Posted on 03/13/2005 12:11:42 PM PST by tcg
"How do you know she's a "conservative"? "
I've read enough about her over the years to know this. As for her specific positions, we'll find out if she becomes a candidate. As I said, I will bet that they are close to GWB's.
She'll make a terrific candidate. The relatively small portion of voters who'll sit on their hands in 08 will be more than made up for by moderates, especially those who are African American.
Actually, it is a humorous conflation of the word "oxymoron" with the common forum practice, which originated I believe on a cartoon show, of calling a moron, instead a "maroon." Thanks for asking.
LOL...you really thought I was asking that as a question? Seriously, how old are you?
Given your sophomoric responses on this thread to date, yes. You've displayed no basis on which to conclude otherwise.
Seriously, how old are you?
Comfortably middle-aged. You?
Do rapists deserve the death penalty?
Actually, yes it does. Killing a child conceived in rape or incest is still killing a child. That's evil. It's never necessary.
And abortions to save the mother's life aren't abortions. The goals is to save life, not kill life. Death is a consequence, not a goal.
>>Does that go for President Bush's acceptance of the three exceptions?
>Actually, yes it does. Killing a child conceived in rape or incest is still killing a child. That's evil. It's never necessary.
So then President Bush is "pure evil" by your criteria?
Do we know that all those here who feel the same way have enough votes to swing the election but not enough to bring about a political realignment?
Agreed. Let's hope they're not that dumb.
It's about as likely as being killed by a meteorite, and I'll give the possibility no more weight than that in my decisions.
Of course.
Your votes will either help or hinder the winning candidate.
My vote will help the candidate I vote for, and be an equal hindrance to every candidate I don't vote for.
You personally will be partially responsible for the winning candidate.
Doesn't follow.
**************
No, but I don't think that was (Erick's?) point. I hate to keep speaking for him, but...
It was the theory of some that one of the reasons President Bush won in '04 was because of the evangelical/religious right. If enough of that voting block sits out the '08 election, the Republican candidate may well lose.
From the perspective of pro-life issues, Hillary would be a disaster.
Agreed. But it's not clear that anyone would have a moral duty to vote for an only marginally less disastrous candidate. If I thought my single vote would decide the outcome, I'd have to think long and hard; but since I know it won't, I can state right now that I will not vote for a candidate who is "pro-choice" even if their opponent is even more so.
They should turn out to vote for the pro-life Constitution Party.
*************
If there was a pro-life Republican candidate that I thought had a chance of winning against Hillary, I would vote for him/her. I firmly distrust Hillary, and even the possibility of partial-birth abortions coming back into being is so horrifying to me that I just won't take that chance.
It may be that my perspective regarding this issue is dead wrong. I've certainly been wrong, and regretfully so in the past.
Agreed. Appalling that some would court and coddle "moderate" voters, while tossing crumbs to conservatives and demanding slavish gratitude for it.
It's too early to be writing anyone off; any current poll advantage Hillary has is due to name recognition.
You argue that Rice would attract a greater portion of the African-American vote. It could also be argued, and perhaps more convincingly, that Giuliani would play strongly among Italian-Americans, who are far more moderate politically. One could argue that Giuliani could win in New York and New Jersey because of the Italian-American factor. However, what he would gain in neighboring Pennsylvania in areas of Italian concentration would likely be lost to indifference or third party candidacies in the heavily German and Scotch-Irish "T zone" that is the core of Republican strength in that state.
A similar argument could be made for Rice. Further, the black vote is heavily concentrated in large urban areas where electoral politics are locked in the iron grip of corrupt Democratic machines. She might increase the GOP vote among African Americans from 11% to say 25%, but rest assured that ward heelers from Oakland to New York City would ensure that the cemeteries and skid rows generated enough voters to assure Democratic victories.
The American public is basically polarized and split almost 50-50, as the last four Presidential elections have shown. Any Republican candidate to the left of President Bush will suffer from indifference and even hostility from conservatives and will lose.
Evolution as generally used connotes a movement toward greater complexity and higher intelligence in biological life. The American society of 1955 had far less crime, drug addiction, sexual promiscuity and deviancy, broken families, and mental disorders than that of 2005. Few neighborhoods were effectively off-limits, police officers and other government officials were both more respectful and more respected, and public schools, for the most part, effectively taught a large majority of students the three Rs with a minimum of indoctrination. The level of state and local taxation was lower than today. Newspapers, billboards, and the mass media were not filled with promotions of sexual excess and glorification of bad behavior. Government was neutral, and even friendly, toward parents disciplining their children, unlike the situation today.
America in 1955 had its flaws, such as racial segregation, rampant and corrupt unions, unchecked air and water pollution, and oppressively high Federal taxes. However, it is hard to see from a "big picture" viewpoint, how America has "evolved" in the common use of that word. "Devolution" would be a better description of the past 50 years.
The probability may be small but it is real. Besides lots of other things such as winning margin are significant.
I your case however, it might be better if you just stayed home since I suspect that you just might be a troll out for a good time.
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.