Posted on 01/29/2007 1:36:27 PM PST by Dark Skies
My suggestion remains the same - work for something rather than against someone.
If your purpose is to bash. Then expect to be challenged on it.
Who called who a member of the KKK? Can you point me to the post?
He can't point you to that post, because nobody posted it to him. He is reading between the lines and assuming it.
Really? All this and no one called him that? I must be missing something here!
There's no reading btween the lines required here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/1775703/replies?c=616
I don't see anything in your responses that indicates the ability to discuss anything that advances conservatism.
My suggestion remains the same - work for something rather than against someone.
I am working for something, I'm working to stop Rudy Guiliani from becoming the Republican nominee and supporting a conservative candidate instead.
What you're working for is the question.
If your purpose is to bash. Then expect to be challenged on it.
Calling attention to a candidates positions that are antithetical to conservatism is not "bashing". Posting sophomoric touchy, feely crap is not challenging me.
I have no problem with homosexuals. They are human beings for God's sake. There can be a fine line betweem outright bigotry and a devotion to Biblical teaching and quite frankly many posters here cross the line. I'm not sure why that is allowed?
Extremists are people who, for example, called for Jeb Bush to break the law to save Teri Schiavo. They go too far. They set back the movement, imo, by turning off most people. They make conservatism look bad and what that ends up doing is hurting rather than helping the movement. People who can quote a gazillion scriptures but have no idea how to be kind - are not the best ambassadors for a politcal party, imo. I am not calling you anything.
So I don't see anything in your responses that indicates a willingness to discuss honestly.
The comment was 616.
"SSHHH! They still have their white robes at the cleaners. It's not safe to wear them in public anymore or admit they are the owners!"
There's no way that "white robes" can be interpreted as anything but a reference to the KKK.
Ed
I agree! Name calling has to stop all the way around IMHO!
Thanks for the # of the post -- I didn't even know where to start to find it.
I was one who was praying that Jeb Bush would use his executive power to take Terri Schiavo into safekeeping. Killing Terri Schiavo was totally wrong. And I am 100% opposed to the homosexualist agenda. Guess you are calling me names.
Yeah, I wish the vituperation would stop. It saddens me to see people being called such things, along with the general level of animosity the upcoming elections are bringing.
I wish we could discuss these differences in rational ways, with a modicum of respect.
Ed
Bingo! Couldn't have said it better myself. In the end we all have to do what it takes to help our nominee defeat Ms. Clinton IMO!
I'm not sure the GOP will ever regain its footing if the views of the rest of the country are not acknowledged and respected.
I do not agree that there is a homosexual agenda.
This is the primary season. Hope you are not declaring it over. Rudy is far from being our nominee. He may be a tossup favorite of the media with John McCaine, but he's far from being the favorite of the conservative wing.
LOL
Whatever
Our nominee meaning whoever comes out of the Republican primary. I would even support McCain if he won (hope he doesn't). I have been working Republican elections for over 30 years and when I say 'our' I always mean Repubican whoever it is because it is my Party as it is to everyone else who is a Republican.
I supported George Allen and he lost in the Senate race so I moved on to the person who I think has the best chance of taking out the DemocRATs. Losing is not an option in my book especially for the WH. Eight years of Clinton we cannot afford again.
Is Rudy the perfect candidate -- no? Would he be tough as nails on the WOT and support for our military -- absolutely! Would I be willing to support a strict social conservative in the primary -- no. They cannot win nationwide because we do not have enough voters if we don't reach out and run a candidate that can reach across a broad spectrum of voters and who energizes various voting groups. After what happened in Oklahoma in 2006 when the candidate picked by social conservatives for Governor got clobbered 2-1, it showed a lot of us that a social conservative that has trouble winning in OK is going to get clobbered nationwide.
Been involved directly in campaigns for over 30 years and must admit I was taught a lesson. You have to look at who the opponent is going to be and then decide what it the most important issue to you. Mine happens to be National Defense and WOT, followed closely by smaller government, less taxes, law and order, and strict constitutionalist judges. I am a States Rights person and believe that social issues belong at the state level. I am tired of the Feds trying to do social engineering along with the Courts. My State has a right to say by a vote of the people whether abortions can be done in my State just like we did in outlawing gay marriage. That is exactly why abortion doesn't rate very high on my radar for President but it rates extremely high in my state elections because sooner or later it will be returned to the States.
My two cents!
PKM
Thanks for not throwing in the towel for conservatism.
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.