Well, we lost big time this past election. I don't mean in terms of numbers, but in terms of what we value. I believe we have to put our values out there with a candidate who is a true conservative, even if we think they won't win. I believe, however, we will win.

But we will continue to lose with RINO contenders - even if they win.

1,413 posted on 05/06/2009 1:10:08 PM PDT by zlala (sorry for the novel....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Deb
(Geez, what a wanker)

You're not the DALLAS Deb; are you?

1,414 posted on 05/06/2009 1:23:19 PM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1408 | View Replies]

To: Deb; reaganaut

You have quite a little mouth on you. It’s no wonder I’ve never seen you in the religion forum, the mod wouldn’t put up with it. But your feisty. If we could just harness your feistiness for the cause of conservatism instead of bashing your fellow freeper for the sake of a RINO, we’d be in much better shape.

Signed,

The loon


1,415 posted on 05/06/2009 1:25:14 PM PDT by colorcountry (A faith without truth is not true faith.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1408 | View Replies]

To: colorcountry

your=you’re


1,416 posted on 05/06/2009 1:26:31 PM PDT by colorcountry (A faith without truth is not true faith.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1415 | View Replies]

To: zlala
When will we pick a REAL conservative candidate - dare I say - regardless of the outcome of the election?

IMO, it's question #2 that is what we fear worst...losing. Well, we lost big time this past election. I don't mean in terms of numbers, but in terms of what we value. I believe we have to put our values out there with a candidate who is a true conservative, even if we think they won't win. I believe, however, we will win.

I would contend that the ONLY REAL conservative that they GOP has EVER nominated for president is Ronald Reagan (Goldwater was a fiscal conservative and strong on national defense, but socially liberal) and Reagan won in landslides both times. "Safe" candidates (Ford and Dole) have been disasters. Bushes may be able to win, but they destroy the morale of the conservative base in the process.

1,417 posted on 05/06/2009 1:34:35 PM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1413 | View Replies]

To: Syncro
I haven't seen those words used by Jim to describe McCain, Romney et al.

Perhaps you have a link?

His dirty deeds...

And lame ass socialist RINO liar Mitt Romney can KMA!!

Up yours, Romney, you socialist bastard!!

Oh, and you have no problem with McCain, Romney, Snowe, Collins, Specter, Matthews, democrats et al defining the republican party?

I've got as much problem with RINO's as anyone else. What I have a problem with here, is someone, anyone making decisions for me about who is and isn't a RINO. I've got a problem RINO lists drawn up by someone else and handed out on the basis of authority. You don't have a problem with that? Do you regularly hand over your ability to make conservative judgments to someone else?

I understand that maintaining a conservative website needs to keep out liberal trolls, etc. That's great. But I am not a liberal troll, and I object to anybody else deciding for me that some candidate is liberal, and proscribing any mention of this candidate aside from lame ritualistic denunciations.

1,418 posted on 05/06/2009 1:50:11 PM PDT by Plutarch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1409 | View Replies]

To: Plutarch
Dirty deeds, not so much.

The others? Yea, emotional responses.

No scum though.

If you think anyone is making a decision for you, that's your issue.

Personally, I read other’s opinions and decide for myself.

Jim's opinions resonate with mine most of the time, but not all of the time.

I have no problem with Romney McCain et al being called out for the liberal socialists that they are

Look, when you see a "RINO list", decide for yourself.

If you don't agree with some of them, debate the poster.

1,419 posted on 05/06/2009 2:00:18 PM PDT by Syncro (Obama: the Muslim call to prayer is "one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1418 | View Replies]

To: Syncro
......as dirty socialist RINO scum

I haven't seen those words used by Jim to describe McCain, Romney et al.

You haven't?

Well, you may have a point, he doesn't usually use such mild words.

1,420 posted on 05/06/2009 2:01:23 PM PDT by Graybeard58 (Selah)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1409 | View Replies]

To: Graybeard58
Everyone holds back once in a while...
1,421 posted on 05/06/2009 2:02:43 PM PDT by Syncro (Obama: the Muslim call to prayer is "one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1420 | View Replies]

To: Deb; Colofornian; Elsie

Um...I really don’t care about you or your tag line and the fact that you need to call the usual Mormon-hating loon patrol, is kinda proof that there really is something seriously wrong with you.

