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

Skip to comments.

Notice: FR is and will remain a pro-life, small government conservative site.
April 10, 2012 | Jim Robinson

Posted on 04/10/2012 12:29:15 PM PDT by Jim Robinson

To hell with the GOP-e. Barring a miracle, they got their big government, unconstitutional mandate loving, socialist abortionist Obama-lite RINO on the ballot, they can now get him elected.

We are the resistance!!

Shove him down our throats today, we shove him up your donkeys in November!!

I can see November from my house!!


TOPICS: Breaking News; Constitution/Conservatism; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 50dollarabortion; abortion; etchasketch; gaymarriage; gonewt; gungrabber; homosexualagenda; jimrobinson; leftist; liar; liberalappointees; liberaljudges; libertykiller; mandates; moralabsolutes; politicalwhore; prolife; romney; romneycare; romneysucks; santorumoutofrace; saynotorino; trojanhorse; votenewt; votesantorum
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 1,101-1,1501,151-1,2001,201-1,250 ... 1,351-1,370 next last
To: sam_paine
It's schizophrenic for FR to freak out about "pro-life" candidates since it doesn't have anything to do with them, and further, if they're going to be consistent, then they would be anti-Reagan today as well.

They are not saying they will only vote for someone who can, as President, change abortion. They are saying that they cannot support a person for President who personally is pro-abortion.

It is about the person's moral character, not the powers of the office. They choose to support only pro-life candidates, regardless of the powers of the office they are running for.

1,151 posted on 04/11/2012 2:11:37 PM PDT by 5thGenTexan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1107 | View Replies]

To: CardCarryingMember.VastRightWC

Romney is NOT a conservative nor a Republican. He IS a liberal.


1,152 posted on 04/11/2012 2:14:21 PM PDT by DJ MacWoW (America! The wolves are here! What will you do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1150 | View Replies]

To: 5thGenTexan
It is about the person's moral character, not the powers of the office.

Exactly. A divorcee with enstranged children who authorized the sale of weapons to terrorists like Ronald Reagan would be morally unacceptable to such people.

1,153 posted on 04/11/2012 2:19:00 PM PDT by sam_paine (X .................................)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1151 | View Replies]

To: Sola Veritas

Thank you very much, Sola Veritas!! Banned one of them last night for calling us “traitors.” Those who believe conservatives are traitors can post elsewhere. TrueBlue wankers gains another a RINO.


1,154 posted on 04/11/2012 2:20:23 PM PDT by Jim Robinson (There's no crying in rebellion!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1097 | View Replies]

To: sam_paine

If you’re going to try to bring down Reagan to support your favorite pro-abort/socialist RINO, perhaps you should post elsewhere. TrueBlueWankersRUS.com is looking for new posters. Suggest you move along.


1,155 posted on 04/11/2012 2:24:05 PM PDT by Jim Robinson (There's no crying in rebellion!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1088 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

I said to hell with the GOP years ago!!!

They ALL suck!!!


1,156 posted on 04/11/2012 2:29:40 PM PDT by surfer (To err is human, to really foul things up takes a Democrat, don't expect the GOP to have the answer!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
... perhaps you should post elsewhere. TrueBlueWankersRUS.com is looking for new posters.***

C'mon. Of course Romney is a lame choice. People are setting up hurdles for candidates that Ronald Reagan himself could not clear. That's a problem don't you think?

As far as "bringing down Reagan," LOL. I worked for Reagan before you had your first keyboard, Jim. If we hold our breath and let Obama win then Obama will eliminate all "dissenting" sites like FR in the next term anyhow.

If I have violated any of your rules for your site, of course you are entitled to purge me (sorry, "Zot" sounds much less totalitarian, right?) at any time.

***"...please remember to use common courtesy when posting and refrain from posting personal attacks, profanity, vulgarity, threats, ..."

1,157 posted on 04/11/2012 2:49:59 PM PDT by sam_paine (X .................................)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1155 | View Replies]

To: sam_paine

But if [marxist Obama] instead finds victory over a Mormon "etch-a-sketch" RINO who reverts to more liberal positions, the GOP is forced to accept that what they needed to do was move even farther left.

