"freaks of the religious right"Are you at the correct website noob? By those comments I don't think so.
"it did not take voices in my head (GOD)"
But I do see Ozone and Viking Kittens in your future.
ZOT!
(Sarge we have a live one here)
Posted on 11/05/2008 5:25:47 AM PST by VaBthang4
Now we get to endure all of the nonsense from the Libertarians.
They will explain how conservatives did this wrong, did that wrong etc, etc. They'll subtly and sometimes boldly undermine Conservative principles under the guise of bringing forth common understanding.
All while offering up their idiotic solutions cloaked in faux reason.
Dismiss them as quickly as you would the most ardent liberal...because in the end, their perspectives spring from the same well; Anomia.
I was watching the Florida vote last night and early on I noticed that the difference between O and Mc was about the same vote total that Barr was getting. I guess during the night even adding the libertarian vote to the GOP wouldn’t have helped but early on Barr was draining votes from the GOP.
So you set us back 25 years to work out of this hole. You are an selfish idiot.
I’m sorry, but you’re way too deep for me. That’s like saying there are many meanings to the Ten Commandments.
Political Conservatism means:
1. Fidelity to the US Constitution.
2. State’s rights trump federal rights except in interstate and international matters. That is to say limited federal government.
3. Limited state government.
4. Personal responsibility.
5. Fidelity to a capitalist free market. The “market” should be responsible for working out its own excesses except where national security is concerned.
6. Fidelity to marriage being between a man and a woman.
7. Fidelity to an apolitical and rigorous public education.
8. Fidelity to our inalienable rights coming from God. The political elite are not the source of our right to life liberty, the pursuit of happiness and property.
9. Fidelity to the concept that government is the tool of the people—not the reverse.
10. Fidelity to the concept of no taxation without representation.
This is not meant to an inclusive list nor is it meant to be definitive. FREEPERs should feel free to amend or modify it as seems appropriate.
My point is that there exists a definition of fundamental conservatism to which we would all would agree. I’m not into gray’s when it comes to defining anything.
One of the biggest issues facing Republicans are the ramifications of their reshaping of fiscal policy and what "fiscal conservatism" means, IMHO. It is a wedge running right down the middle of the FICON branch, splitting the newly defined concept of "free trade" tied to credit mongering, against and opposing the libertarian and conservative view of "fair trade" and supply-side economics.
The attempted division, trying to dissect the socons and libertarians away from the rest of the conservative base, attempting to make the difference up in the middle is quite apparent to me, as is their motive:
Ultimately, these two groups are the most important of the conservative factions, and only when combined... For taken together (when mildly in friendly opposition), they represent the conservation of the heart and soul of America- The Constitution of the United States, and the Judeo-Christian Ethic.
Without the Christian Right and the Libertarians, the posers are left with all the toys, and none of the conscience.
Our job is to sell that idea to people who don’t necessarily agree with it. We haven’t been doing such a good job of it lately....
When a definition of a term is an open list like yours, it shows that the term has so many meanings that it’s not easy to formulate in a simple way. Oh, you missed abortion.
"freaks of the religious right"Are you at the correct website noob? By those comments I don't think so.
"it did not take voices in my head (GOD)"
But I do see Ozone and Viking Kittens in your future.
ZOT!
(Sarge we have a live one here)
It’s okay GOP still won “real” America.
You are insane and absolutely delusional if you think McCain ever had a chance. This election was nothing but a referendum on the Bush presidency. The Dems could have run a wet paper bag against McCain and won.
Yeah, it was the Libertarians who sank the party.
We are OVERWHELMED with guilt!
My God, is there no end to the stupidity of neocons?
You mean CORPORATISTS, not conservatives.
Libertarians are NOT "republicans who smoke pot." There is about an even mix between solid fiscal guys who would be republicans if they weren't paranoid about personal liberties.., and wack job fringe loons who would be voting Democrats "if they weren't so conservative."
There is no way you can pin this on libertarians (I voted McCain, btw).
Till you guys can come up with a platform that is something besides "we suck less" you will continue to get your heads handed to you on a platter, and you can continue to whine that the mean ole libertarians did it to you.
Vandalized any keyword lists lately?
well they are pretty much conservative on every other fiscal issue. On the hand, many who are against the bailout are also for Oreilly/Buchanan/Lou Dobbs style populism. There are very few true fiscal conservatives.
Exactly, but we've already got some idiots on other threads who are doing just that - trying to pin the blame on the one leg of the tripod which actually had a somewhat winning night last night.
Pot calling kettle. You are black. Over
If McCain couldn't hold Texas without my vote, he had much bigger issues than he could ever hope to overcome.
It's always funny to see you morons blaming libertarians when the republican party fields such lousy candidates as Senator Amnesty.
My conscience is clear. I did not vote for evil at all this year. Let me know how that "lesser evil" thing works out for you.
Truely, I hope you are not making the case that the GOP candidate proposed economic libertarianism. His proposal to the the recession was to “get to the heart of the problem” and have the Federal Government buy up bad mortgages. Not a free markets idea.
I guess you are, in fact, lacking in decent character. Did your parents teach you to make false claims and then refuse to retract them?
No.
The fact is that the GOP ran a gambit that had a 50/50 chance of winning when they chose McCain.
Everyone expected Hillary to win the Democratic nomination and McCain probably could have beat Hillary.
No one really expected Obama to get the nomination, or for Obama to be able to pull off the candidacy with any grace, dignity or leadership. They were wrong. When Obama came back from Europe, he came back a different man -- it was like someone had sent him to "finishing school" -- and he came back standing erect, behaving with confidence, having lost all trace of that initial goofiness and self-doubt.
Next to Obama, McCain looked and behaved like a constipated old man talking about yesterday, while Obama was talking about tomorrow. The biggest "tomorrow" talk about McCain -- even among Republicans -- was whether or not McCain was going croak and Sarah Palin would take over.
Obama had "the future" written all over him, and McCain had "yesterday's news" written all over him. No big surprise of what people would choose there.
And it was this same constipated old man thinking that ran the Republican campaign. The only real youth and vigor that Republicans had captured, had been through Ron Paul's leadership. So what did the Republican Party do with Ron Paul & his followers? They kicked him (and them) out of the tent, and wouldn't let Paul speak at the Republican Convention. Did anyone think about the fact that we were throwing out the most internet savvy, the best grassroots organizing, the best fund-raising, the youngest and most dynamic people in this whole election -- even better than Obama's? No. They weren't Neocons, so they were categorized as "left-wing loonies".
I am 55 years old and even I feel like I am talking to "my dad's generation" in dealing with the Republican Party. And that should tell you something.
The principles of Liberty, the Constitution and Limited Government (real conservatism) have a dynamism all their own -- something to capture the imagination of the young. If the Republican Party can't or won't embrace that, then the Republican Party is dead. And it won't be because "third parties killed it", it will be because it died of stubborn, old age!
On the other hand, if anyone here thinks that Obama really "won something" other than the election, then stop and really think about what he "won" -- he inherited the worst pile of crap that just about any president could ever have to deal with -- a world economy in the toilet, al Qaeda, a resurgent Russia and a polarized, fickle populace who has no tolerance for pain. There could never be a worse time for ANY president or Party to have control of the White House and Congress.
Unless Obama and the Democrats can pull off a miracle, long run Obama may just wind up becoming more hated than even George Bush. And if that happens, the question will be whether the Republican Party will be in any shape to take advantage of that, or whether they will still be busy eating their young, pointing the finger of blame and generally too crabby and divided to function. I am hoping and praying for the former, but knowing human nature, it will likely be the latter!
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.