Skip to comments.We will not waste our limited resources on FR in support for a liberal progressive LIAR
Posted on 04/13/2012 12:13:14 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
A reminder for those who are not receiving the message:
Romney is a pathological compulsive liar. Lie after lie papered over with more lies. Doesnt even flinch when caught in bald faced lies, simply tells another big whopper to cover up or dodge the issue. Funny thing, the man actually seems to believe his own latest lies and simply ignores the glaring record of his past actions/lies. And you have true blue establishment elite RINO Republicans like Karl Rove enabling and backing up his lies. Their motivation is simply to hang on to power (and riches) any way they can.
Ive stated many times since Romney started running for the presidency way back when that Id never vote for him and I will not. He cannot lie his way out of his decades long record of support for abortion, Roe v Wade, planned parenthood, gay rights, gun control, global warming, amnesty, liberal judges, big government, compulsory or socialized health care (RomneyCommieCare), mandates, Keynesian economics, support and approval of TARP, bailouts, stimulus packages, i.e, every damn liberal progressive issue that comes down the pike.
Cmon. These are the reasons the tea party sprang up and the reasons he and Rove loathe the tea party and our tea party conservative candidates. Romney famously expressed his loathing for Reagan-Bush conservatism several years ago when he was trying to run to the left of Ted Kennedy and now hes cloaking himself in Reagan conservatism, knowing full well that its a lie, but he knows its the only way he can possibly win, er buy the Republican nomination.
Screw Romney!! I absolutely will not support or vote for a proven compulsive liar with a known record of abortion and big government socialism, liberal appointments, etc. He still lies about RomneyCommieCare today. Calls it a conservative solution. Get real!!
Listen to what Ronald Reagan had to say about the elites pushing socialism on America via compulsory health insurance:
Ronald Reagan speaks out against RomneyCommieCare
There will be no campaign for this Massachusetts liberal liar on FR!!
Damn the libs and RINOS, full steam ahead!!
But no matter what happens we must turn out in November to vote IN as many conservatives and vote OUT as many rats as possible at all levels of government. If we don't have a conservative at the top of the ticket we must turn out anyway and vote straight conservative DOWN ticket!! Just think of it an off cycle election and pour on the TEA!! It'll be doubly important that we control both houses of congress and as many statehouses as possible.
Restore the 10th amendment!! Impeach the leftist president whoever he may be!! Restore Liberty!! Rebellion comes from the bottom up!!
WOO HOO!! I CAN SEE NOVEMBER FROM MY HOUSE!!
No Bama!! No Romney!! Go tea party rebellion!!
Sarah could single-handedly change the entire direction of the presidential campaign by tomorrow, if she chose to do so.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe there's any campaign rule that precludes a candidate from announcing his choice of running mate before he's won the nomination.
That is exactly the sort of boost that Newt needs right now. And I do mean right this very minute. I just hope that Sarah herself understands that she's still got that sort of pull with the voters.
Given our dismal prospects at the moment, I can't believe that she isn't painfully aware that she's got this crucial and powerful move just sitting there for her to make. The fate of an entire country is an immense weight to have hanging over one's head, but she's the one who put herself in that position. She's one of those rare people who have the right stuff, and chose to serve.
So is it preferable to kill one with a suction pump or wait 5 min and drown them?
Seriously, which do you prefer?
I prefer the person who’s going to cause the least amount of human deaths by abortion.
YES YOU WILL GIVE YOUR CONSENT TO A LYING TYRANNICAL LIBERTY KILLING BABY MURDERING BASTARD!
You have made that perfectly clear, no stutter.
Then how can you vote for a man who put McDeadBabies on the $50 Massachusits abortion menu?
A zot so hot it serves as a precursor of the hellfire to come...unless Magritte repents!
Thanks for posting the link.
My biggest concern after the next election is who gets in and what potential we have to influence the new potus. IMHO, we will not influence ozero at all.
I think differently about Romney.I think we have the potential to influence what he does.
Will it be 100% of the time, 70% of the time? I just don't know.But I do surmise that we have a better chance at doing what we do best here on FR of leading the horse to water with Romney than with ozero. Just my opinion.
Well said but your clear and correct logic will fall on deaf ears in this den of groupthink, groupthink and lemmings running over the cliff.
But I intend to do exactly as you are saying.