I'm not sure I follow. The GOP driving further left than Romney puts them well past Clinton's Village. The Republican party would become more socialist than the Democrat party. (And some here even then will cry out that we must support "our" team.) The GOP has been moving left for decades. Even McCain's loss in 2008 appears not to have deterred that fall. Our machine needs to change course. Electing Romney -- giving this liberal the appearance of representing "conservatism" and us -- will embolden the GOP on its current course ... not change it.


1,158 posted on 04/11/2012 2:56:49 PM PDT by so_real ( "The Congress of the United States recommends and approves the Holy Bible for use in all schools.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1143 | View Replies]

To: sam_paine; Jim Robinson; onyx
Those who stand for nothing will fall for anything. I'll stand by my principles.

Romney's record.

1. Implemented/created Gay Marriage in MA
2. Supported and forced Gay Adoption in MA
3. Supported Abortion wholeheartedly
4. Raised taxes/fees over 300% while being Governor of MA
5. Implemented a state-level Cap and Trade system.
6. Supported Man-Made Global Warming
7. Supported the Brady Bill
8. Implemented a state level “Assault” Weapons Bill after the Federal AWB was allowed to expire
9. Supported TARP
10. Supported Amnesty for Illegal Aliens (Citizenship for those already here)
11. Supported McCain-Kennedy(Amenesty)
12. Implemented a socialized medicine in MA called RomneyCare complete with an Individual Mandate and $50 abortions
13. Nominated 27 Democrats (out of 36 nominations) for judgeships in MA, many of them extreme left-wingers

1,159 posted on 04/11/2012 2:59:12 PM PDT by DJ MacWoW (America! The wolves are here! What will you do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1157 | View Replies]

To: GeronL
I'm thinking that if Obama wins by a plurality in which 60 percent or more of the votes cast were AGAINST him, it would embolden REAL conservatives in Congress to fight liberal nominees "tooth and nail." Right now, they're too timid because they think it's safer to be moderate; Romney's election would only confirm the advantages of being moderate. Romney's DEFEAT at the price of a really weakened Obama victory, would confirm that the safest thing is to steer HARD RIGHT.

Of course it's all speculation, it's all a gamble, but it seems clear to me at this point that the much better bet would be to gamble on conservatism by rejecting Romney.

1,160 posted on 04/11/2012 3:01:31 PM PDT by Finny ("Raise hell. Vote smart." -- Ted Nugent * By the way, Ted, voting for Romney is voting stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1149 | View Replies]

To: sam_paine

Look, I’m not going to argue with you or anyone else about this bullshit. Continue tearing down conservatives like Reagan in some lame attempt to build up your abortionist/socialist/liberal lying bastard and your welcome here runs out. FR is a pro-life, pro-family, traditional conservative site. Technically, any poster who promotes that abortionist mandate loving socialist bastard is in violation of our rules. Liberals, abortionists, homo rights advocates, gun grabbers, big government healthcare advocates, etc, are unwelcome here. Romney is all of the above and worse. Don’t push me.


1,161 posted on 04/11/2012 3:02:56 PM PDT by Jim Robinson (There's no crying in rebellion!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1157 | View Replies]

To: sam_paine; Jim Robinson
If we hold our breath and let Obama win then Obama will eliminate all "dissenting" sites like FR in the next term anyhow.

Do you know that for a fact? No. It's pure, blind fear talking.

You roll over just thinking about Obama. Jim's a warrior, it appears to me an old dog who never learned to roll over. And you know what they say about teaching old dogs new tricks. I'M WITH JIM ROBINSON: Piss on Mitt Romney.

1,162 posted on 04/11/2012 3:08:47 PM PDT by Finny ("Raise hell. Vote smart." -- Ted Nugent * By the way, Ted, voting for Romney is voting stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1157 | View Replies]

To: Once-Ler

“But now you can stop pretending to be ignorant, when you are just disingenuous.”

No, but we’re going to find out anyway. One of them is going to win, and they are both going to screw the pooch, so we’ll find out whether I’m not being frank on the matter, or whether I don’t know what I’m talking about.

I’m not sure it matters.


1,163 posted on 04/11/2012 3:21:16 PM PDT by RinaseaofDs (Does beheading qualify as 'breaking my back', in the Jeffersonian sense of the expression?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1140 | View Replies]

To: CardCarryingMember.VastRightWC

I’m not impressed. Romney is not a “rascal.” He’s an evil abortionist socialist bastard just like Obama:

Romney’s “accomplishments”.