Maybe you’re feeling a little fragile after your hissy fits.

(Geez, what a wanker)

- - - - - - - - - - - -

ROFLMHO. You call me names, call me a loon and THEN turn around and say *I* am the one who is having ‘hissy fits’. Look in the mirror. You are coming unglued over this.

FWIW, I do not hate Mormons. I have several friends who are still LDS. I do however hate Mormon DOCTRINE and Practice.

And I will never apologize for speaking out against the LDS church that attempts to hijack Jesus and nullify His sacrifice.

I didn’t need to call in anyone. I pinged several others who have also been called names to point out that ONCE AGAIN it is the Mittbots that are the most vicious with the name calling.

And really, “wanker”? Does your Bishop know you use such language?


1,422 posted on 05/06/2009 2:05:26 PM PDT by reaganaut (Ex-Mormon, now Christian "I once was lost, but now am found; was blind but now I see")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1408 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

Well, I would have rather had a slick politician like Romney on the ticket than that unslick nobody like McCain. But, the pubbies don’t get to choose their reps anymore with open primaries. We will get what the unwashed want us to have.


1,423 posted on 05/06/2009 2:42:52 PM PDT by Goreknowshowtocheat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Deb; reaganaut
Oh, wait...we'll never know because no Third party candidate has ever been elected and won't be in the foreseeable future. Oh, well, all the better to trash Republicans.

Better be careful about exporting your vast political ignorance. (Not much better than your name-calling vocab).

I mean what? Do you think Republicans have been around since the onset of this country? Simply put, many Whigs defected to the Republican party in the 1850s...thereby the Republican party became the replacement party to the Whigs as the second party.

Just because a candidate cannot get beyond Third Party status...
...hasn't translated historically into preventing a Third Party from superceding the Second Party. The birth of the Republican party thereby assured the death of the Whig party.

I'm sure all the candidates from the Third parties will be pure and never compromise in Washington's political firing range.

Well, we can sure "be glad" that the Republican party had some pure social agenda objectives in 1856 (even if the candidates weren't 100% "pure" in its tactical strategies).

And what was at the foundational core of that fledgling party’s social agenda? (why in 1856 they said they would take on the “twin relics of barbarism.”)
And what were those “twin relics?” (slavery & polygamy)
And did they indeed take them on? (Yes)
And how many years did that take them? [Lincoln signed the emancipation proclamation within a decade...even though the remnant of slavery lived on culturally; the feds finally got the Mormon church to cave in on polygamy 34 years later, even though mainstream lds polygamist unions continued into the early 1960s and additional (new) LDS plural unions continued at an approximate rate of 11-12 a year through 1910.]
And did the Republicans stop opposing polygamy en masse even when the LDS church formally caved in 1890? (No. When the Utah LDS voted in a polygamist Democratic would-be Congressman named B.H. Roberts in 1898, they sent two-dozen banners with 7 million signatures to congress, saying they didn’t want Congress to seat Roberts, who took a third wife around 1894...AFTER the LDS manifesto. Congress then sent Roberts home).

Of course, perhaps, Deb, you'd accuse those 7 million banner-signers too high of a commitment to "purity," eh? And perhaps, Deb, you'd be telling us if we were all around in the late 1890s, "I'm sure all the candidates from any emerging Third parties will be pure and always keep from adding a simultaneous second & third wife and never compromise by adding additional wives in Washington's political firing range."

1,424 posted on 05/06/2009 2:58:11 PM PDT by Colofornian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1391 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut

The irony...

Delicious...


1,425 posted on 05/06/2009 3:24:04 PM PDT by ejonesie22 (Mitt Romney is a more subtle version of Arlen Specter with better hair...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1407 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

If what I have posted can be construed as pushing socialism them you are right, this site is not for me nor can it be effective in combating socialism. I will leave that decision to you, you can allow me to make reasonable comments on this forum or you can show me the door. My intent is to promote spiritual, financial and personal liberty, if my efforts are not wanted/appreciated here I will find another venue. By the way you are aware that the governors of Mississippi, Louisiana and Alaska have equal standing as “experts” in the referenced organization?


