Skip to comments.Opus Time
Posted on 04/17/2012 4:47:30 PM PDT by Williams
Well it's been about 13 years forgot my initial sign in name, so pretty much from the beginning.
Never wanted to write a Free Republic Opus, love reading news stories here and commenting every day.
Would rather not go out in anger seems pointless.
Then today the owner of the site called me a RINO (I'm not), surrender monkey (not) and told me to write my opus and get out.
My sin was fighting with someone who suggested Obama losing in the latest poll is "bad news".
I could list all the insanity of what is going on here. I've tried to approach Jim Robinson in email to gently suggest the problems we are facing. It's clear from that he is not interested in discussing and resolving anything, which is a shame.
But what kind of man, American, conservative will I be if I worry more about losing my 12 year old screen name versus standing up to people who are espousing the advisability of reelecting Barack Hussein Obama, and yes if I fail to stand up to the owner of a site for calling me a liberal when I am a proud conservative?
What Jim Robinson is doing cannot work because first of all he is NOT attacking the posters who say it is best to reelect Obama. He's offended by anyone who says he is thereby supporting Obama. But he doesn't mind calling us names when we attack the pro Obamas.
OK folks, it's not going to work. You can't really oppose Obama's reelection if you may also oppose the republican's election.
Free Republic has become a house divided against itself and it cannot stand.
I'm a conservative I love my country, I have to wish away to the cornfield anyone who would assist in the reelection of Obama, from whatever misguided motivations.
I stand with Dick Cheney. The other day I had to fight with someone disparaging Cheney here. They were not criticized by the owner.
Jim Robinson owes me an apology. Not planning on getting one. The sad fact is I am not writing this because I'm offended. It's because I want to no longer assist here in the destruction of my country by those who will, to varying degrees, assist in Obama's reelection.
Six or seven liberals on the Supreme Court? Maybe atomic destruction down the pike after our disarmament. Israel destroyed. 2nd Amendment neutered. Obamacare used to deny people medical care based on age and political beliefs. Racial strife. A welfare socialist state. US attorneys going after republicans.
My wife is a cancer survivor who reasonably fears that in the future they will deny her care because she is a registered republican. And she's no RINO, she hates Obama and she won't read Free Republic stories anymore because of what is going on here.
We have a real country and real lives out here that go beyond Jim Robinson's ill advised name calling against sincere conservatives who dare to disagree with him.
So F anyone who calls me a RINO for standing with Dick Cheney and against Barack Obama. I hate RINO's and I despise misguided so called conservatives who do anything to reelect Obama.
13 years, but it's nothing when put to the wall on my beliefs against the left wing democrat party. I have too many mirrors to look in. The people here who are every day posting that it will be best to reelect Obama, should be thrown off. Instead, well...
Things don’t change when people walk away. Especially since most people don’t want anything to change to begin with, and are happy the irritants are leaving.
Lots of people walking away though. Seems premature to me — Gingrich isn’t out of the race yet. No point in falling on a sword before there is no choice.
The system is a one party system of two Socialist parties. If you want to pee in the wind, have at it. Mittens won’t fix the problem.
OK, Gore would have been worse than Bush. No argument. So what’s the question?
As a matter of logic and principle Charles, please explain in detail how voting for a ‘Republican’ candidate who opposes the Republican party platform does not make both of you RINOS by the accepted definition of the term.
I’ll wait. This ought to be good so take your time.
It is premature (Gingrich is still in the race), but given what both of those people have said in the past, it seems rude and condescending to write in the name of a person who will by that time have urged you to vote for someone else.
Why not vote for a minor candidate who is on the ballot and actively seeking your vote, rather than mocking someone who will have by that time endorsed a different person. “I respect you so much I want you to be President, and disrepect you so much I will ignore who you endorse”.
But like I say, it’s premature — we can still support Gingrich, since he’s still a candidate.
As to your comments about “slower death”, I’d argue the point but we are not allowed to discuss that in this forum.
Blame the GOP-E for changing the rules and playing other dirty tricks to push your boy. If they put up a conservative, I'll vote for her.
There will be one of two people president next year, Obama or Romney. No amount of bluster from anyone on this site can change that. An anti-Romney thread is a pro-Obama thread.