1. Implemented/created Gay Marriage in MA

2. Supported and forced Gay Adoption in MA

3. Supported Abortion wholeheartedly

4. Raised taxes/fees over 300% while being Governor of MA

5. Implemented a state-level Cap and Trade system.

6. Supported Man-Made Global Warming

7. Supported the Brady Bill

8. Implemented a state level “Assault” Weapons Bill after the Federal AWB was allowed to expire

9. Supported TARP

10. Supported Amnesty for Illegal Aliens (Citizenship for those already here)

11. Supported McCain-Kennedy(Amenesty)

12. Implemented a socialized medicine in MA called RomneyCare complete with an Individual Mandate and $50 abortions

13. Nominated 27 Democrats (out of 36 nominations) for judgeships in MA, many of them extreme left-wingers

Evil is not inspirational to me.


1,164 posted on 04/11/2012 3:22:25 PM PDT by Jim Robinson (There's no crying in rebellion!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1150 | View Replies]

To: sam_paine
Yes I have honestly thought through what I've been saying, and over the course of a very long time. Clinton didn't "waltz in," and the mid-term that followed his miserable plurality win was hailed the Republican Revolution by some, and called by the liberal MSM a "temper tantrum by the voters" when Republicans gained big time.

You have honestly KIDDED YOURSELF if you think Romney wouldn't appoint someone just as bad as Janet Reno. You are honestly KIDDING YOURSELF if you think that a Romney election would be a "win."

You are only able to allow yourself to think of it as "win by losing" because you are either too scared or too disingenuos to see the reality: wanting Romney to win is advocating "lose by winning." And I see quite clearly that "lose by winning" makes sense to you because you are scared sh*tless.

I'm scared, too, but I'm facing that fear down because I know for a fact that when you vote for a liberal, YOU GET LIBERALISM. Obama is a symptom, not a cause; Obama is only the current face of the most powerful leader of liberalism, but Obama isn't the enemy -- LIBERALISM IS OUR ENEMY. You want me to vote FOR liberalism because your fear has blinded you to the reality.

I'll vote AGAINST liberalism, which is why I'll vote ABOOR.

1,165 posted on 04/11/2012 3:26:30 PM PDT by Finny ("Raise hell. Vote smart." -- Ted Nugent * By the way, Ted, voting for Romney is voting stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1138 | View Replies]

To: Finny

Winning by Plurality is still winning

Nothing is going to stop Obama from being Obama


1,166 posted on 04/11/2012 3:30:18 PM PDT by GeronL (The Right to Life came before the Right to Pursue Happiness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1160 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

We are the traitors because we refuse to vote for a socialist?

lol

They act as if they are entitled to our vote.

They are not. I think we should make this very clear.


1,167 posted on 04/11/2012 3:33:48 PM PDT by GeronL (The Right to Life came before the Right to Pursue Happiness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1155 | View Replies]

To: pops88
I did not vote for Obama. My hands are clean

That seems to be the same thinking of many Freepers Pontius Pilate. Since I didn't vote for the lesser of 2 evils, the election of the greater of two evils is not my fault. If you will not fight against the greater of two evils you will be judged.

1,168 posted on 04/11/2012 3:36:23 PM PDT by Once-Ler (There are two paths! One is America, the other is Occupy!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1095 | View Replies]

To: sam_paine

Just love the lofty, better tha you are, tone.

*sniff*

I refuse to vote for a liberal like Romney. You cannot win this election by being AGAINST Obama, it never works, you have to give people something to vote FOR, and Romney is not that.


1,169 posted on 04/11/2012 3:38:26 PM PDT by GeronL (The Right to Life came before the Right to Pursue Happiness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1157 | View Replies]

To: GeronL

So you would rather that Romney win?


1,170 posted on 04/11/2012 3:40:30 PM PDT by Finny ("Raise hell. Vote smart." -- Ted Nugent * By the way, Ted, voting for Romney is voting stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1166 | View Replies]

To: Once-Ler; pops88
If you will not fight against the greater of two evils you will be judged.

Our vote AND our principles belong to US! NOT you. YOU are the failure when you are willing to back ANY evil, lesser OR greater. We will NOT accept any evil. We will fight! The R/DNC can go to hell!