1,426 posted on 05/06/2009 3:27:00 PM PDT by Peter Horry (Never were abilities so much below mediocrity so well rewarded - John Randolph)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1412 | View Replies]

To: Peter Horry

financial = economic


1,427 posted on 05/06/2009 4:11:48 PM PDT by Peter Horry (Never were abilities so much below mediocrity so well rewarded - John Randolph)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1426 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

I ain’t no independence. (sarcasim)


1,428 posted on 05/06/2009 4:19:04 PM PDT by klimeckg ("The penalty good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1384 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

I ain’t no independence (Sarcasm)


1,429 posted on 05/06/2009 4:20:40 PM PDT by klimeckg ("The penalty good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1384 | View Replies]

To: zlala

“IMO, it’s question #2 that is what we fear worst...losing. Well, we lost big time this past election. I don’t mean in terms of numbers, but in terms of what we value. I believe we have to put our values out there with a candidate who is a true conservative, even if we think they won’t win. I believe, however, we will win”

You didn’t post this to me but I will take a stab at it. Rush had said that only about 30 percent of the people support a socialist agenda (I doubt it is that high) so obviously something is wrong. I believe that is that we are tolerating voter fraud (that probably gives us a 5-8 percent handicap) and we allow the media to filter/present our message (add another 10 percent) and uninspiring candidates that are little better that are little better than the Democrats mean we loose. Address/correct these problems and we win .... BIG TIME. As far as the media goes I think all the Republicans have to do is give these forums, and take radio SOMETHING to talk about, they don’t have to tell us WHAT to talk about (as the Democrats do - think repetitive phases that Rush has played.


1,430 posted on 05/06/2009 4:58:12 PM PDT by Peter Horry (Never were abilities so much below mediocrity so well rewarded - John Randolph)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1413 | View Replies]

To: Peter Horry

SOMETHING = SOMETHING OF VALUE AND SUBSTANCE


1,431 posted on 05/06/2009 5:05:52 PM PDT by Peter Horry (Never were abilities so much below mediocrity so well rewarded - John Randolph)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1430 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut
And really, “wanker”? Does your Bishop know you use such language?
 
 
But WAIT!!
 
There's MORE!!!   
 



 

prophet kimball"All of this should be conveyed without having priesthood leaders focus upon intimate matters which are a part of husband and wife relationships. Skillful interviewing and counseling can occur without discussion of clinical details by placing firm responsibility on individual members of the Church to put their lives in order before exercising the privilege of entering a house of the Lord. The First Presidency has interpreted oral sex as constituting an unnatural, impure, or unholy practice. If a person is engaged in a practice which troubles him enough to ask about it, he should discontinue it."
- Official Declaration of the First Presidency of the Church, January 5th, 1982


spencer kimball"Prophets anciently and today condemn masturbation. It induces feelings of guilt and shame. It is detrimental to spirituality. It indicates slavery to the flesh, not that mastery of it and the growth toward godhood which is the object of our mortal life. Our modern prophet has indicated that no young man should be called on a mission who is not free from this practice. What is more, it too often leads to grievous sin, even to that sin against nature, homosexuality. For, done in private, it evolves often into mutual masturbation-practiced with another person of the same sex and thence into total homosexuality...."
- Prophet Spencer W. Kimball, The Miracle of Forgiveness, Pages 77-79, 81-82

"Among the most common sexual sins our young people commit are necking and petting. Not only do these improper relations often lead to fornication, [unwed] pregnancy, and abortions - all ugly sins - but in and of themselves they are pernicious evils, and it is often difficult for youth to distinguish where one ends and another begins. They awaken lust and stir evil thoughts and sex desires. They are but parts of the whole family of related sins and indiscretions. Almost like twins, 'petting' and fornication are alike."
- Prophet Spencer W. Kimball, The Miracle of Forgiveness, page 65


spencer kimball"Also far-reaching is the effect of the loss of chastity. Once given or taken or stolen it can never be regained. Even in a forced contact such as rape or incest, the injured one is greatly outraged. If she has not cooperated and contributed to the foul deed, she is of course in a more favorable position. There is no condemnation where there is no voluntary participation. It is better to die in defending one's virtue than to live having lost it without a struggle."
- Prophet Spencer W. Kimball, The Miracle of Forgiveness, page 196


