[nopardons]

Principles did NOTHING for those who claim that they have them, but the rest of us don't, during the Clinton years.

And we can all go and yell our lungs out, in front of the White House, IF Kerry wins, but that won't do a damned bit of good in stopping him doing awful things. There are NOT, and probably never shall be,enough numbers on our side, to make protesting the other side as big a deal, as the lunatics who pranced and shouted at Nixon. That doesn't mean I think FREEPS should stop; it means that NOT working to oust Dems, is far more important, than giving aid and comfort to them, by going fringe.

[Revel]

I would hope that you would be protesting the Dems as well. And anyone else who acts like a socialist. Time is short. If you want Bush to win then you just need to get him to do an about face and mean it. If there is no threat to him in being a socialist then he has no reason to change. And he won't because it seems to be his preference. Therefore you need to wake him up NOW! So that you are not facing all the displeasure in October when it would really hurt him.

[Ches]

I think you're putting the emphasis on the wrong syllable:-)

[tgslTakoma]

Principles did NOTHING for those who claim that they have them, but the rest of us don't, during the Clinton years.

And we can all go and yell our lungs out, in front of the White House, IF Kerry wins, but that won't do a damned bit of good in stopping him doing awful things. There are NOT, and probably never shall be,enough numbers on our side, to make protesting the other side as big a deal, as the lunatics who pranced and shouted at Nixon. That doesn't mean I think FREEPS should stop; it means that NOT working to oust Dems, is far more important, than giving aid and comfort to them, by going fringe.

The problem I am noticing with your comments above and elsewhere is that you continually want to call those who do stand on principle "fringe" when in fact, they are not the fringe. They have principles, be they WRT limited government, fiscal responsibility, secure borders, and other conservative issues; and you and others appear so insecure in your "platform" that you resort to insults and stomping your feet when you are faced with those who do have firm principles.

It's all been pretty much agreed that none of us wants our national security left to the leftists in the Democrat party. But those of us who are unhappy (to use a mild descriptor) with the direction of the president's administration thus far on our core issues do not want to sit idly by as our party and our president and our representatives veer left towards the cliff.

So we speak out, and are promptly set upon for speaking out.

The better course of action, IMO, is for the voices of discontent to be heard rather than shouted down, so as to get the administration's attention before it's too late for them to take corrective action.

Shutting down discussion by shouts of "fringer" and "go ahead and stay home, we don't need your vote anyway," and "troll" and all the other stuff is counterproductive destructive. Disagree with the argument presented, and offer proof that it is incorrect, but save the schoolyard battle tactics for the schoolyard. Thanks.