1,171 posted on 04/11/2012 3:41:40 PM PDT by DJ MacWoW (America! The wolves are here! What will you do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1168 | View Replies]

To: Once-Ler

We are going to fight against evil. Greater and lesser.

How would YOU be judged, supporting one evil over another, you are still supporting evil.


1,172 posted on 04/11/2012 3:42:11 PM PDT by GeronL (The Right to Life came before the Right to Pursue Happiness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1168 | View Replies]

To: Once-Ler
You are assuming, wrongly IMO, that Romney is the lesser evil. He's not -- they are EQUALLY EVIL and in fact, Romney in the White House would do more damage to conservatism, and provide more assistance to liberalism, than Obama. Sorry if that truth and reality is painful, but it's still the truth and still the reality.
1,173 posted on 04/11/2012 3:43:53 PM PDT by Finny ("Raise hell. Vote smart." -- Ted Nugent * By the way, Ted, voting for Romney is voting stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1168 | View Replies]

To: Finny

I don’t like either of them.

Are you trying to get me zotted??

lol


1,174 posted on 04/11/2012 3:46:20 PM PDT by GeronL (The Right to Life came before the Right to Pursue Happiness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1170 | View Replies]

To: GeronL
Life is a series of unpalatable decisions. If I find a friendly coworker is stealing from the company I must choose to turn in my thieving friend, or risk termination. You say you would do neither. Sophistry.
1,175 posted on 04/11/2012 3:47:54 PM PDT by Once-Ler (There are two paths! One is America, the other is Occupy!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1172 | View Replies]

To: Finny

I agree, I was just going with the “lesser evil” meme... it’s STILL evil!!

Why are we supposed to support evil?


1,176 posted on 04/11/2012 3:48:13 PM PDT by GeronL (The Right to Life came before the Right to Pursue Happiness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1173 | View Replies]

To: Bruce Campbells Chin; All

“However, the argument being made here is that you can’t be a conservative if you’re voting for Romney in the general election. And by that definition, you’ve squeezed out everyone listed above, from Palin right on down, and I imagine just about every GOP member of the House and Senate. Probably all our governors as well.”

In the case of politicians, you have to expect them to, at least nominally, get behind the eventual candidate.

I cannot speak for others, but for myself, I ONLY get mad about those voting for “Romney regardless” IF they insist that anyone refusing to vote for Romney is “wasting their votes” or other dispariging remarks. Or IF they try to be apologists for Romney. He does not deserve to be defended here. The ONLY thing remotely acceptable to me is someone who is ONLY voting against Obama because they fear him. I disagree with that line of logic because I don’t see Romney as any better than Obama, but I can understand their fear. So, if someone holds to the “lesser of two evils” line of thinking, I don’t get mad until they foolishly berate those of us who don’t. IF you are so afraid of the big bad Obama you will accept a wolf in sheep’s clothing. That is your choice. Just don’t try to foist that, IMO, nonsense on us that aren’t so timid.

Folks, it appears to me, that Free Republic is becoming the home of the Rebelion against Republican Establishment Tyranny. I’m glad to see this, and I’m on board 100% with what Jim Robinson is doing. Romney’s coronation was the last straw. I have been loyal for too many years (since 1976 to the GOP) and gotten so little back for that loyalty. I’m sick of any conservative not being able to get the nomination because they are torpedod by the establishment country club GOP.

IF this rebellion cannot wake up the GOP to get its house in order, then I’m ready to see the GOP go the way of the WHIGS. It may take time to get a new conservative party, but it needs to be done if the GOP refuses reform. These are the times that try men’s souls. Rebellion has started...long live the revolution.


1,177 posted on 04/11/2012 3:48:13 PM PDT by Sola Veritas (Trying to speak truth - not always with the best grammar or spelling)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1103 | View Replies]

To: Sola Veritas

big bump!!


1,178 posted on 04/11/2012 3:52:04 PM PDT by GeronL (The Right to Life came before the Right to Pursue Happiness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1177 | View Replies]

To: Once-Ler

Coke or Pepsi

Which should non-soda drinkers buy in November??

I am going to brew up some TEA instead!!


