Posted on 12/15/2006 7:22:32 PM PST by FarRockaway
I appreciate and agree your opening premise. However, how do you square this statement with the fact that not voting is, objectively, a vote for a party that is "actively hostile" ?
While I will do all I can to support the most conservative possible candidate thru the primaries, I will, if necessary "hold my nose" and vote for the eventual candidate knowing that I and the country are incrementally better off if our party is in control. If the next couple of years don't make my point, it will only be because the left is in hiding pending the next election, which I doubt will happen.
"You certainly enjoy being insulting, don't you?"
When people cross a certain threshold of irrational thought, it is no longer worth the effort to coddle them with polite rejoinder. I will restate my premise, if you Bonnie can't make the judgment that a Muslim candidate must be presumptively rejected for president because his core religion calls for us to be converted, enslaved and/or killed - how can I expect you to be capable of less guilt ridden pass times such as tying one's shoes or chewing bubble gum?
"I don't like to be judgmental, and not all Muslims are the same and most of us are aware of that."
Let's see, all mass suicide bombers for the last thirty years have been Muslim - brutally maiming many thousands of innocent people. But, let's not be judgmental! Let us instead inspect our navels for lint, or perhaps perch in a tree branch and hoot at the moon, acts which also require zero judgment and also conveniently ignore the deaths of the innocent.
May I suggest that non-judgmentalism is a cruel and heartless sham that has been force fed to you.
I would walk across nails and glass to vote for either Rudy or McCain IF and ONLY IF the opposing candidate was Hillary Clinton. So take that petition and stuff it.
I'm not trying to insult anyone other than stay-at-home ideological purists. If you can't vote for someone, you can still vote against their opponent, if that's the only choice. Alternatives? Find them; I can't.
Too bad we can't vote for another Reagan. Otherwise, stay at home, elect Hillary. Or Edwards. Or Osama-Obama.
Agree? Disagree?
Newt and Hillary are now best pals and travel the country together.
Newt is a THIRD WAYER and has been pushing the book, THE THIRD WAVE, which is a new agey, overlaid with pure MARXIST crap, for at least a decade. Read this book and then get back to me.
Newt has MORE public and private baggage than just about anyone and that includes Obama.
Both Clintons had Newt on his knees, slavering all over them, when he was in power. He caved so many times, that he wore holes on his pants' knees.
Hillary WOULD easily have him for lunch; sadly.
I want to win, that's for sure.
So I'm not wasting my time talking about candidates who couldn't win if they were the only person running.
LOL..............great post!
Fortunately the "treasonous bastard" doesn't have much of a chance.
Condi is NOT going to run and if nominated, she will refuse to serve.
The only reason the people on the thread ever object to Tancredo is that they claim he 'cant win'. If he had the poll numbers of Rudy, the Reagan coalition could and would get behind him. Tancredo will bring immigrant blue collar democrats over to his camp. He will bring Catholic pro-life voters. Strong-sovereignty voters who want the border controlled, of course, are with him. Fiscal conservatives are with him. America-first defense people are with him. Pro-life voters are with him. Name me one conservative-ideological block of voters who seriously wouldn't like Tancredo? I honestly cannot think of one. The only people who hate him are...Rhinoceroses.
Exactly so! BTTT
That remains to be seen. The primaries have not commenced. I await them eagerly and with great hope that we will nominate a winner!
AMEN!
[The poster was trying to say that because W ran as a conservative in 2000 and won that Tancredo can win in 2008. I was trying to point out some of the circumstances in 2000 and how Bush's victory isn't exactly a model others may want to follow.]
I agree that Bush's model is one that others should not follow. He ran as a "compassionate conservative" which I understood from the very beginning to be "moderate" and he demonstrated to the the political right over the past six years that, with the exceptions of WOT and tax cuts, he IS a moderate.
I'm hoping that the Republicans can cough up at least one or two candidates who truly are fiscally conservative as well as committed to beating the crap out of the Jihadists, but to tell the truth, I haven't seen one yet.
Hello, GOP??? Anybody home?!!
:^)
Those of Cuban decent to start with.
Quit trying to make the GOP the Christian Party.
Trolls and disruptors.
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.