Skip to comments.Are you an ABO like me PO'd at JR for getting called a RINO? Truce declared! Please DONATE!
Posted on 05/06/2012 8:09:35 AM PDT by Seizethecarp
click here to read article
I do not believe so, but you could be right. If you do not want to answer, that’s ok. It’s not mandatory.
I would refuse to fight and die for either of those hypothetical candidates.
Since you are being so black and white, lets make it the Age of Consent and Incest laws being abolished as the social issues, okay?
Candidate A: Redistribute wealth with guaranteed minimum income but opposes legalized child molesting.
Candidate B: Supports decriminalized child molesting but opposes all forms of welfare.
I’d rather have a poor country that isn’t okay with diddling kids in school than the other way around if that’s what your asking.
There, I will trade you a loaded question for another one.
While it's true that JR has called a truce, I believe you mischaracterize his intent and clearly written words by the second half of your comment, which I bolded above. I wouldn't presume to speak for JR about this, but below is his most recent comment regarding Romney. His comment is 100% consistent with everything I've ever seen JR write about Romney, and it would be hard to characterize it as any kind of support, grudging or otherwise.
JimRob's comment yesterday regarding Romney - http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2880397/posts?page=91#91:
Look, there is no doubt whatsoever about Romney being a liberal progressive. Our pro-life, pro-family, pro-gun, pro-limited government, pro-constitution, pro-liberty principles mean absolutely nothing to him. Theyre just talking points that he can give lip service to one way or the other. And he has. Hes been on all sides on all issues and back and forth on most. And he lies. A lot. Ive posted at least 10,000 times over the last seven or eight years that I would never vote for this progressive bastard so dont be shocked. Rove screwed the pooch not me.
Yes, JR did not express any support of any kind for Romney.
Oh, don’t feel like a love of cats is embarrassing if you’re a guy. I don’t see them as feminine animals at all. They’re cool little tigers, cut down to size....and the most efficient predators of all. You should get on the cat ping list!
You’ll put me down for C. Sorry.
I don’t see myself as a bigot or trying to set myself up as being holier than thou. The Christian bible (the true Word of God in my belief) clearly teaches us to beware of false prophets and false prophesy and I’m sincerely doubtful of Joseph Smith and his book. Sincerely doubt it’s the true Word of God. That’s just a fact of life and wouldn’t dream of telling other Christians who believe likewise that they cannot express their doubts about this particular subject on FR. And I definitely will not have it promoted and protected as “truth” on FR without allowing criticism.
The one you picked "stubborn and complete intolerance" usually never applies to anything since most folks are usually opposed only to PART of whatever it is you think they are being bigoted about. It's really difficult to find an exception if you think about it hard.
I respond to the loaded question with one of my own.
Under your analysis, I have no dog in the fight either way. I am looking for a candidate who would, if the opportunity came:
Get rid of most of the Federal Government’s useless departments and agencies, notably the DOE, HUD, BATFE, and some others;
Get rid of government handouts such as WIC, for example;
Remove Obamacare immediately;
Not spend more money than was brought in;
Propose a flat 8% income tax (God doesn’t ask for more than 10%; why should the government?)if there has to be such a thing- a protective tariff such as was in place prior to the Wilson administration would be even better still;
Reinstate the military’s ban on homosexuals even serving, as it was prior to Clinton.
Encourage and support the passage of a Federal marriage amendment because a society that wishes to survive cannot do so in a state of anarchy, either political or social.
Social conservatism and fiscal conservatism need not be incompatible.
I remember CLOWN POSSE or was it KLOWN POSSE. Then there was an organized gang of libertarian homosexuals ~ they were a riot. They're gone.
I saw that ... and thanks for the ping!
“A thing cant be demonized that already demonizes itself.”
“You came onto this thread angry, shrill, and screeching-clearly intending to start something. IMO, youre a malcontent who simply cannot tolerate a POV which disagrees with your own.”
You are too funny.
Will Jews go to heaven?
If you go to the link at the top of the thread you will see that all conservative FReepers are now being permitted to express a full range of views on how their conscience requires them to vote in November and why.
We conservatives are now being “permitted” to express our views?
Isn’t that special!
I donated to FR yesterday and it might be my last donation.
LOL... and I was trying to think of a cool way to say that I hoped that there were more girls at home like you ;^)
"Bully" is precisely the right word, Semper.
There have been people triple teaming to try to get good freepers banned, tattling, ridiculous name-calling, and all with no response from the Mods.
If it just happened to me I'd say "oh, well" and stay away for a while, but it happened to some of the most thoughtful long-term, proven conservatives, and it frankly made me think that the forum itself was done for.
I'm sorry, Seize, but donation under such a fragile truce (I was accosted just yesterday, and called "evil") isn't going to happen.
Like I said, I'm not a big time donor, and don't want to lose my posting privileges, and am as good (or bad) as anyone in getting into spitting matches, but it's going to take some time to see if the truce is a reality.
How about Henry VIII? Would you tell people to beware of George Washington because he belonged to the sect started by him?
The MA legislature couldn't do it, so the ruling took effect. As Governor, Romney could not overrule the Supreme Ct.
In their complaint the plaintiffs request only a declaration that their exclusion and the exclusion of other qualified same-sex couples from access to civil marriage violates Massachusetts law. We declare that barring an individual from the protections, benefits, and obligations of civil marriage solely because that person would marry a person of the same sex violates the Massachusetts Constitution. We vacate the summary judgment for the department. We remand this case to the Superior Court for entry of judgment consistent with this opinion. Entry of judgment shall be stayed for 180 days to permit the Legislature to take such action as it may deem appropriate in light of this opinion. See, e.g., Michaud v. Sheriff of Essex County, 390 Mass. 523 , 535-536 (1983).
(From the original ruling, concurred by the Supreme Ct.)
The State was a party to the suit (State Department of Public Health), Romney as Governor was certainly bound by the decision.
The MA Supreme Court had the authority to rule on this, the USSC refused to hear it and let it stand. Unfortunately, God's law didn't count in this matter.
There was no specific order to anyone, but the ruling stated clearly that gay marriage could not remain illegal.
That entire post is simply obfuscation and "the definition of what is is".
Romney simply enforced the Supreme Court ruling, as he should have. He did, in fact, fight it as long as he could.
The blame for gay marriage rests solely with the court....