[pillbox_girl]

We conservatives should be loved, and you independents should recognize the superior club that we are.

But what kind of conservative are you? Fiscally conservative, socially conservative, religiously conservative, conservative libertarian, limited government conservative, constitutional conservative, conservationist conservative, or what? Your lumping in many different political philosophies under one "conservative" brand name, attempt to define the republican party with all and then automatic declamation of it's superiority shows, yet again, your naive understanding of politics. And, for the record, republican does not always mean conservative.

They made a wrong decision, harkening back to my assertion of cluelessness, selfishness, and probable drug-addiction.

But for them it is the right decision. And your knowledge less repeated "drug addiction" insult is not winning you any debate points.

Again, the independents I know are all much more politically astute than the registered republicans or democrats. They have actually bothered to analyze the party platforms enough to decide that neither is right for them. Most registered republicans I know, and all registered democrats, only associate with their chosen party because they "like it better". Most have no clue as to what their chosen party is all about, and can't even name their local candidates. It's sad, really.

They don't all register. They stay home and play video games. Apathetic.

Now you're just being stupid. Have you ever bothered to actually go out and work for a campaign? People who are not registered to vote are Not Registered. You are right that they are apathetic and useless. But you are also quite wrong because they are NOT Independents. Independent voters, by definition, have registered to vote. They are not apathetic, they are among the most regular and consistent of voters, and they are often our best hope of keeping the democrats out of office.

I am sufficiently rational to belittle their wrong convictions and dismiss them universally.

Sorry. No. You're confusing rationality for ignorant arrogance. And dismissing them universally will cost the republican party a LOT of elections.

Video games.

Repeating an irrelevant non argument doesn't make it one. Especially one as trite as this.

Do you know any registered independents? Have you ever volunteered for a campaign, worked the phones and called people before elections and spoken to them? Do you have any clue what you are talking about? You haven't shown one yet.

I have worked on campaigns. I have spent hours talking with independents trying to convince them to vote republican. So I do know what I am talking about. And words cannot express how happy I am that people like you aren't allowed to run any republican campaigns (well I suspect your kind of thinking has caused us to lose a few).

We don't need indecisive, apathetic, clueless, selfish drug addicts.

More ignorant insults instead of supporting points. Clearly, you are simply incapable of understanding this, but I'll try to make it simple:

1. Apathetic people do not register to vote. Therefore, they do not register as independents. They are not Independents, they are Unregistered (and irrelevant). Independents, by definition, have registered to vote. And they do vote.
2. Independents disagree with the platforms of both major parties (and the minor ones). This means they have gone to the effort of analyzing the party platforms. Their issue by issue acceptance or rejection of a party and its platform shows they hold their political convictions stronger than any party affiliation. These strong political convictions mean they are extremely high probability voters.
3. Elections in the U.S. are not won by how many people are registered to one party or another (this is not a parliamentarian systems of government). Elections in the U.S. are won by how people actually vote at the polls. And people who register as independents vote consistently.

Every campaign I have ever volunteered in has won or lost based on two things: convincing independent voters to vote republican, and convincing lazy registered republicans to get off their butts and vote. We have always had much better luck with the independent voters. Convincing registered independents to vote is never a problem, they just need to be convinced to vote republican (or against the democrats more often than not).

In an election, it doesn't matter at all if someone is registered independent, so long as we can convince them to vote republican. Party affiliations do not win elections, votes do. Registered independents consistently vote, and if we cannot convince them to vote republican, then they will vote for the democrats. And arrogant, ignorant, and insulting comments (and thinking) like yours will only help to drive their votes into the hands of the democrats.

[SteveMcKing]

I told you I was leaving so you thought you'd have the last word! You fell for it!

But what kind of conservative are you? Fiscally conservative, socially conservative, religiously conservative, conservative libertarian, limited government conservative, constitutional conservative, conservationist conservative, or what? Your lumping in many different political philosophies under one "conservative" brand name, attempt to define the republican party with all and then automatic declamation of it's superiority shows, yet again, your naive understanding of politics. And, for the record, republican does not always mean conservative.

My goal is to define conservatism. This is true independence; to actually make a statement rather than cut ties with your best asset - the political system - in a childish bid to prove (to nobody) that you are free.

Again, the independents I know are all much more politically astute than the registered republicans or democrats. They have actually bothered to analyze the party platforms enough to decide that neither is right for them. Most registered republicans I know, and all registered democrats, only associate with their chosen party because they "like it better". Most have no clue as to what their chosen party is all about, and can't even name their local candidates. It's sad, really.

All they are doing is muscling for pet-projects, special interest, and personal agendas. There is a knee-jerk reverence that is given to the misleading label "independent". They use this as a tool to get what they want at our expense. "What's in it for ME? Gimme gimme!" Selfish.

Now you're just being stupid. Have you ever bothered to actually go out and work for a campaign? People who are not registered to vote are Not Registered. You are right that they are apathetic and useless. But you are also quite wrong because they are NOT Independents. Independent voters, by definition, have registered to vote. They are not apathetic, they are among the most regular and consistent of voters, and they are often our best hope of keeping the democrats out of office.

Well I might be willing to humor them for votes, but that would be dishonest.

Sorry. No. You're confusing rationality for ignorant arrogance. And dismissing them universally will cost the republican party a LOT of elections.

"Arrogant" is thinking one is really objective and above all doctrine. If such people wrote their own manifesto - something original and not copied from the Constitution or off the web - then I may entertain their thoughts. However, one can predict such works to be wholly unoriginal, hardly "independent", and above all not even interesting. (Or else someone would have written it already...)

To your enumerated points:

(1) So?
(2) You restate the points made in (1). Repeating a meaningless (non-) argument doesn't make it true. Particularly one so lame.
(3) Right vote, wrong voters. I have no use at all for those sheeple.

The next time you're on a campaign, call independents and tell them how useless they are. They don't come to FreeRepublic very often.