Posted on 08/03/2012 1:26:47 PM PDT by Bratch
Don’t buy the doom and gloom pronouncements from conservatives telling you, “this is the most important election in history.” A loss for Mitt Romney would not necessarily spell long lasting disaster for Republicans, nor would it be the death-knell to conservatism. In fact, it’s possible a 2012 loss could lay the groundwork for a stronger Republican party and conservative movement.
Elections are almost always seen as urgent and morally imperative. But sometimes major victories can only come in the aftermath of what appear to be devastating defeats. John Kerry‘s loss in 2004 laid the groundwork for a Democratic takeover in 2006 and 2008, and Jimmy Carter‘s defeat of Gerald Ford in 1976 paved the way for the Ronald Reagan in 1980. In other words, it is a mistake to assume losing a presidential election is a permanent defeat.
“This should be the most important election since 1980, but so far it is not,” says Reagan biographer Craig Shirley. “Scottish historian Thomas Carlyle postulated the ‘great man’ theory of history, and indeed this was true with Washington, Jackson, Lincoln, TR, FDR and Reagan. But history has not summoned forth great men in 2012 and in fact our history today is small.”
This is not to say Republicans should concede the election, but conservatives should keep November in proper perspective.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...
BTW, FWIW, we’ve both been here since 1998.
It appears that the author of this screed was given a typewriter to exercise his fingers after his pre-frontal lobotomy.
>> “ The Tea Party movement is not crazy about Romney. But I predict they will turn out in record numbers to defeat Obama.” <<
.
Exactly.
And the Bo shills will continue to post vomit like this thread in hopes of saving his fetid corpse.
>> “Are you absolutely sure it doesn’t?” <<
.
Well, not counting Roberts...
I was so taken back by your attitude that I read most of the thread. It is not just me you are attacking. It was a mistake to respond back to you, but I’ll do it this last time just to let you know why:
Your posts to me reminded me of the posting style of the liberals I spar with on the internet every day. The ad-hominem and disagreement with almost no supporting evidence and the basic attitude of “what, are you stupid?” is something I have no time for.
Done. Good luck on your quest to get half the site that disagrees with you banned like they do on DU.
BTW, FWIW, we’ve both been here since 1998.
***And yet your sign-in date is 2011 - 08 26
So does that mean you’re a retread?
You call Romney a POS. However, we are all flawed. When voting for someone for president, you are looking for the person who is “leased flawed” for the job.
***Why is it that you don’t take this up with JimRob, the owner of this website who refuses to vote for this lying, baby-killing statist? Oh, I know why. It has to do with someone who bootlicks authority and then kicks down those who are lower in authority...
People who write this tripe are political imbeciles. On the issues of Judges alone, the damage another 4 years of Obama appointed judges would do for the next two generations to our Republic would be incalculable.
You call Romney a POS. However, we are all flawed. When voting for someone for president, you are looking for the person who is “leased flawed” for the job. The one thing we have to fall back on regarding Romney is that he has publicly said that his first priority will be to revoke Obamacare. Which would you prefer, the one who publicly WANTS obamacare, or the one who, publicly, has said getting rid of it is his first priority?
***Ask JimRob. If he believed that was Romnutz’s first priority, maybe he could be persuaded to vote for a lying, baby-killing statist.
something dramatic happened. The SCOTUS decision was just that.
***What SCOUTS decision was that, which changed your vote from conservative to Lepubrican Librul? Perhaps you can convince JimRob to change his vote for this lying, babykilling statist.
I was so taken back by your attitude
***You mean, the same attitude as JimRob who refuses to vote for a lying, baby-killing statist?
Your posts to me reminded me of the posting style of the liberals I spar with on the internet every day. The ad-hominem and disagreement with almost no supporting evidence and the basic attitude of “what, are you stupid?”
***Tell you what. You post the same arguments to JimRob and we’ll see how it goes. Otherwise, maybe you’re just a bootlicker, posting to those in authority differently than those who have none.
