[Maelstrom]

Yup...you're a liberal.

"Proof of a vast right-wing conspiracy" gave you away.

Time to call the ZOT masters.

Moreover, the argument has devolved into a simple dicotomy:

Those who wish to do the right thing
vs.
Those who wish to "win" at any cost.

Which follows the old dicotomy, respectively:

Conservatives
vs.
Liberals.

You've been exposed Nostrand

[nyconse]

Read Reagan's essay on compromise. You can be a conservative and still win elections- You can't govern unless you are elected. What good are Principles if you are sitting on the sidelines having absolutely no say in how the government is run? Conservatives can not get elected in all 50 states-this is a fact. Should we just give up and remain "pure" while allowing the Dems to govern from the hard left? You have to balance your principles with political reality. In a perfect world-IMO-Reagan Republicans would be in charge.....everywhere, but that's not going to happen so I'll take the victories where I find them and try to educate people on the value of conservative politics in the meantime. I suppose we will have this converstaion about President Bush too. Already on other threads principled conservatives have indicated that they won't vote for President Bush-not conservative enough. I suppose the Democrat they help elect would be better?

[EternalVigilance]

"Proof of a vast right-wing conspiracy" gave you away.

Amazing, isn't it?

I vote amateur...

[RS]

"Those who wish to do the right thing
vs.
Those who wish to "win" at any cost."


If you don't win you don't get to "do" anything except complain.

[DrMartinVonNostrand]

Time to call the ZOT masters.

Moreover, the argument has devolved into a simple dicotomy:

Those who wish to do the right thing vs.
Those who wish to "win" at any cost.

Which follows the old dicotomy, respectively:

Conservatives
vs.
Liberals.

You've been exposed Nostrand

Hmmm... I should have realized that humor was wasted on the trogliodyte crowd. I was illustrating through absurdity, by holding up Hillary's ridiculous paranoia as a mirror to the paranoid delusions direct towards myself by some here. I thought it was an example that could be understood and appreciated here - at least by the level-headed members. It also was meant to say "you are the ones who give the rest of us a bad name." I hope and pray that it was not lost on all here.

As for calling me a "liberal", those would normally be fightin' words that I would take serious offense to, but in the relative context of the extreme-element present, it is a label that can only be worn as a badge of honor.

This whole "secularists not wanted" attitude from some is every bit as disgusting as the Democrats' "Catholics not welcome" attitude. I for one don't think religion has any place in politics and in the everyday business of governing the people.

And to even draw a comparison to me and the liberal "win at all costs" philosophy of the liberals should be an insult to every clear-minded person here.

The liberals' "win at all costs" tactics revolve around election tampering, court interventions, bizzare "accidents", threats, and good old-fashioned slander.

If any one is guilty of this sort of thing around here, it is the reactionaries who slander good ELECTABLE candidates like Arnold as "RINOs", and threaten not to vote - not those of us who simply want to vote for a candidate that can actually WIN an election.

Except I would view that counter-productive attitude as "lose at all costs". I'm tired of the religious-right single-issue voters actively sabotaging the party's efforts at mainstream appeal. Clearly, the fundamentalists do not want a Republican majority, because then we would no longer be beholden to them and they would finally become someone else's problem.

[mac_truck]

Time to call the ZOT masters

I'd say its more likely time for you to take a nap.