Posted on 09/22/2009 9:33:08 PM PDT by Palin Republic
Let’s face it, none of the candidates are perfect. They never are. But McCain is the least perfect of the viable candidates. The only one left standing who can honestly be said to share most of our conservative principles is Mitt Romney. I say this as someone who has not been an active Romney supporter. If conservatives don’t unite behind Romney at this stage, and become vocal in their support for him, then they will get McCain as their Republican nominee and probably a Democrat president.
(Excerpt) Read more at article.nationalreview.com ...
***You need to understand that small “l” libertarianism and conservatism are philosophies in opposition to one another.***
LOL
“The RINO-scumbags and weak sisters need to GTF out of the way because conservatives are going to take back our Country and if they don’t like it, they can go hide under their beds and chew their fingers until it’s all over.”
We can always get SEIU to chew their fingers ;-)
As rants go, I rank it very near the top.
B U M P
by de-programming and re-educating the people that hold RINO opinions.
McKook has already been “re-educated”...by North Vietnamese Communists! “
Yep. I do not believe for a minute that one can “re-educate” an entrenched RINO. It has yet to happen even once.
Excellent beat down... :)
The philosophy of small ‘l’ libertarianism is based ENTIRELY on the VERY DEFINITION of conservatism....limited, conservative government, which is something that the Republican party hasn’t stood for in a VERY long time...
Get a clue.
You outlined perfectly what we conservatives have had to contend with the last few years. Enough is enough!
B U M P
We need to regain the Republican party, and one way to do that is to vote such that RINOs lose every time, and limited government Republican conservatives win. I think Rush is right when he warns limited government conservatives against forming a third party.
It's easy -- RINO's follow the power and money, they have no real ideology other than power & money. If we have it, they'll come -- question is do we want faithless, feckless losers like this to represent us? I don't.
BWWWAHAHAHA...tell us how ya really feel...8^}
Damn, Rabs, when you throw down, you THROW DOWN!!! Good one, brother.
RINOs and those who support them can go to hell.
LFOD
Rabs’ Rant is better...
Mine’s just all full of p*ss and vinegar and bile.
‘S why I could never be a politician...I’d walk across the aisle and start CANING the lefty bastards over the head (oh, the imagery)...
Let's review shall we? Or shall I continue to allow you to bathe in the warm, blissful streams of youthful ignorance?
Modern day libertarianism has nothing to do with Ronald Reagan's 1975 take and has everything to do with the bilge propagated by Harry Browne until his death in '06.
Browne knew libertarianism to its core. He is the most prominent libertarian on the American political stage in the last 30 years. He was the LP's nominee for president twice. He stated (every time he was given an opportunity) that libertarianism is not conservatism, that it has as little to do with conservatism as it has to do with liberalism, and that libertarianism isn't a political philosophy "of the right." Match that up with anything ever uttered by Reagan about his own philosophy in any speeches or writings made while president.
In fact, Harry Browne deemed Ronald Reagan a fraud and a failure.
Here goes (once more for the ignorant!):
Eventually...it became obvious that Reagan was all talk and no action. If government was the "problem," why did he keep signing bills that made government bigger and bigger?
And while Reagan did veto some bills (unlike George W. Bush), in eight years Congress passed only nine bills over Reagan's veto. And only one of those was a budget bill.
Thus Congress didn't enlarge government in spite of Reagan's determined opposition. He actively participated in the growth of government.
Reagan's fiscal promises may have been a sham, but his social promises were all too sincere. He delivered exactly as he promised — or threatened — he would.
Some of today's worst law-enforcement policies were initiated by Reagan's prodding.
Mandatory minimum sentences were initiated in 1986. Thanks to "sensitive" Ronald Reagan, tens of thousands of American citizens have received long, long prison sentences — sometimes life without hope of parole — for non-violent drug offenses.
When he ran for President, he vowed to end draft registration (which had been revived by Jimmy Carter), but Reagan never even asked Congress to consider such a bill.
Conservatives praise Reagan for his aggressive foreign policy. But I've seen no evidence that his policies did anything other than stimulate terrorism throughout the world.
Harry Browne
Got it rabscuttle? The leader of the libertarian movement in the 1990s and beyond, the world's most recent authority on all things libertarian states here that Ronald Reagan stimulated terrorism throughout the world.
No conservative will ever take libertarians seriously until the LP and "small 'l' libertarians" the world over renounce this late man's memory the way he renounced and denounced Ronald Reagan after his death.
The next time you want to include the great conservative Reagan in a discussion of libertarianism, you should read a book. You're unqualified to discuss the issue and as such you're a total waste of my time...and that goes for the rest of the ignorant libertarians on this thread who "have your back."
It's a shame, because you need someone to "have your back," but the folks you're pinging make Sammy Davis Jr. look like Ed McGivern.
get...over...your...self...
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.