LOL. Good one :)
So...you're telling us if both of the regional concentration camp commidants during the Nazi Germany era were both running for public office, you'd vote for the one who had the lesser "potential" for an overall body count, eh...
(And we wonder why the Republican party is in trouble)
.... and continue to pack your form letters in the crease until further notice.
No, they're not making the harder, yet more correct choice, which is to refuse to accept either of the choices the ruling class establishment is giving us.
Such people didn't found this country, yet all their lives they've enjoyed the bounty the Founding Generation bequeathed to them. They prove themselves unworthy of that inheritance, and shame their forefathers who sacrificed every manner of comfort and ease to give them what they have.
Now is not the time to play politics as usual. It's time to strike the colors and spit in the tyrant's eye.
I take it that is your opus.
Yes. We have done so well with Bohener. He goes out of his way to fight Obama tooth and nail. Bo, hardcore conservative that he is, we KNOW that he will fight even harder to rein in the liberalism of his Party Boss once elected.
Because that’s what the record of this congress is. Giving no quarter to liberals and holding Obama to account.
They stood strong on all that financial stuff and we are on the road to recovery!
They reined in Obama when he went to war in Libya, stopped him from sending guns to mexico and fired Holder,
In fact, they did so well stopping corruption in the regime that Leavenworth even built a special room to house Obama!
Oh wait...they didn’t do any of that. But they will when Romney gets in!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Well said but your clear and correct logic will fall on deaf ears in this den of groupthink, groupthink and lemmings running over the cliff. But I intend to do exactly as you are saying. [billva]
Whatever "influence" you think conservatives corporately could possibly have upon Romney, it's not even a fraction compared to the Mormon "prophet" and the Lds general authorities who could encourage Mitt to operate as a mere Mormon "puppet." Don't think so? Keep reading...
|Lds Leader||Chronological 'Prophet' or Fundamental # (or Other Title)||Overlap Areas: Could the President of the U.S. become a 'puppet' to an Lds 'Prophet?' (The Lds Prophets -- in their own words)|
|John Taylor||Lds 'Prophet' #3||The Almighty has established this kingdom with order and laws and every thing pertaining thereto [so] that when the nations shall be convulsed, we may stand forth as saviours and finally redeem a ruined world, not only in a religious but in a political point of view. (Journal of Discourses, vol. 9, p. 342, April 13, 1862)|
|Orson Hyde||President of the Lds Quorum of the 12 Apostles for 28 years (1847-1875)||What the world calls Mormonism will rule every nation...God has decreed it, and his own right arm will accomplish it. This will make the heathen rage. (Journal of Discourses, vol. 7, p. 53)|
|Heber J. Grant||Lds 'Prophet' #7||"Elder Marion G. Romney recalled the counsel of President Heber J. Grant: 'My boy, you always keep your eye on the President of the Church, and if he ever tells you to do anything, and it is wrong, and you do it, the Lord will bless you for it.' Then with a twinkle in his eye, he said, 'But you don't need to worry. The Lord will never let his mouthpiece lead the people astray'" (in Conference Report, Oct. 1960, p. 78)." Cited in Official Lds publication Search the Commandments: Melchizedek Priesthood Personal Study Guide, p. 209 (1984)|
|Harold B. Lee||Lds 'Prophet' #11||...President Harold B. Lee said: 'We must learn to give heed to the words and commandments that the Lord shall give through his prophet, '...as if from mine own mouth...(D&C 21:4-5)...You may not like what comes from the authority of the Church. It may contradict your political views. It may contradict your social views. It may interfere with some of your social life. But if you listen to these things, as if from the mouth of the Lord himself..." Cited in official Lds publication Remember Me: Relief Society Personal Study Guide I, p. 27 (1989)|
|Spencer Kimball||Lds 'Prophet' #12||"President Spencer W. Kimball said: '...We deal with many things which are thought to be not so spiritual; but all things are spiritual with the Lord, and he expects us to listen, and to obey..." (In Conference Report, Apr. 1977, p. 8; or Ensign, May 1977, p. 7) Cited in official Lds publication Come, Follow Me: Melchizedek Priesthood Personal Study Guide 1983, p.12 (1983)|