I was so taken back by your attitude
***You mean, the same attitude as JimRob who refuses to vote for a lying, baby-killing statist?
You seem to see the words “opinion” and attitude as synonymous. They’re not.
After my last post to you. I read some of your posts to other people here and it confirmed what I suspected. You’re an internet bully. Oddly, I’ve never come across you here before that I can remember.
Also, I’ve never seen a poster invoke JimRob in their posts as much as you. It is as though you are attempting to bait people. Either that or you are taking a position contrary to your own in an attempt to get yourself banned. Either way, it doesn’t play well to those actually paying attention.
This really IS my last conversation with you. I noticed you take this attitude on any subject (not just this one) regarding folks you disagree with. I can get that kind of abuse on liberal sites.
Also, I’ve never seen a poster invoke JimRob in their posts as much as you.
***Yes, I started doing that a lot because I’ve noticed CINOs will post incredible insults to other freepers but not to JimRob who shares such positions. It’s basically a form of bootlicking, to say something different to someone who has authority than to someone who has no authority.
Good luck on your quest to get half the site that disagrees with you banned
***I have no real desire to get anyone banned. See below for my proposal to prevent such a thing.
However, you may be right that I’ve been engaging in some manner of “bullying” because apparently I’ve been put on some form of probation. My posts say this: “ Your comment has been submitted for review.” So, if I have overstepped a line that’s been drawn I would like to know where that line is, and apologize. It’s just too easy to cross an invisible line.
JimRob, can you please clear up where the line is that I’ve apparently crossed? Also, how about the proposal I copied you on before?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2905011/replies?c=403
To: wolfcreek
Nothing has changed about my principles, ethics, or my relationship with God but you sure couldn’t tell it from the way I’ve been treated here lately. Why?
***My guess is that JimRob doesn’t want to open another heart-wrenching bugzapper thread. So he allows the RINO squishes to bash conservatives.
If it were me, I’d post a boundary establishing thread that draws the line for both sides. If you have decided for yourself to vote for Romney, that’s your own choice that we disagree with. If you’ve decided to write in a conservative, that is also your own choice. Each Freeper makes their choice and the choice is respected
But if you try to separate conservatives from their conservative beliefs on this conservative website to get them to vote for a librul like Romney, you’re a librul and you’ve crossed the line. Similarly, if you call the Romney voters something like ‘squishes’ or ‘cowards’ or CINOs or ‘libruls’ then you have also crossed the line. Anyone who crosses the line gets one warning, then a timeout.
Seems like a simple way to keep the peace during such a troublesome time that the choice is 2 babykilling libtards.
368 posted on 07/11/2012 8:30:11 AM PDT by Kevmo ( FRINAGOPWIASS: Free Republic Is Not A GOP Website. It’s A Socon Site.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 335 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
________________________________________
To: Kevmo
If it were me, I’d post a boundary establishing thread that draws the line for both sides. If you have decided for yourself to vote for Romney, that’s your own choice that we disagree with. If you’ve decided to write in a conservative, that is also your own choice. Each Freeper makes their choice and the choice is respected.
I called directly to the top for this several months ago, as soon as it became clear that Romney was pulling away with the nomination.
I was told pointedly that there would be absolutely no room on FR for those who thought supporting the GOP nominee was best for America.
Then there was the so-called “truce” that was utterly ill-formed and incoherent and failed to address any of the real issues at hand.
Now here we are, doing what we’re doing.
Oh, well. At least we’re making the DUmmies, the commies, Team Obama, the rent-seekers, the moochers, and the jihadis happy.
403 posted on 07/11/2012 11:08:13 AM PDT by rogue yam
To: rogue yam; Jim Robinson
Well, this is interesting. We’ve got a RINO squish agreeing with a hold-your-ground Conservative agreeing with eachother on how this situation should be handled on Free Republic.
540 posted on 07/11/2012 5:03:37 PM PDT by Kevmo ( FRINAGOPWIASS: Free Republic Is Not A GOP Website. It’s A Socon Site.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 403 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
http://www.freerepublic.com/~rogueyam/
This account has been banned or suspended.
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.