"And Cain said unto the Lord, My punishment is greater than I can bear. Behold, thou hast driven me out this day from the face of the earth." (Genesis 4:9-14.) That was true of murder. It is also true of illicit sex, which, of course, includes all petting, fornication, adultery, homosexual acts, and all other perversions. The Lord may say to offenders, as He did to Cain, "What hast thou done?" The children thus conceived make damning charges against you; the companions who have been frustrated and violated condemn you; the body that has been defiled cries out against you; the spirit which has been dwarfed convicts you. You will have difficulty throughout the ages in totally forgiving yourself."
-Prophet Spencer W. Kimball, "Love Versus Lust", BYU Speech January 5, 1965. Often-used quote still used today in LDS seminary classes.


kimball"I do not find in the Bible the modern terms "petting" nor "homosexuality," yet I found numerous scriptures which forbade such acts under by whatever names they might be called. I could not find the term "homosexuality," but I did find numerous places where the Lord condemned such a practice with such vigor that even the death penalty was assessed."
- Apostle Spencer W. Kimball, "Love Versus Lust", BYU Speech January 5, 1965


"If adultery or fornication justified the death penalty in the old days, and still in Christ's day, is the sin any less today because the laws of the land do not assess the death penalty for it? Is the act less grievous? There must be a washing, a purging, a changing of attitudes, a correcting of appraisals, a strengthening toward self-mastery. There must be many prayers, and volumes of tears. There must be an inner conviction giving to the sin its full diabolical weight. There must be increased devotion and much thought and study. And this takes energy and time and often is accompanied with sore embarrassment, heavy deprivations and deep trials, even if indeed one is not excommunicated from the Church, losing all spiritual blessings."
-Prophet Spencer W. Kimball, The Miracle of Forgiveness, Page 155


"How like the mistletoe is immorality. The killer plant starts with a sticky sweet berry. Little indiscretions are the berries -- indiscretions like sex thoughts sex discussions, passionate kissing, pornography. The leaves and little twigs are masturbation and necking and such, growing with every exercise. The full-grown plant is petting and sex looseness. It confounds, frustrates, and destroys like the parasite if it is not cut out and destroyed, for, in time it robs the tree, bleeds its life, and leaves it barren and dry; and, strangely enough, the parasite dies with its host."
- Apostle Spencer W. Kimball, General Conference Address, April 1, 1967.


1,432 posted on 05/07/2009 4:31:31 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1422 | View Replies]

To: Peter Horry
By the way you are aware that the governors of Mississippi, Louisiana and Alaska have equal standing as “experts” in the referenced organization?
 
Speaking of 'experts'...
 
....Words of Wisdom from one of MORMONism's late Prophets:
 


In conclusion let us summarize this grand key, these “Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Prophet”, for our salvation depends on them.


1. The prophet is the only man who speaks for the Lord in everything.
2. The living prophet is more vital to us than the standard works.
3. The living prophet is more important to us than a dead prophet.
4. The prophet will never lead the church astray.
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.
6. The prophet does not have to say “Thus Saith the Lord,” to give us scripture.
7. The prophet tells us what we need to know, not always what we want to know.
8. The prophet is not limited by men’s reasoning.
9. The prophet can receive revelation on any matter, temporal or spiritual.
10. The prophet may advise on civic matters.
11. The two groups who have the greatest difficulty in following the prophet are the proud who are learned and the proud who are rich.
12. The prophet will not necessarily be popular with the world or the worldly.
13. The prophet and his counselors make up the First Presidency—the highest quorum in the Church.
14. The prophet and the presidency—the living prophet and the First Presidency—follow them and be blessed—reject them and suffer.

I testify that these fourteen fundamentals in following the living prophet are true. If we want to know how well we stand with the Lord then let us ask ourselves how well we stand with His mortal captain—how close do our lives harmonize with the Lord’s anointed—the living Prophet—President of the Church, and with the Quorum of the First Presidency.