|What about Marion G. Romney, cousin to Mitt's father?||Who was he in Lds hierarchy? (Title: 'President' - Top 3 of church as 2nd counselor to both #11 & #12 Lds 'prophets')||"Elder Neal A. Maxwell has said: 'Following the living prophets is something that must be done in all seasons and circumstances. We must be like President Marion G. Romney, who humbly said, '..I have never hesitated to follow the counsel of the Authorities of the Church even though it crossed my social, professional, and political life' (Conference Report, April 1941, p. 123). There are, or will be moments when prophetic declarations collide with our pride or our seeming personal interests...Do I believe in the living prophet even when he speaks on matters affecting me and my specialty directly? Or do I stop sustaining the prophet when his words fall in my territory? if the latter, the prophet is without honor in our country! (Things As They Really Are, p. 73). Cited in official Lds publication, Search the Commandments: Melchizedek Priesthood Personal Study Guide, pp. 275-276 (1984)|
|Ezra Taft Benson||Lds 'Prophet' #13||Benson speech given 2/26/80 @BYU. Summary: remember, if there is ever a conflict between earthly knowledge and the words of the prophet, you stand with the prophet (See excerpts re: 3 of 14 'fundamentals' below) Source: Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Prophet|
|Benson (cont'd)||Fundamental #5||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. (My Q: Ya hear that Mitt Romney?)|
|Benson (cont'd)||Fundamental #9||9. The prophet can receive revelation on any matter, temporal or spiritual. (My Q: Still listening, Mitt?)|
|Benson (cont'd)||Fundamental #10||10. The prophet may advise on civic matters. (My Q: What say ye Mitt?)|
|B.H. Roberts||LDS Historian and Seventy. Note: Roberts was an elected Democratic Congressman from Utah in 1898 -- but was NEVER seated by Congress because of grass roots uproar vs. Roberts, who took a THIRD simultaneous wife in the early 1890s. Grass roots America collected 7 MILLION signatures on 28 banners and presented them to Congress...in pre-mass media 1800s!||[T]he kingdom of God... is to be a POLITICAL INSTITUTION THAT SHALL HOLD SWAY OVER ALL THE EARTH; TO WHICH ALL OTHER GOVERNMENTS WILL BE SUBORDINATE AND BY WHICH THEY WILL BE DOMINATED. The Rise and Fall of Nauvoo, 1900, p. 180|
|Mitt Romney as POTUS???||Aside from above prophetic impositions, why would Mitt not only honor what these 'prophets' have spoken, but what a future Lds 'prophet' may tell him to do?||The Law of Consecration Oath Mitt Romney has sworn in the Mormon temple (done before marriage/sealing in temple): "You and each of you covenant and promise before God, angels, and these witnesses at this altar, that you do accept the law of consecration as contained in this, the book of Doctrine and Covenants [he displays the book], in that you do consecrate yourselves, your time, talents, and EVERYTHING with which the Lord has blessed you, or WITH which he MAY bless you, to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, for the building up of the kingdom of God on the earth and for the establishment of Zion." Source: What is an LDS Church/Mormon temple marriage/sealing? [Q: Please define 'Zion': The LDS PR Web site (lds.org) defines its primary meaning: "membership in the [LDS] church."]|
Thanks for that ping!
Now see, you just aren’t living in reality. You could offend people here and make them cry with your bullying.
Best to join the herd, be a good GOPer and kiss RINO posterior. Because we gotta win no matter what Windy. What are yout pathetic purist morals and principles? Obama will come to your house with the new Morals and Principles Removal Team stormtrooopers and surgically remove them if he wins.
Mitt will let you keep them as long as you keep them to yourself. I’m keeping mine cuz I’m skeeeeered too. GO ROMNEY!!! Savior of CONSERVATISM!!!!!!!
Now if that can just translate into delegates at the rest of
We NEED a strong 2nd amendment candidate, and it sure ain’t Myth!
The daily Beast is carrying it...lets pray that others will too....Actuallly it was a smart move for Newt to state the right of the 2nd Ammendment is for all in the world....that’ll get the lefts pants in a knot.
Might be Newt will be called on by the media to comment on what he stated.......could that have been a Newt-ron Bomb? We’ll see if so no doubt!
BTW Whenever I hear one of Newts speeches I get such a sense of “Right”....He is the best man for the job...as no other!
#1 partial-birth abortions never came by Romney's gov desk for a veto (or not).
#2 We know Romney's church allows for abortions if the Mormon god says "ok" (via prayer & "answered prayer")...There's nothing in the Mormon leaders' statement on abortion that protects late-term babies
#3 Beyond that, you're not going to start measuring pre-born babies' worth by their gestational age, are you? (We already know Romney is on record -- a full three years after his so-called "pro-life altar call" -- of saying 'twas "OK" for parents to give up their offspring to "research" (body harvesters)...
And WHAT President DO you think is going to stop abortion? Answer: None of them.
A POTUS can get you & me as taxpayers to pay for socialized healthcare abortions...Obama's doing that...Romney did that in MA...Both $50 abortions in MA + some plans in MA it's $0 (since '08)...meaning taxpayers in MA are footing the entire bill..
I dont accept that Romney is pro-abortion. He says he had a change of heart and hes pro-life now. Of course, you can just choose to disbelieve everything he says, but then EVERYTHING he stands for (or doesnt) is off the table, because youll just believe what you want to believe anyway.
You're simply ignorant 'cause you haven't done the research. I have (see chart below)...he claimed to NOT be "pro-choice" in 2001...2004 (as of Nov)...in early 2007 he claimed all of his "actions" as gov were "pro-life" -- even though he passed RomneyCare with govt paid for abortions + put a Planned Parenthood member as a permanent oversight person for RomneyCare...
Given his pro-bump-off of offspring statement in the Katie Couric interview (Dec 07), that means he "flipped" yet again after that to "pro-life." It gets rather tiring.
|YEAR||Obvious Pro-Abortion Romney||Romney Feigning 'Pro-Life'|
|Bottom-Line Summary: ANN Romney Lies Thru Her Teeth||Ann Romney, 1994: Romney's wife gives donation to Planned Parenthood (Ann Romneys Planned Parenthood Donation||Ann Romney, 2011: In the past youve said hes changed positions only once, on abortion. Was that your doing? No, no, I never talked to Mitt about that. Our personal opinions have never changed; weve always been pro-life (Ann Romney Reveals Mitt's Softer Side)|
|Bottom-Line Summary: Mitt Romney Lies Thru His Teeth||Over the last multiple years, as you know, I have been effectively pro-choice." (Bruce Smith, "Romney Campaigns in SC with Sen. DeMint," The Associated Press, 1/29/07) + ...my position was effectively pro-choice." (Source: 2007 GOP Iowa Straw Poll debate 8/5/2007)||So, not only does Ann Romney tell Parade Magazine November 2011 that they've never changed re: abortion and that they've always been pro-life, but Mitt Romney told Chris Wallace part-way through their 2007 campaign that: I never allowed myself to use the word pro-choice because I didn't FEEL I was pro-choice. I would protect the law, I said, as it was, but I wasn't pro-choice...This was seven months after he said in January 2007 that he was always for life.|
|Romney, goin' back to 1970 when Romney's Mom ran for Senate||"I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country. I have since the time when my Mom took that position when she ran in 1970 as a U.S. Senate candidate. (October, 1994 Senatorial debate vs. Ted Kennedy)||"'He's been a pro-life Mormon faking it as a pro-choice friendly,'" Romney adviser Michael Murphy told the conservative National Review..., says the Concord Monitor = So I guess that made him a below-the-radar "flip" acting like a "flop?"|
|1994 (Campaign)||"I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country. I have since the time when my Mom took that position when she ran in 1970 as a U.S. Senate candidate. I believe that since Roe v. Wade has been the law for 20 years that we should sustain and support it, and I sustain and support that law and the right of a woman to make that choice." (October, 1994 Senatorial debate vs. Ted Kennedy) = Mitt the flipster from what most LDS represent their faith as being...BTW, Romney uses the strongest word possible for support sustain ...Note for non-Mormons: Lds use the word sustain for support for their own prophet||Romney has since invoked a "nuanced stance" about what he was in 1994: He says "Look, I was pro-choice. I am pro-life. You can go back to YouTube and look at what I said in 1994. I never said I was pro-choice, but my position was effectively pro-choice. (Source: Source: 2007 GOP Iowa Straw Poll debate Aug 5, 2007)|