Good point. That's what's wrong with Mark Levin's approach. He's said all along that he'd vote for the nominee. So Romney goes scorched earth on the conservatives knowing that people like Mark Levin are going to vote for him no matter what. As a strategy, it's foolish to tell your political enemy, in advance, you'll support him if he manages to win the nomination. You lose any leverage you might have had.
In regards to moving Romney right, that's more foolishness. Our only leverage over Mitt Romney is our votes. John McCain has proven that. That's why he only runs to the right every six years and thumbs his nose at us the rest. We have no sway over Juan McPain, and we won't have any sway over a Romney administration. He'll do what he wants within the Washington DC power structure that exists, and that isn't likely to be conservative (I'm thinking a Democrat/RINO coalition).
I can think of a justification. I believe that Obama and Romney will *both* lead this nation to total ruin. In fact, I think total ruin is inevitable based on the demographics.
However, I believe Romney will get us there more slowly - which buys me just a little more time to better prepare.
Both candidates are Liberals. Your logic is flawed. It’s an anti-Liberal thread.
If we're relying on post-election tallies of protest votes to make the GOP turn right, we're looking at a Leftist control of the White House for a couple of decades. I understand the anger, but it seems slight consolation in exchange for seeing Obama with four more years to destroy America.
That is already in the bag. Romney is dead-man-walking already. Do you REALLY think that the Christian Right is going to set aside the bare fact that Romney is and has been a flaming pro-choice, pro-homo advocate? Do you really expect them to vote for Romney-abortion over Obama-abortion? I can THOROUGHLY predict that Romney is going to lose just as big as McStain did. Without the Christians, NO Republican wins, PERIOD. They have been trying that "!UP! the middle" crap for years. If Romney winds up the candidate, all is lost... The only chance at a win is to hoist up a 3rd party candidate.
...all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
Yeah, it's happened, but it's been awhile.
So its the safe choice?
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
This was written by Franklin, within quotation marks but is generally accept as his original thought, sometime shortly before February 17, 1775 as part of his notes for a proposition at the Pennsylvania Assembly, as published in Memoirs of the life and writings of Benjamin Franklin (1818).
I like how you said that — much better than how others have suggested.
Nobody should be castigated for refusing to vote for a candidate they don’t support. And contrary to what others have said here, I believe there are people here who, on principle, would rather allow Obama to win re-election than to allow Romney to be President.
What I don’t know is why so many people want to deny that is what they believe. It is a principled position, and people should stand up for their principles, not try to deny them. If you oppose Romney, oppose him, and proudly admit that you are so sure of your beliefs that you would rather have Obama be president.
The only people that annoy me are those who suggest that they can oppose Romney, and still “oppose Obama”, as if there is some way to end up with neither man being President. I wish there was — that was the point of this entire primary, to get a republican nominee that was NOT ROMNEY (a lot of people forgot that, and spent the entire nomination attacking other candidates trying to get their “favorite” elected). And there is still a technical chance that Gingrich will be our nominee, and while that is possible, it makes sense for people to argue that they will never vote Romney, because that might make people vote Gingrich.
But if Romney is the republican nominee, people will have a choice to make — Romney or Obama — and should be honest about that choice.
How does that jibe with the results in 2010, especially in the state legislatures?
The only hope for Conservatism lies in the GOP - no third party will see electoral success in our lifetimes. If a strong GOP is needed for Conservatism to survive, then we have to first stop Obama, or the GOP will splinter and we will spend decades in the wilderness.
We've seen this before - the Taft/Roosevelt split gave us Wilson, and look at how well that turned out.
Aye, the game is rigged. Time for a new game ... Constitution 101.
Romney is also rich.
According to this website, Washington was the second richest president, behind the Kennedy wealth.
Romney's wealth is going to be used against him, but he can point to the Kennedy wealth as a comparison. He should leave Washington to stand apart from the rest of the presidents.
I'm not saying that you said anything, but I was interested in your reference to other sites that made the comparison. I'm sure an opus is not the best place to pursue this, but it's here that I first saw it, and I can search for this later if I want to reuse the reference.
Neither of those two abortionist statists that’s for sure. Straight conservative down ticket!!