1,179 posted on 04/11/2012 3:53:49 PM PDT by GeronL (The Right to Life came before the Right to Pursue Happiness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1175 | View Replies]

To: FReepers


Donations and New Monthly Donors Needed!


Generous FReeper Sponsors are donating $10 for every New Monthly Donor!
Please Sign Up to Donate Monthly!

1,180 posted on 04/11/2012 4:15:37 PM PDT by onyx (SUPPORT FREE REPUBLIC, DONATE MONTHLY. If you want on Sarah Palin's Ping List, let me know.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1179 | View Replies]

To: GeronL
Which should non-soda drinkers buy in November??

I am going to brew up some TEA instead!!

You don't get to buy the tea. We will all be drinking Obama or Romney next year even if you fail to put in you drink order.

1,181 posted on 04/11/2012 4:18:09 PM PDT by Once-Ler (There are two paths! One is America, the other is Occupy!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1179 | View Replies]

To: Once-Ler; GeronL; Jim Robinson

Romney does NOT have the nomination yet. Go shill for the socialist elsewhere. Conservatives aren’t buying what the DC elites are selling.


1,182 posted on 04/11/2012 4:31:56 PM PDT by DJ MacWoW (America! The wolves are here! What will you do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1181 | View Replies]

To: Finny
Sorry if that truth and reality is painful, but it's still the truth and still the reality.

No it is not reality. It is a opinion, as you say yourself with the words "You are assuming, wrongly IMO."

1,183 posted on 04/11/2012 4:37:38 PM PDT by Once-Ler (There are two paths! One is America, the other is Occupy!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1173 | View Replies]

To: DJ MacWoW
Romney does NOT have the nomination yet.

He will.

1,184 posted on 04/11/2012 4:38:34 PM PDT by Once-Ler (There are two paths! One is America, the other is Occupy!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1182 | View Replies]

To: Once-Ler
You keep shilling for evil. I prefer to stand upright.

Goodbye.

1,185 posted on 04/11/2012 4:45:31 PM PDT by DJ MacWoW (America! The wolves are here! What will you do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1184 | View Replies]

To: Once-Ler

“Pontius Pilate”

Sorry, God does not see me that way. I know. I have a very close, personal relationship with Him. The country seems to want to go to hell in a hand basket labeled “lesser evil.” I’ll go with God, thanks.


1,186 posted on 04/11/2012 4:48:13 PM PDT by pops88 (Standing with Breitbart for truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1168 | View Replies]

To: Nik Naym
If you think Reagan was in any way responsible for even one abortion then you are a raving nut job.

Reagan’s Darkest Hour

On June 14, 1967, Ronald Reagan signed the Therapeutic Abortion Act, after only six months as California governor. From a total of 518 legal abortions in California in 1967, the number of abortions would soar to an annual average of 100,000 in the remaining years of Reagan’s two terms — more abortions than in any U.S. state prior to the advent of Roe v. Wade. Reagan’s signing of the abortion bill was an ironic beginning for a man often seen as the modern father of the pro-life movement.

1,187 posted on 04/11/2012 4:52:16 PM PDT by Once-Ler (There are two paths! One is America, the other is Occupy!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1100 | View Replies]

To: sam_paine; so_real; Eagle of Liberty
But if [marxist Obama] instead finds victory over a Mormon "etch-a-sketch" RINO who reverts to more liberal positions, the GOP is forced to accept that what they needed to do was move even farther left.

I don't think your getting the stategery. Remember when President George H W Bush broke his promise and signed onto new taxes. Conservatives taught the GOP a lesson and Clinton was elected, but when the second term came The GOP was forced to ally itself with conservatives and nominated arch conservative Bob Dole.

Remember when conservatives taught the GOP a lesson in 2008. FUJM. No more RINOs. Obama was elected and the GOP was forced to ally with conservatives and nominated right wing Mitt Romney. What a great strategy. Third times the charm.

1,188 posted on 04/11/2012 5:06:43 PM PDT by Once-Ler (There are two paths! One is America, the other is Occupy!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1143 | View Replies]

To: so_real
I'm not sure I follow.

It's common sense. The loser tries to be more like the winner in the next race. Want to move the country to the left elect more liberal rats and DINO enablers. Want to move the country right elect more conservative Republicans and RINO eneablers.