 

Ezra Taft Benson

(Address given Tuesday, February 26, 1980 at Brigham Young University)


1,433 posted on 05/07/2009 4:37:09 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1426 | View Replies]

To: Elsie; All

Please don’t use my post as a springboard for you diatribe against the Mormon Church, do your business elsewhere, and don’t forget to wash your hands after you are finished. My point was that three people (namely Barbour, Jindal, and now Plain) that are listed for as experts for the National Council are people mentioned for the next presidential campaign and whom I would support.

I also said I thought the stated goals for the National Council were worthy of support/discussion by members of this forum and asked if there was a preferred alternative to the National Council for us to become involved. My questions were why are real experts not listed for these areas of consideration, I mentioned the Heritage Foundation as one possible source and Steve Forbes comes to mind as a consultant on economic matters. I am interested in the stated of the National Council and was hoping it could be on this forum, I am not interested in insults, petty bickering or personal vendettas.

____________________________________________________________

Our National Panel of Experts:

Governor Haley Barbour
Governor Jeb Bush
Governor Bobby Jindal
Senator John McCain
Governor Mitt Romney

May 4 - Cantor Announces Governor Palin to Join National Council for a New America Panel of Experts

1. Economy: Real Solutions for Economic Recovery
2. Healthcare: Building a 21st Century, Patient-Centered System
3. Education: Preparing Our Children to Succeed
4. Energy: Solutions for Energy Independence
5. National Security: Defending American Liberty and Freedom


1,434 posted on 05/07/2009 6:32:46 AM PDT by Peter Horry (Never were abilities so much below mediocrity so well rewarded - John Randolph)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1433 | View Replies]

To: Peter Horry
Please don’t use my post as a springboard for you diatribe against the Mormon Church...

diatribe ???

I merely posted quotes from the LDS Organization®.

Do their OWN words say things about them?

1,435 posted on 05/07/2009 7:50:05 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1434 | View Replies]

To: Elsie

I merely posted quotes from the LDS Organization®.

Just honor my request not to launch it from my post, that would be the Christian thing to do, would it not. I welcome your civil discussion about my post, If that is not your intent, do not post to me.


1,436 posted on 05/07/2009 8:01:40 AM PDT by Peter Horry (Never were abilities so much below mediocrity so well rewarded - John Randolph)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1435 | View Replies]

To: Elsie

hamster placemark ;)


1,437 posted on 05/07/2009 9:21:28 AM PDT by reaganaut (Ex-Mormon, now Christian "I once was lost, but now am found; was blind but now I see")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1435 | View Replies]

To: Peter Horry
?Just honor my request not to launch it from my post, that would be the Christian thing to do, would it not.

I am not interested in defending what is 'christian' or not.

If you post something that I wish to comment upon, I will - whether you give me you official approval or not.

If what I am posting upsets you somehow, the intelligent thing would be to ignore it; would it not?

1,438 posted on 05/08/2009 5:37:05 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1436 | View Replies]

To: Elsie

“If what I am posting upsets you somehow, the intelligent thing would be to ignore it; would it not

Wait, dearie, you posted TO me and did not comment on anything concerning my post, you simply used it as a launching pad for your religious post ... not very considerate. You are able to see the difference, are you not? Plus, I, and others, may view it as behavior inconsistent with Christian creed. Now run along, do not post TO me and oh yes .... HAVE A NICE DAY.


1,439 posted on 05/08/2009 6:21:29 AM PDT by Peter Horry (Never were abilities so much below mediocrity so well rewarded - John Randolph)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1438 | View Replies]

To: Peter Horry
Wait, dearie, you posted TO me and did not comment on anything concerning my post, you simply used it as a launching pad for your religious post ... not very considerate.

?Sorry, but you are incorrect.

I was 'commentong' on the EXPERTS that you had in quotes - pointing out that LDS 'experts' exist in it's ruling class.


By the way you are aware that the governors of Mississippi, Louisiana and Alaska have equal standing as “experts” in the referenced organization?