|1994 (Planned Parenthood ties) → 2001||(a) Romney's wife gives donation to Planned Parenthood (a href="http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/05/09/ann-romneys-planned-parenthood-donation/">Ann Romneys Planned Parenthood Donation (b) On June 12, 1994, Romney himself attends private Planned Parenthood event at home of a sister-in-law of a Planned Parenthood board member where the president of Planned Parenthood recalls talking to Romney: "Nicki Nichols Gamble, a former president and chief executive of Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts, said today that the photo shows Mitt and Ann Romney at a private home in Cohasset in June 1994." Source: See http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1941932/posts; "Gamble said the pic was snapped at an event at GOP activist Eleanor Bleakies house and that she clearly remembered speaking with Romney at the event." Source: See http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1941627/posts; "In fact Romney personally attended the Planned Parenthood event in question on June 12, 1994. Gamble, the President of Massachusuetts Planned Parenthood in 1994, also attended the event at the home of a Republican, Eleanor Bleakie, the sister-in-law of a Planned Parenthood Board member. Both Romney and Michael Kennedy, who appeared on behalf of nephew of Ted Kennedy, attended the event." Source: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1941240/posts||2001: "I do not wish to be labeled pro-choice." (Mitt Romney, Letter to the Editor, The Salt Lake Tribune, 7/12/01) = So he doesn't want to be known as a "flop" (so what is he?)|
|2002-2004||I will preserve and protect a womans right to choose, and have devoted and am dedicated to honoring my word in that regard (Nov. 2, 2002) = Well, now guess what? He's solidly pro-abortion AGAIN! See also: "I respect and will protect a woman's right to choose. This choice is a deeply personal one Women should be free to choose based on their own beliefs, not mine and not the government's." (Stephanie Ebbert, "Clarity Sought On Romney's Abortion Stance," The Boston Globe, 7/3/05) = Ah, back securely in the "flop" saddle again?||Nov. '04: Romney & his wife had simultaneous pro-life "conversions" linked to stem cell research: Romney met w/Dr. Douglas Melton from Harvard Stem Cell Institute: He recalls that it happened in a single revelatory moment, during a Nov. 9, 2004, meeting with an embryonic-stem-cell researcher who said he didn't believe therapeutic cloning presented a moral issue because the embryos were destroyed at 14 days. "It hit me very hard that we had so cheapened the value of human life in a Roe v. Wade environment that it was important to stand for the dignity of human life," Romney says. Source: Time Mag, March 9, 2007 = (So the pro-abortion-but-no-pro-choice-label-please-is-now-a-pro-life-convert?)|
|2005||May 27 2005: Romney affirms his commitment to being "pro-choice" at a press conference. ("I am absolutely committed to my promise to maintain the status quo with regards to laws relating to abortion and choice.") = OK, this is at least a flop from November '04!||What about his gubernatorial record '03-'06? Mitt later says his actions were ALL pro-life. I assume somewhere in '05 some 'pro-life' decisions. "As governor, Ive had several pieces of legislation reach my desk, which would have expanded abortion rights in Massachusetts. Each of those I vetoed. Every action Ive taken as the governor that relates to the sanctity of human life, I have stood on the side of life." = So, THESE ACTIONS were not only an '02 commitment reversal, but his May 27, '05 press conference commitment as well. So "flipping" is beginning to be routine|
|2006||April 12, 2006--Mitt signs his "Commonwealth Care" into existence, thereby expanding abortion access/taxpayer funded abortions for women--including almost 2% of the females of his state who earn $75,000 or more. (Wait a minute, I thought he told us post-'06 that ALL of his actions were "pro-life?"). Also, not only this, but as governor, Romney could exercise veto power to portions of Commonwealth Care. Did Romney exercise this power? (Yes, he vetoed Sections 5, 27, 29, 47, 112, 113, 134 & 137). What prominent section dealing with Planned Parenthood as part of the "payment policy advisory board" did Romney choose NOT to veto? (Section 3) That section mandates that one member of MassHealth Payment Policy Board must be appointed by Planned Parenthood League of MA. (See chapter 58 of the Acts of 2006, section 3 for details).||"As governor, Ive had several pieces of legislation reach my desk, which would have expanded abortion rights in Massachusetts. Each of those I vetoed. Every action Ive taken as the governor that relates|
|Early 2007||On January 29, 2007 during South Carolina visit, Romney stated: Over the last multiple years, as you know, I have been effectively pro-choice." (Bruce Smith, "Romney Campaigns in SC with Sen. DeMint," The Associated Press, 1/29/07) = OK how could "every action I've taken as the governor that relates to the sanctity of human life..." AND this statement BOTH be true?||Another South Carolina campaign stop has Romney uttering "I was always for life: "I am firmly pro-life I was always for life." (Jim Davenport, "Romney Affirms Opposition to Abortion," The Associated Press, 2/9/2007) = Oh, of course as the above shows, he's always been pro-life!|
|Summer 2007||"I never said I was pro-choice, but my position was effectively pro-choice." Source: 2007 GOP Iowa Straw Poll debate 8/5/2007 = OK...looking at '94 & '02 campaigns, both his public statements, his 2002 voter guide responses, & his actions (which are a major form of expression, ya know!) how could he say he "never said" he was "pro-choice?"||Then comes his 8/12/07 interview with Chris Wallace of Fox: "I never called myself pro-choice. I never allowed myself to use the word pro-choice because I didn't FEEL I was pro-choice. I would protect the law, I said, as it was, but I wasn't pro-choice, and so..." = Whatever he was from '70 when his mom ran as pro-abortion senator & he sided w/ her, to 5/27/05, w/whatever interruption he had due to a pro-life altar call in Nov of '04, whatever that was...well, he assures us it wasn't a pro-abortion 'inlook' or outlook 'cause he didn't feel "pro-choice..." = So does that make him a life-long pro-lifer?|
|December 2007 vs. November 2011 (Pro-treating offspring as research refuse late in previous POTUS campaign vs. now claiming 'never changed...always pro-life'||December 4, 2007: Romney: ...surplus embryos...Those embryos, I hope, could be available for adoption for people who would like to adopt embryos. But if a parent decides they would want to donate one of those embryos for purposes of research, in my view, that's acceptable. It should not be made against the law." (Source: Candidates Reveal Their Biggest Mistakes) Any "inquiring minds" want to try wrapping their minds around how a politician in one sentence mentions "adopting" embryos out (yes, a great thing to mention!) -- but then in the very NEXT breath says if a "PARENT" wants to be "pro-choice" (Mitt used the word "decides" which is what "pro-choicers" say they want) "to donate one of those embryos for purposes of research, in my view, that's acceptable." Say what???? How about 8-month gestationally-aged infants in the womb, Mitt? Or already-born infants, too, Mitt? If a "parent decides they would want to donate one of those...for purposes of research, in my view, that's acceptable..." No??? What's the 'pro-life' difference, Mitt? Here you call an embryo's mom&dad "parents" -- but "parents" w/ "research" give-away rights? How bizarre we have such a schizophrenic "candidate!"||In the past youve said hes changed positions only once, on abortion. Was that your doing? No, no, I never talked to Mitt about that. Our personal opinions have never changed; weve always been pro-life (Ann Romney Reveals Mitt's Softer Side)|
From what I have read on FR, people are saying IF Romney ends up being the Republican Nominee they will Vote for him rather than promote the possibility of Obama’s second “Nothing To Lose” Term.
I'm a Newt supporter and I haven't quit. I am hoping against hope that he makes it to the Convention and Romney doesn't hit the magic Delegate count before them.
Because people face reality and discuss the possibility of a Romney versus Obama choice in November, don't accuse them of being quitters and cowards. Pragmatic comes to mind.
In most states, not voting for Romney won’t matter. Just like the GOP Presidential Primary Race, Arkansas won’t have a say in the matter. I’ll probably end up voting for the Constitutional Party Candidate, while campaigning for conservative candidates on a local level.
My decision is this: Romney is the opposite of my values Biblical ones and conservative ones. The Biblical ones stop my voting for him before I get to the conservative ones. God is in control of all and if Romney is the candidate, I give it to God to work it out as He wishes. I am peaceful about my decision - Id rather follow God’s commands than Romney.
So when you said “single payer health care and changing the court for a generation”, where you talking about BHO or Romney - couldn’t tell.
“Pragmatic comes to mind. “
As does ‘situational ethics’ - neither of which are compatable with conservative philosophy. I checked.
Good grief! Not this ridiculous canard about a stupid commercial that Newt said was "one of the worst decisions of my life."
Newt Rips Gore's 'Facts' To Pieces (video 5:37)
What will such people do if CWII really breaks out? Maybe they've got Obama gear secretly stashed for just such a contingency. Maybe they'll put out welcome signs for the storm troopers, or pack their bags and wait quietly to be shipped off to the re-education camps.
