Posted on 06/26/2015 9:01:50 AM PDT by HonorInPa
This is exactly why, when conservatives sit on the sideline awaiting the 100% pure candidate, we damage ourselves. Election have consequences and this is one - the ability to select Supreme Court Justices who will sit for life. Look at the ages of Obama's picks - 55 and 61. They are not going anywhere for years.
Abortion, gay marriage, assaults upon Christianity... and we dare to sing God Bless America. Why would he bless us when we spit in his eye.
Not a lie about Reagan, see my prior post just now. I meant to say FOUGHT in the military. My apologies for being unclear.
But let’s use a different example, like Ted Cruz and tell me you if will use his lack of military service as a litmus test. That’s just wrong. Ted Cruz hasn’t SERVED or FOUGHT in the military, but he’d be a good president.
As for the number of choices in the election, you’re picking on semantics. We all know the unfortunate nature of the primary process and the brainwashed electorate only gave us a choice of two candidates that would win. One was 100% evil and the other a RINO for the most part except his foreign policy and economic policy. You chose the 100% evil candidate by not voting.
Other votes for candidate with a 2% showing in the polls are throwaway votes that could have been used to prevent a truly EVIL candidate from winning.
Probably because the split is between liberals claiming to be conservative and actual conservatives when it gets to the ballot box/the chips are down.
conservatism is a basic thing. It’s basically binary. Good/evil. The issue is people calling evil good as in the case of lesser evil/no matter what nonsense. Romney was not Good nor was he conservative Ergo he was never an option for any actual conservative following conservative principles. Which are America’s principles.
But you are probably right about reduced numbers. I can’t deny that. But there are still enough to ensure another Romney type will be denied election.
No it was not unclear. It was a lie. What does fighting have to do with serving? Most who serve never fight.
Backpedal fail.
Umm, I’m not party-line Rep. I’m a free market capitalist, strong on defense guy. I can’t find a perfect candidate either. I thought Ben Carson would be good, but he’s for minimium wage!!
As for your comment:
-—”It is called strategy. If the next Bush finishes with 10% or less of the vote the message “no more democrats with an (R)” the clueless ones in DC might get the message.”
No, no, no... That means the media will say that we’re now the USSR because there are no more “conservatives.”
That’s a fool’s game, not a strategy.
Gunner, don’t discount it entirely. I was media for a number of years. I assure you that some conspiracies are indeed true RE the media and their agendas. Local and national alike.
The blame rests solely on the Republican Party, they are a failed institution and deserve to go on the ash heap of history.
"Instead you resort to a weak ad-hom on the candidate Romney’s lack of military service as if that negates his strong foreign policy stance. Just like liberals do (ad-homs when they have no argument)."
"Might I remind you that my friend Ronald Reagan ALSO DIDN’T SERVE IN THE MILITARY either (I visited him in his office once)."
"Are you also going to criticize the venerable Ronald Reagan for his lack of military service?"
Might I remind you that my friend Ronald Reagan ALSO DIDN’T SERVE IN THE MILITARY either (I visited him in his office once).
Are you also going to criticize the venerable Ronald Reagan for his lack of military service?
“” economically we would be seeing better growth””
no evidence of that though
—”No it was not unclear. It was a lie.”
Why would I lie about Reagan here when a google search can reveal facts instantly?
I’m a staunch Reagan fan!! I have a picture in my living room of him shaking my hand from my visit to his office with some well-connected friends of mine.
I just didn’t think his military stint was noteworthy as he was already a famous movie actor and part of the Hollywood elite and never served in combat during WWII.
Wikipedia says this:
-—”Reagan was ordered to active duty for the first time on April 18, 1942. Due to his poor eyesight, he was classified for limited service only, which excluded him from serving overseas...”
Come to think of it, I haven’t seen Reagan wearing glasses in ANY of the pictures of the time (he did later in life). Could it be that he got preference because he was Ronald Reagan?
If so, I’m glad he did because he shaped our country for the years he was president and ended the Cold War.
I dunno. Why did you? You name dropped visiting him in his office and as a friend. Which is also now highly likely to be crap.
Oh, I don't. I just don't figure blogwankers are going to uncover anything but a few stolen hits.
I was media for a number of years.
Yeah, I know. I used to buy that mag to drool over suspension systems and Jeeps and such.
Ordered some shock boots from an ad once, to make my lame-o shocks looks like something bad-ass.
I just don't trust bloggers and never will.
Bunch of wankers.
No I 3was also a newspaper reporter at a tri state regional after ORC.
But ORC did open my eyes to the mechinactions of the government / greenie cabal.
Mmmm-hmmm....
Well back when Ronnie and I used to go snow skiing along the colorado river around Lake Havasu AZ, (we did that most summers), we often shot speedballs before cow tipping so I may have been hasty in my prior assessment.
I like pink shoes too.
As you were defending “The draft dodging son of the anti-war presidential candidate of 1968, from a family that has never produced a man to serve America in uniform during it’s entire 173 year history here, and whose own sons also refused to serve in the military while their dad ran to be Commander in chief during war time, and Mitt has wanted to homosexualize the military for decades.”
Did you even read post 349? That is a LOT of military service, more than most of us, how can you pretend that those 9 years of military service in the cavalry and WWII mean nothing, and Reagan was not of the “Hollywood elite” when he started his 1935 course, and joined the cavalry in 1937.
Your beloved personal “friend” who you don’t know anything about you lying troll, had a detached retina, he had to beat the system to even serve at all.
You are a lying troll, you were no friend of Reagan, you don’t know about him, and you keep denigration him, his almost decade long military service, and veterans and military service in general, all in an effort to defend a draft dodger from and anti-military, anti-American family with an 173 year history of evading military service and of anti-Americanism.
How many years were you in the military?
Well, Norm, this conversation with you is deteriorating and I have no more responses to you other than to say, yes, I was so fortunate to meet Reagan.
I commented about a picture he had on his wall showing the river where he lifeguarded. He told me that he did quite a few rescues. When the guys were rescued, they were kind of unappreciative, but the women he rescued were more appreciative.
Of course they were! Reagan was a handsome, masculine man, unlike the men of today.
That’s my last comment to you Norm.
I haven’t inappropriately called you a liar as you have me. And yes, you are partly at fault for the fact that we now have Obama ruining our lives. You just don’t like it being pointed out to you.
I call water wet because it is. Same same.
Maybe so, but I didn’t buy any shock boots off ‘em.
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.