1,440 posted on 05/08/2009 10:32:31 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1439 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson; Taxman
If there is anyone here who doesn't understand why we cannot support a slick socialist politician like Mitt Romney, God help you, but you're on the wrong website.

I have been concerned about the rude treatment I have received on Romney threads and even wrote you directly to complain when I sent in my last donation. I wish you would have refused my donation and told me I was not welcome here then.

1,441 posted on 05/11/2009 7:19:56 AM PDT by Zevonismymuse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Deb
Um...I really don't care about you or your tag line and the fact that you need to call the usual Mormon-hating loon patrol, is kinda proof that there really is something seriously wrong with you.
Lighten up, Francis. Shooting down a candidate's political record while being an ex-Mormon hardly qualifies someone as a "Mormon-hater".

For the record, I'm agnostic, so I really have no dog in any argument over religion. Frankly, the relationship between religion and politics is a noose which hangs conservatives every time. The framers realized that a belief in God drove their personal value systems, not their voting demographics, and created a government that was based on the rights of mankind (granted by God) rather than man's position on religion. It's a fine line, but religious views have no place in the governance of a nation, or any other system which involves linear thinking in the arena of rational thought.

1,442 posted on 05/11/2009 8:22:23 AM PDT by snowrip (Liberal? YOU ARE A GUTLESS SOCIALIST LOSER WITH NO RATIONAL ARGUMENT.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1408 | View Replies]

To: WFTR; nhwingut

A blatant lie will permanently ruin a reputation.


1,443 posted on 05/15/2009 9:16:43 PM PDT by ansel12 (Romney (guns)"instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 391 | View Replies]

To: WFTR; nhwingut

Meaning your reputations, spreading lies about Governor Palin will only damage your Romney agenda even more.


1,444 posted on 05/15/2009 9:48:30 PM PDT by ansel12 (Romney (guns)"instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1443 | View Replies]

To: adlucem

https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/pledge


1,445 posted on 05/27/2009 11:17:44 PM PDT by Bradís Gramma (Life is but a big granola bar.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1058 | View Replies]

To: BinaryBoy
I sometimes get the impression that Freerepublic is Republican before conservative.

Probably because we just came out of the general election season, in which you have to deal with the crap you are handed, either McBama or O'Bambi. Both sucked, but one sucked a little bit less. As Winston Churchill said: In war as in life, it is often necessary when some cherished scheme has failed, to take up the best alternative open, and if so, it is folly not to work for it with all your might.

1,446 posted on 05/28/2009 7:05:58 AM PDT by mnehring
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

Romney is “someone we cannot support”. And, yet, similar “someones” keep getting nominated by the GOP for President. Often with considerable conservative support. This is likely to happen in ‘12, unless sufficient numbers decide that it cannot be permitted again.

“We cannot afford to lose again!” - Mario Cuomo 1992, or was it ‘88?

Regarding Collins & Snowe: credible conservative candidates have frequently run for high office in Maine. For example, the southern Maine congressional district. They often receive limited support from the grassroots and rely on party insiders for the base of their campaign.

When the day comes that this changes, the ‘vacuum’ will no longer exist and there will no longer be candidates like Collins & Snowe nominated. The 2 ladies are largely a symptom of, and end result of, conservative indifference.


1,447 posted on 05/28/2009 9:22:20 PM PDT by campaignPete R-CT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

Absolutely agree. The site is perfect for James von Brunn. This thread has been pulled.
Pulled on 06/10/2009 12:14:03 PM PDT by Admin Moderator, reason:

No thanks

Okay


1,448 posted on 06/10/2009 1:20:22 PM PDT by ridge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
"We went through this with the abortionist, gay rights activist, illegal alien supporting, gun grabbing Rudy Giuliani until someone created another website call WAnkers for Rudy and they all flew the coop. Hopefully, before too much FReeper blood is shed, someone will create a WAnkers for Romney site and we can be left to fight the good fight as we see fit! "

I love disguised subtlety! {:-)

1,449 posted on 07/03/2009 3:03:32 PM PDT by SuperLuminal (Where is another agitator for republicanism like Sam Adams when we need him?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 1,251-1,3001,301-1,3501,351-1,4001,401-1,449 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson