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.
Fell for what? I thought we were having a discussion, but apparently you'd prefer to engage in childish games. Grow up.
My goal is to define conservatism.
And my goal is to get people to vote conservative. Making up your own definitions and then trying to force them down people's throats is not going to win you any friends come election day.
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.
You seem to think that because people are not directly affiliated with any particularly party, that they are "detached" from our political system. Absolutely untrue. Go ahead and look at the voter turnout records. Unless you are actually afraid of actual facts, you'll see that on most elections the turnout of registered independents is significantly higher than registered republicans or democrats. In the recent Oregon election, I believe the numbers were 80% of independents voted versus only about 60% for both democrats and republicans. And look at states with open primaries. You'll find that almost always a third to half of the voters that vote in open primaries are registered independents. So explain to me again how they are "detached" from the political system.
All they are doing is muscling for pet-projects, special interest, and personal agendas.
No. Absolutely wrong. You still don't get it.
Again, how many registered independents do you actually know? How many do you speak to? Have you ever volunteered on a cmapaign and actually tried to get people to vote conservative or republican? Ever?
Or do you just blather on about your own desire to have everyone on one team or another and your pathetic and useless goal of "defining conservatism"?
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...)
You really have no clue what an independent voter is, do you?
(1) So?
So it directly disproves your assumption that independents are unregistered. If you had half the brains you think you have, you'd have known that from the starte, and wouldn't, even now, be coming back with the ever so witty "so".
(2) You restate the points made in (1). Repeating a meaningless (non-) argument doesn't make it true. Particularly one so lame.
No. Go back and re-read. There is in fact a difference between simply registering and registering independent. Most people who register, register for one of the major parties based on "gut feelings". And then don't bother to vote.
And "lame"? I didn't think kids today still used that word.
(3) Right vote, wrong voters. I have no use at all for those sheeple.
And I say God help us if you ever get anywhere near a decision making position in the republican party.
The next time you're on a campaign, call independents and tell them how useless they are.
You really have no clue, do you. If we were ever so stupid as to follow your advice, Kerry would be president (and worse).
Again: How many campaigns have you worked on? How many times have you called people trying to convince them to vote republican? How many independents do you know? Have you ever been to a campaign rally? Have you done any work with any pro-Second Ammendment organization? Ever? Just where do you base your absurd assertions?
They don't come to FreeRepublic very often.
Again you demonstrate the depths of your ignorance simply knows no bounds. Do you _really_ think that's true?