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...
It's over.
The Perot votes gave us Clinton.
We would have done better without a Clinton.
No Travelgate, No Monicagate, No Waco, and I believe no 9/11 because the first WTC bombing would have been pursued vigorously under Bush and Saddam would have been handled much earlier as well.
Bill and Hillary did much more damage than a Bush 2nd term IMO and because of it we today still have Madame Hillary wreaking havoc and she will not let go of the power voters gave her and her husband.
The Perot voters messed that one up bigtime IMO.
I can ask you the same question I asked another freeper. If we are to fight “all evil”, should the USA have not allied with Russia to stop Germany?
I guess because of how you worded your statement, you could argue that there was a 3rd way such that we could assure a victory over Germany without being allied with Russia.
Of course, all men are evil — it’s in that book you referenced. So any person you vote for is evil. You could argue that a Christian in good standing with God is not “evil” because of the blood of Jesus, but that would still mean you couldn’t ever vote for anybody who wasn’t a good Christian. Maybe that is how you vote.
There are many people who I respect who do not share your opinion of the “evil” of a particular candidate, but we do not argue that point here.
I have seen few politicians who actually performed abortions. If you pay your taxes, some of those taxes are paying for abortions. You have a choice — you could refuse to pay taxes, and go to jail rather than “supporting abortion”. If I choose to pay my taxes, does that mean I’m guilty of abortion because I’d rather be out of prison than to keep one dime of my money from paying for an abortion?
Are you personally guilty of cutting up babies because you do not refuse to pay taxes? Because you haven’t personally blockaded an abortion clinic? Haven’t used force to stop murder? At what point do you get to claim that you are innocent of the blood of the children?
If I work for a company who gives some of their profits to planned parenthood, since I am responsible for generating those profits, does that make me guilty? If I gave money to united way, and it turned out some of that money went to planned parenthood, am I now evil?
I ask because you said we have to fight “all” evil, but we must define “evil”, and since we are “all evil”, that definition isn’t helpful, so I want to know practically how you define evil and how you apply your fight against “evil” to voting for candidates who are fundamentally flawed in various ways.
I am not sure what that is but it looks cool. heh
You’ve done it now. Now that I know you’re a statistician with HTML skills I’ll be recruiting you for projects regularly. LOL
No, I get the point. But you are making the wrong point. My point is that to say “A vote for X is really a vote for Y” is a false premise. But people keep saying it over and over. Clinton benefited by Perot’s votes because of the dynamics of the race - IE Perot split the vote. That is not arguable. But to say ‘A vote for...’ is incorrect and is an incorrect excuse people waste time bandying around.
Semantics? No, just fact. Clinton would never gotten any of the Perot votes.
If the GOP hadn't pushed the guy that lied to us with 'Read my lips', there would have been no Perot. The GOP didn't take the hint then. They just need to be obliterated as a party, now. For the sake of conservatism. Unless they put up a conservative.
/johnny
Their present position on stem-cell research is vastly better than Obama's.
I have no proof yet that Ann Romney is a compulsive liar. She is far better than First Wookie so far anyway who is absolutely guaranteed to continue doing tremendous damage.
I was speaking only of his stem-cell position.
Good thinking, Shabazz!
At least you get that crumb. Good thing Romney never lies or flip-flops. /s
“I was speaking only of his stem-cell position. “
#1 His position is whatever he thinks you want to hear. He is for it today, and against it tomorrow.
#2 If the best reason you can come up with to vote for Romney is his wife VS: The Wookie then that should tell you something right there.
The alleged "divisiveness" here at FR is, I believe, largely a matter of semantics, as evidenced by your post. Nobody claims to want to be "drop their conservative principles to get an R in the white-house". Rather, their priority first and foremost is to flush Ubama down the toilet of history like yesterday's hard turd. They are simply willing to clamp their noses shut with a vice, sell their souls, and lower themselves to vote for Mittens in order to accomplish that goal.
Personally, I am no longer willing to put a clamp on my nose before I vote. I am too old for that, and time is running out. I absolutely refuse to reward the scumbag GOP establishment elite for getting their latest "it's his turn", wishy-washy, Dole/McCain candidate on the ballot.
Especially this early in the process. A lot can happen in 6 months.
BUMP that! I love your optimism, and I'm right there with you.
FRegards,
LH
/johnny
If the people want a better candidate, they need to put one up. Then he/she has to prove himself/herself through the primary process.
Once the nominee is put up, time to choose. A vote for Bush 2nd term would have been a much outcome than the putrid Clintons IMO.
LOL Praise the Newt and pass the ammunition!
A perfect example of how you change the question to make your ideas sound more rational.
Your question wasn’t impossible, it was simply based on a false premise and an illogical conclusion.
RINO is what you are; voting is what you do. It is plainly obvious that a person who is a “real Republican” could vote for a person who is on the republican ticket, and would still be a “real republican”, even if that candidate did not agree with the “republican party platform”.
I don’t know when the argument changed into your new assertion; I haven’t seen anybody say that voting for Newt Gingrich now in the primaries is a vote for Obama, although I guess some one might say that — I certainly didn’t.
I haven’t even argued that not voting for Romney would mean voting for Obama. I have made two arguments here, against to false assertions.
In one case, I have refuted the false claim that if you vote for a republican nominee who doesn’t support the “republicn platform”, it makes you a RINO.
IN the other case, I have argued that you can’t logically claim to oppose the republican nominee in the general election, and also claim that you are actively opposing Obama’s re-election. There is virtually no chance for a 3rd party to win the election. If you oppose the republican nominee ending up as President, you must at least be indifferent to Obama’s re-election; if you actively oppose Obama being re-elected, you must by definition do whatever you must do to keep him from being re-elected.
I have no problem with principled people who argue that we are better off having Obama as President than Romney, if he is our nominee. My problem is with those who claim that they oppose Obama for PResident, but refuse to take the actions necessary to keep him from being President. All they can say is that they “oppose Obama for PResident, but not as much as they oppose Romney” — which means they prefer Obama to Romney, and that is a choice.
Lest you missed my point in all that — I agree with your statement: it is contrary to reality to insist that a vote for Newt is a vote for Obama. I urge every conservative who still has a primary to vote for Newt Gingrich, as the last conservative standing.
We aren’t at the general election yet, and arguments about the general election are premature while we could still pick Newt.
Goodnight all. I’ve made my points. Tomorrow I’ll be happy to read any reasoned responses to my points, but I won’t likely answer any more questions from people who don’t care about the answers.
Oh, yeah, another term of “Mr. New World Order” stop short of Baghdad stab the Marsh Arabs in the back would have been great. Then during Clinton’s first term Bush I showed us what he was really all about and resigned his NRA membership and called them extremists. We need more trash like that for POTUS.
And get it shot down with GOP dirty tricks like changing rules, or attacking the conservative (Rove, anyone?) or failing to support a potential candidate?
Between the GOP and the MSM, good candidates were taken out with lies and dirty tricks. Who DID win Iowa? After the dust settled?
Who has the delegates in Florida? Do the rules matter?
/johnny
That tells me that I don't like Romney, but I absolutely despise both Obamas and will pull the lever for Romney one reason being at this point I prefer Ann Romney as a figurehead to Moochelle whom I want to send back to Chicago ASAP tout de suite.
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.