Posted on 02/25/2007 2:46:59 PM PST by wagglebee
We all know about "limosine liberals" and "San Francisco liberals" and "east coast liberals" and "Hollywood liberals" and we all say we are against them. So, why is it that we seem to have a new breed of liberalism that is festering on a conservative forum?
By my calculations it is a small number (only about 15%) of FReepers that seem to be supporting a pro-abortion, pro-homosexual marriage, thrice-married (once to his cousing) gun-grabber for the office of President of the United States of America. And I'll be the first to admit that many of them are supporting Giuliani because they think he is the only Republican who can win. However, what about those FReepers who seem totally comfortable with Rudy's liberalism? In her book Treason, Ann Coulter describes in detail how communists infiltrated the Democrat Party and my fear is that decades from now, someone will describe how liberals infiltrated and destroyed conservativism in the name of pragmatism.
We all know that there are liberals here and I'm pretty certain that they aren't going anywhere. As a conservative, I know that conservativism consists of a belief in a strong national defense, fiscal conservativism and social conservativism, so to call these FReepers conservatives in name only (CINOs) would be incorrect because many of these FReepers don't even claim to be social conservatives. So, my question is this:
WHAT SHOULD WE CALL FREE REPUBLIC LIBERALS?
You lose me there Chief. Pat Buchanan may have turned in his Republican Party membership in disgust, but that's because he IS a Conservative.
"wagglebee"?
I would offer up a contraction of the words "blind" and "freepers," one which conveys those deep passions which sometimes find their expression in expletives, while still exercising a certain amount of restraint...
Bleepers.
OK, let's come at it this way. What is the meaning of conservative?
The dude claims to be a Christian, too.
If you even had to ask that question--then you DESERVE RUDY!!...LOL
P.S. Please 'look it up'...lol
"Pragmatic conservatives"
"Realistic conservatives".
As I expect you would agree, genuine Conservatism requires no qualifiers. Conservatism is Conservatism, plain and simple.
I have little interest in variations on the theme.
LOL! I like it. It's catchy. ;o)
So, those who wish to discuss the relative merits of candidates who actually have a chance are to be pilloried here with some concocted epithet, so you can be free to discuss the relative merits of candidates of the candidates with odds of 200-1 and 1000-1 respectively?
I've figured that at FR we generally agree with Patrick Henry that we don't ...acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot. I thought that the best way for us to defeat the Dems/Libs was to deal with political reality, even if reality was unpalatable and unpleasant.
Here's a compromise. If you want to freep without having to see realistic candidates discussed, maybe FR can set up a special board (like the Smokey Backroom) called Freeputopia where only rah rah posts are allowed about 100% conservative candidates. Would that work for you?
Thank you. Apparently some on here need the definition 'explained' to them.
I am suprised you could take a break from your bible long enough to make this post.
My big sis used to say, "I'm nice 'til I'm not!"
It was true, too! ;-)
Oh, I can look it up in Webster's and give you the dictionary definition. I know what my definition is. It just seems like there are a whole bunch of other definitions out there, and woe be unto anyone who might question any of them.
No can do. CINO is already taken. It's a "Christian in Name Only." ;o)
Rofl...I love it when they throw up that "ultra-conservatives (social conservatives, religious right, etc) are destroying the GOP" canard.
The GOP has been purging conservatives since 1996 by backing more "moderate" candidates and giving more power and money to the Snowe-Chaffee-Collins types and where did that get them?
Back in the minority where, let's be frank, they like it.
No matter the forum, the people or the topic of conversation, as sure as you're born, there's always one side calling the other "Kool-Aid Drinkers".
As a rule, it's always better to be the one called it than the one who uses it. Since using it is the ultimate sign of an insipid, intellectually lazy person. They're right up there with people who use "tin-foil" and "conspiracy theory" regularly.
These are the buzz-phrases of sheep.
1976 Democrat - Mo Udall and Scoop Jackson
1980 Republican - George HW Bush and Jack Anderson
1984 Democrat - Gary Hart
1988 Democrat - Gary Hart
1992 Democrat - Paul Tsongas
Guess what? NONE OF THEM WERE NOMINATED.
Rudy thinks Ruth Bader Ginsburg was a good Supreme Court choice.
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.