1,189 posted on 04/11/2012 6:01:24 PM PDT by Once-Ler (There are two paths! One is America, the other is Occupy!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1158 | View Replies]

To: Once-Ler; sam_paine; Eagle of Liberty

Remember when conservatives taught the GOP a lesson in 2008. FUJM. No more RINOs. Obama was elected and the GOP was forced to ally with conservatives and nominated right wing Mitt Romney. What a great strategy. Third times the charm.

There's an invalid assertion in there. The conservatives haven't been able to teach the GOP a single lesson yet. Mostly this is because many otherwise conservative individuals are too weak in the knees to stand by their principles and vote consistently. We keep caving in. And that teaches the GOP a very different lesson : that we'll be "good little conservatives" and vote the party line when push comes to shove. So they keep shoving. And even here on FR there are numerous weak knee'd individuals crying out that we have to get in line and support the ... progressive liberal ... candidate thrust upon us just because he has an "R" behind his name. He's not conservative. He's Henry Reid with better hair. The cycle you describe will continue as long as we fail to hold the line. I agree; let's try something different this time -- something that doesn't involve holding our nose when we pull the lever. Let's keep the enemy in front of us. No Romney; no way.


1,190 posted on 04/11/2012 6:20:56 PM PDT by so_real ( "The Congress of the United States recommends and approves the Holy Bible for use in all schools.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1188 | View Replies]

To: Once-Ler

Do you have a clue?

The California therapeutic Abortion Act was NOT a go ahead for abortions on demand. It RESTRICTED abortions.


Paraphrased from (of all places the ACLU of Northern CA) :

It made abortion legal ONLY if a hospital committee determined that the pregnancy would gravely impair a woman’s physical or mental health or a District Attorney concluded that the pregnancy probably resulted from rape or incest.


Not only that, it was struck down by the courts as too restrictive, and then of course along came roe V Wade.

So go ahead and try to make Reagan sound like he was pro abortion.

You will only make yourself look stupid.

It is bizzaro world when right here on FR people are saying it is OK to vote for Romney, and that Reagan was pro-abortion.

I must be stuck in the freakin’ Twilight Zone!


1,191 posted on 04/11/2012 6:22:55 PM PDT by Nik Naym (It's not my fault... I have compulsive smartass disorder.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1187 | View Replies]

To: Nik Naym
So go ahead and try to make Reagan sound like he was pro abortion.

I didn't say Reagan was pro-abortion I responded to your statement. "If you think Reagan was in any way responsible for even one abortion then you are a raving nut job." And I quoted you so you could tell it was in response. You should get a clue.

1,192 posted on 04/11/2012 6:29:28 PM PDT by Once-Ler (There are two paths! One is America, the other is Occupy!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1191 | View Replies]

To: Freedom_Is_Not_Free; Jim Robinson
> You have convinced me. In the die-hard Democrat lock states, it makes no sense to vote for Romney, since your vote is lost anyway. I live in California. Since California will go big for Obama, my vote and JimRob’s vote aren’t wasted on a 3rd party, since we can’t influence the election anyway. You just gave me the reason I needed to write in Sarah Palin for president... THANK YOU VERY MUCH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You are VERY WELCOME!! :)

I firmly believe that the way to show our REFUSAL to support moderate, wishy-washy non-conservative candidates is to cast our vote -- which must and will be counted -- for the person we truly think is best for America. That is how the RIGHT CHANGE is made!

Those us of in solid Democrat states have a RESPONSIBILITY to use our vote to SAY SOMETHING POSITIVE about what we believe in!!

No more "going along" with something we don't believe in!!

We are the ones who have the opportunity to be in the forefront of the REPLACEMENT for the establishment parties!!

Because who else is going to do it, if we don't?????

Thank you for your comment -- you made my day! :)

1,193 posted on 04/11/2012 6:36:50 PM PDT by dayglored (Listen, strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1066 | View Replies]

To: so_real

Oops ... "Henry Reid" = "Harry Reid".


1,194 posted on 04/11/2012 6:43:06 PM PDT by so_real ( "The Congress of the United States recommends and approves the Holy Bible for use in all schools.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1190 | View Replies]

To: TLI

Please don’t forget Allen West.
Wow! Now *that* is a Dream Team!


