Posted on 04/12/2006 1:07:47 PM PDT by Political Junkie Too
If only we could vote a few more like that off the Island, huh.
Whatever were we thinking?? /HEAVY sarcasm
(btw, there is no conservative in the world who thinks it doesn't matter whether if leftist wackos run the country. Not a one).
Most conservatives welcome passionate Republicans to the forum since many conservatives have been registered in the Republican Party for a majority of their adult lives. That brotherhood is a strong bond.
The definition of conservatism is so broad that there will always be differences of opinion. One man's main course is dessert to another. Differences are usually smaller that agreements.
The forum moved along absorbing these small differences until recently. Within the past 5 years, the definitions of political philosophies have been skewed by the relatively sudden popularity of socialism within the Democrat Party hierarchy. As the Democrats leaned to the left, the center of the Republican Party was pulled along.
Unfortunately, as the Republican Party staggered to the left, its faithful were like frogs immersed in slowly warming water. They clung to the notion that the term Republican remained synonymous with the broad definition of conservative, never realizing that supporting first, moderate causes and finally, liberal candidates had removed that traditional connection.
Those changes are highlighted by recent events within the California Republican Party. For the first time in the last 100 years, the CRP is actively supporting a liberal for governor. Not a moderate, but a liberal by any traditional definition applied. The result has been chaos within the state party. That chaos has spilled over to this forum as California Republican Party operatives, with support from partisan faithful elsewhere, have attempted to seek support for their liberal flag bearer on the California Topic.
We know. Your boss. As for your parenthetic addition, that's the point: we HAVE leftist wackos "running"--and ruining--the country.
Because no moral conservative would ever have a position like you've taken. No moral conservative wants to abandon this country's moral standards and allow the Rats to run it.
Consider yourself exposed, jammer.
Sure earns her pay.
Needs a new script, though.
Ditto that.
I think that we should vote Constitution (or Taxpayer, etc.) anytime we can be sure it won't put a Dim in office.
Living in Alabama (generally a Republican lock) maybe I should give that a try sometime.
But by the time the election rolls around I'm so dadgum mad at the media and the Democrats I can't wait to pull the Republican lever.
:-)
Well, does this qualify? Anti-abortion (and anti-abortion in cases of rape and incest, unlike the damned Pubbie fence walkers)? I am very, very well able to afford the cable movie channels, but don't subscribe because they are smut. I'll admit, I don't support a marriage amendment but that's because I *AM* a conservative, unlike those who do support one: marriage is a sacrament between a couple (man and woman) and God--the State has no right to sanction, give it's "blessing" to, approve of, limit or otherwise interfere with it. So, who is more "morally conservative", whatever that means?
But, so what? Maybe your daddy can whip my daddy. Who cares? The point you changed the subject from is that we have been betrayed. Those who continue to vote for that are enablers and a huge part of the problem. Period.
No, you had the right question in your sarcastic remark, "What can we be thinking." The right answer is "you're not."
I'll be turning in blank ballots, myself, except where there is a true conservative available to vote for.
No, those would be conservatives bashing Bush on immigration.
Arnold is going to finally try being a Republican?
Pretty sure it's a mix of both, so, my point is still a valid one.
thanks.
In Hoc.
Longtime conservative and FR member here and I don't think Bush has a clue.
So, Bush is now "Jorge" and evil? I think there's a lot of bad rhetoric being tossed around about his stance on immigration.
1) He's been pretty tireless in reminding folks that he's not an advocate of amnesty.
2) He's been pretty tireless in trying to find a comprehensive solution, one working with Vicente Fox (I think a mistake as that Fox can't be trusted), as well as makeing an effort to stregthen the boder by increasing the appropriations for DHS in regard to the border for FY'06 (not enough though).
I too am critical on Bush about the illegal immigration issue, I think he needs to go after Fox and the corrupt government of Mexico to get to the root of the problem.
But I believe this POTUS to be a good man, and an honest President... I am not going to Bash, and consider his presidency a failure, on just one issue...
He's taken the fight to the enemies of the US overseas. First POTUS to make an actual attempt at doing that in a long, long, long time...He rightly pushed tax cuts to spur economic growth and economic hope, incentivizing corporate investment, and decreasing the unemployment rate....handling well in economic downturn early in his Presidency. He's shaken off viceral attacks by his political opponents who look to divide this country at their personal gain (read Kerry, Clintonistas, here)...
So, in the mind of this conservative Republican, it's fair to be critical in regard to the issue of immigration...but not fair to "Bash" for the sake of taking some small pleasure out of it or fan decent amongst the intelligently faithfull, which a lot of clown libs that post here do on a regular basis...just check out the "Day in the life thread for the POTUS" a pack of libs got on the thread and started Bashing Bush on illegals...just too Bash him...thinking they would keep from being zotted or their comments from being yanked.
Peace, In Hoc.
'Thanks for posting this. I've never heard any coherent reasoning for how not voting will get one's point across... if you don't vote, nobody will know why and you will just blend in with the 100 million or so people who don't vote out of pure ignorance or laziness. If you're really so tired of the Republicans that you couldn't possibly stomach voting for them, vote for a third party. If millions of people did that, then at least the nation (and the Republican leadership) would know WHY people aren't voting for them, rather than just assuming that they need to become ever more "moderate".'
During my walk home from my local watering hole, I was pondering the question of whether to (a) protest by not voting for President in '08 if McCain was our nominee, or (b) hold my nose and vote R. Voting while holding my nose won out easily. A protest vote is a juvenile and pointless exercise.
Yer so vain... I bet you think this thread... no, wait! I bet you think this whole site is aboutchew!!! Ha Ha Ha!!!
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.