May their chains rest lightly upon them...
Why would you assume that? (There's other races besides POTUS...I can't believe how many times I've seen the ridiculous unwarranted no-basis conclusions from FREEPERs assuming a stranger they don't know will "stay home" & "not vote")
I am voting third-party if Romney is the nominee...and will give up my GoP membership...(If I wanted candidates to the left of JFK & LBJ, I'd joined the Dems long ago)
I REALLY think that by the time the MSM & Dems get done with Romney-as-a-racist...he won't be "in the contest."
...Note: the first 13 adult years of Romney's life were spent giving 10% of his $ to an openly racist org...no concerns registered by Romney...
...If the MSM made as much as they did with a turned-over-rock with a certain word on it on Gov. Perry's family's hunting ground, what -- in the year of T. Martin...do you think the MSM will do with Romney's background???
And WHO is going to do that?..."We've" watched Obama all but destroy the Constitution...and our guys do no more than lip service. How the heck are they going to hold Romneys feet to the fire when Romney's strings are pulled by unelected people and those no less of his choosing?
Nah, I think not...no one will hold Romney accountable....and actually pull it off.....I have no reason to believe that's possible. They'll simply believe they have one of their own on their side and sit back and go to sleep yet again!
Very good practical point. CA is one example.
In those states, Romney voters will especially be searing their conscience...and forfeit the right to object to socialized healthcare ever again...same with forfeiting their "pro-life" principles...
All for a 'lentil soup' candidate...
Personally, I hope their chains weigh on them eternally. We all should have to live by the choices we make, not get a participation trophy, a pat on the head and free coupons to McD’s. They’ll willingly buy into disaster, then do the ‘not my fault’ trip when disaster arrives. But it won’t be Romney’s fault. No. It will be ours.
I like that ‘deserve neither’ saw that Franklin had. In fact, soooo many things that make this choice plain as day were uttered by the founders. As has also been said, Imagine the arrogance of all these people who know better.
So are you planning to defeat Boehner by electing a democrat in his district, by losing the House and replacing him with Pelosi, or by electing so many tea party House members they select a new Speaker?
I want to hear this and how you are going to do it.
Back at you...
And after Newt takes the South in May, this entire discussion will be irrelevant anyway. ;-)
The supreme injustice is, that the good people of this country, who actually believe in this nation's Founding Principles, are forced to live by the choices made by their cowardly brethren.
Their chains weigh on us all.
I love that thought. It brings an instant sense of relief.
Wait... I thought he was against Romney...
Draft Sarah Palin!
well there are 2 choices Obama - Romney ..Which is it then ?
Our only hope is that CNN and others give this traction. I bet Drudge and FOX don’t... unless they have to. Or FOX’s talking heads will mock him for it.
When he said every citizen of the world should be given the right of the 2nd Ammendment....Did you listen to the video?
I’ve been checking the responses and the comments are coming from the left on this....only of course in the negative.
It might rise the left against it but won’t help if the media doesn’t move it ...and we know how that goes.
BTW....I picked this up on the net....
“Why Newt Fights without Fear”
On Easter Sunday, Newt talked about his faith and said....... if you can hide beneath the cross, theres nothing to be afraid of.
Then you’re helping Obama win ..Smart mover there sparkey
It’s my belief that one way or the other, good people will take a massive hit. There’s simply no silver bullet unicorn fix for any of this.
So if we gotta get hit, then we might as well get hit for a reason rather than on some whim of leftists or the spineless. No, not for some Pyrrhic victory. In the pursuit of avoiding any MORE hard hits.
Any fighter knows that often you have to take some pretty nasty shots to set up a knockout. Continuing the GOP path is just standing in the corner getting hammered while covering up. But if you take that one brutal shot to the kidneys, your opponent is left wide open and you deck him.
Sure it hurts. A lot. But everyone wants a win handed to them with no work, no pain. Well, there’s going to be pain. A lot of pain. Politically, mentally, financially...
Yesterday one Romney voter whined about a business. Today another about his stocks. Too damn bad. There’s a bigger picture. Some of us are losing more than that. And we’re willing to risk it to go down swinging. Or win. Because winning off the ropes and battered is far better than standing and getting pounded to death on them.
Totally correct. Even Levin said if it comes down to Obama or Romney then it’s Romney ..Anything else is insanity.
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.