1,195 posted on 04/11/2012 8:33:58 PM PDT by KGeorge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: sam_paine; 5thGenTexan; Jim Robinson; Antoninus; Lazlo in PA; cripplecreek; writer33; ...
I believe this discussion between sam_paine and 5thGenTexan mirrors a broader discussion between the Christian conservative movement and conservatives who are more focused on national defense or economic issues.

Understanding that Scripture has different standards for civil and ecclesiastical office is absolutely critical to evaluating the candidacy of Newt Gingrich, just as it was years ago in evaluating the candidacy of Ronald Reagan.

I can't speak for these two posters, but all too often the discussion is based on a failure to understand that God has different standards for selection and removal of civil rulers than he does for ecclesiastical office.

The end result is a lot of confusion, with some evangelicals demanding standards which are higher than Scripture and some secular conservatives and secular liberals attacking evangelicals for hypocrisy when we support people like Ronald Reagan. This was a problem all the way back in 1980 when lots of southern evangelicals couldn't understand how a Bible-believing Christian could vote for a divorced movie actor rather than a self-identified born again Baptist who had been unquestionably faithful to his wife.

The same questions are coming back this year, but in an even worse form, with Newt Gingrich.

I have been saying for a long time that both Gingrich and Santorum are acceptable evangelical candidates. I would have said the same about Bachmann, Perry, and Cain as well, by the way, but not Ron Paul, John Huntsman, or Mitt Romney; I don't know enough about most of the other early candidates to have an informed opinion.

I think, given the uproar that's now facing us, I need to say more about why Christians can vote in good conscience for Newt Gingrich, just as they could vote in good conscience for Ronald Reagan.

Let's be clear right from the start. There is absolutely no way that Gingrich, based on his past, should be elected as a pastor, elder or deacon in a Bible-believing church without crystal clear repentance and a long history of proving that repentance is real by how he conducts his life. The standards of I Timothy 3:1-13 and Titus 1:5-2:10 are very high, and even if Gingrich were able to meet all of them, there's still the question of someone’s past being so notorious that I Timothy 3:7, being of good report among outsiders, disqualifies someone from church office no matter how clear his repentance may be.

As a married Roman Catholic, Newt Gingrich will never be a candidate for ecclesiastical office, so that question is largely irrelevant.

What is extremely relevant is that we never see any place in Scripture where God applies the standards of I Timothy and Titus to selection of civil rulers.

We have very limited guidance under the New Testament for how we are to select our civil rulers; the key passage is Romans 13 where God sets out the role of the civil rulers to bear the sword to punish evildoers. (By the way, that's a key part of why Jimmy Carter was not qualified for civil office since he grossly failed in performing the primary function of civil government.)

However, even under the Old Testament theocracy where the kings and judges ruled by divine right with explicit divine mandates for their duties, we do not have the slightest hint that King David's adultery with Bathsheba disqualified him from the kingship.

Go read II Samuel 11 and 12. Were there consequences to David's adultery? Absolutely. They included the loss of his child (II Samuel 12:14-23), and chaos in his kingdom (II Samuel 12:11-12).

King David was expected to repent, and he did repent. God spared his life (II Samuel 12:13), and Psalm 51 is a public testimony to that repentance.

However, there is no indicator anywhere in Scripture that King David's adultery disqualified him from office. That's quite different from ordained pastors, elders and deacons who **MUST** be removed from office in such cases. Yes, the prophet Nathan rebuked King David, but nowhere were God's people called to remove David from his office.

Can Christians take Gingrich's background into account? Absolutely. That's one reason why I preferred Santorum, once he became a viable candidate. Also, repentance should be demanded, but the fact is that Gingrich has **ALREADY** repented.

Those who doubt that should read what Rev. Jim Garlow, pastor of Skyline Wesleyan Church, wrote about Gingrich's personal faith at this thread: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2837165/replies?c=33

If anyone has any questions about just how conservative Garlow’s Christianity is, watch this video, posted so helpfully by Right Wing Watch which seeks to discredit Garlow but actually proves that he's a solid Christian and not a compromiser likely to look on Gingrich's background with laxity: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gV8NSvVME2g

Furthermore, I'm not a Roman Catholic, but the fact is that the Roman Catholic Church's rules are far stricter than those of most evangelical Protestant churches for accepting a person with Gingrich's background. Much about Gingrich's ecclesiastical situation will never be made public and is under the seal of the confessional — i.e., between him and his priest. I happen to be a member of a church which takes a pretty hard line on divorce and remarriage, but Protestant churches which freely accept people into membership despite multiple divorces have no valid grounds to be criticizing Newt Gingrich's personal faith.

Bottom line is this: as long as we had two viable candidates for the Republican nomination, I believe evangelical Protestants and conservative Roman Catholics could vote for either Gingrich or Santorum in good conscience.

We now have only one candidate left. Romney is simply unacceptable — he has a background of defending baby killing, homosexual marriage, and other damnable wickedness, and unlike Gingrich, his change of heart is far from clear.

Even if we could vote for a Mormon (a debatable point for me), we cannot vote for a candidate who does not meet the basic standards of Romans 13 in upholding justice and punishing the wicked. Romney doesn't qualify for our support.

I believe it's time to get behind Newt Gingrich as the last conservative left in the Republican race. I understand some people simply cannot do that in good conscience, and I respect that.

However, I strongly urge such people to read this post, take a close look at the biblical references and Rev. Garlow’s statements about Gingrich's repentance, and seriously reconsider. We're not talking about ordaining Gingrich as an elder or making him a Sunday School or catechism teacher; we're talking about whether Gingrich is biblically qualified to be a civil ruler.

If Gingrich isn't qualified, then neither is Ronald Reagan and King David, and I believe that is an inconsistent standard.

1,153 posted on Wed Apr 11 2012 16:19:00 GMT-0500 (Central Daylight Time) by sam_paine: “Exactly. A divorcee with enstranged children who authorized the sale of weapons to terrorists like Ronald Reagan would be morally unacceptable to such people.”

1,151 posted on Wed Apr 11 2012 16:11:37 GMT-0500 (Central Daylight Time) by 5thGenTexan: “They are not saying they will only vote for someone who can, as President, change abortion. They are saying that they cannot support a person for President who personally is pro-abortion. It is about the person's moral character, not the powers of the office. They choose to support only pro-life candidates, regardless of the powers of the office they are running for.”

1,196 posted on 04/11/2012 9:15:55 PM PDT by darrellmaurina
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1153 | View Replies]

To: G Larry

I’m NOT blind to America’s ruin under Obama. But you are blind to its ruin under Romney.

And you still haven’t told me WHY you believe Romney now?

Can you name ONE “pro-life advocate”who was still an abortionist at AGE SIXTY?

Hank


1,197 posted on 04/11/2012 9:29:48 PM PDT by County Agent Hank Kimball (Screw it. Newt's the smartest candidate and the guy I want to see debating Obummer. Flame away.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 951 | View Replies]

To: jersey117

And just what independent has won a presidential election? And if you can’t win an election without independents, then you sure as heck can’t win it without conservatives.


1,198 posted on 04/11/2012 9:42:26 PM PDT by DrewsMum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 526 | View Replies]

To: County Agent Hank Kimball

Do you have any concept of the difference between Obama’s burning desire to destroy America, and Romney’s “potential” for implementing some policies you don’t like?

Where is your “still an abortionist” charge coming from?

And yes....Dr. Bernard Nathansen, founder of NARAL.
He performed over 5,000 abortions and sometime after age 60 became Pro-Life.
I met him at the Human Life International Conference in 1991, in Houston.


1,199 posted on 04/11/2012 9:49:39 PM PDT by G Larry (We are NOT obliged to carry the snake in our pocket and then dismiss the bites as natural behavior.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1197 | View Replies]

To: darrellmaurina

Excellent read Darrell.....and well worth the read...

Exerts:

...”there is no indicator anywhere in Scripture that King David’s adultery disqualified him from office... That’s quite different from ordained pastors, elders and deacons who must be removed from office in such cases.”...

....”Christians can vote in good conscience for Newt Gingrich, just as they could vote in good conscience for Ronald Reagan.”......

....”If Gingrich isn’t qualified, then neither is Ronald Reagan and King David, and I believe that is an inconsistent standard.”....


1,200 posted on 04/11/2012 11:24:30 PM PDT by caww
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1196 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 1,101-1,1501,151-1,2001,201-1,250 ... 1,351-1,370 next 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