Posted on 05/14/2006 5:10:23 AM PDT by Mia T
Enjoy becoming a Democrat, then.
Your idealogical purity test seems to have blinded you to Reagen's political maxims.
Reagan was a man, not a god.
No thanks. I'll take Chaucer's advice and "flee from the crowd to dwell with truthfulness."
Sadly, only SOME of us can't.
It goes against our grain to vote against our values.
That's because you haven't embraced the spirit of Compromise. You know, the same sort of compromise that served Neville Chamberlain and Vidkun Quisling so well.
We will fight to the death for our values but we will not commit suicide.
Well said.
We will all die. How we die is more important than if or when we do.
And as important is how we LIVE. As a political variable? Or as a stern, uncompromising bastion of principle, who never, ever, under ANY circumstances justifies the abandonment of the ideal for the immediate.
I will not make deals with my ideological enemies, no matter their stripe.
Okay,"iron"Jacko, here's some truth your can continue running from, nothing is perfect, not even your idealogical purity. You sound like a spoiled brat , as many here are sounding. Glad you enjoyed Chaucer, I'd say he's probably not enjoy you. Have fun with your sack mates at Stormfront.
I am confusing nothing, but perhaps you are.
You say that we need to rid ourselves of professional pols and I agree. But then you tell us to wait another 4 years to do it and in the meantime that we should reelect the currect, self serving SOBs.
I am not even convinced that she who will not be named will get the nomination, let alone win. Therefore, the pros pose a more immediate threat.
The candidates that I support already know that they serve based on their good behavior and that someday, even with said good behavior they will need to go home.
Even people on this board encourage the professional pol. They go beyond respecting them to darn near worshipping them. The message needs to be repeated often that they are our employees, not our masters.
Again, we agree on a lot of things, just not the conclusions that you came to.
Another reference to the two-fer. You've probably mentioned it elsewhere. You're voluminous.
Agreed.
And I notice in post #43 that you are winning the argument because the poster has resorted to name calling to try to debase you and the argument.
I remember a better day here when the argument was heated, but based on facts and documentation and principle not vitriolic personal attacks.*
I do think that it was only one day, to be honest. LOL
I am not aware of citizen-politicians in any significant numbers currently on the ballot. We must therefore choose between bad and worse.
The smarter move, IMO, is to vote for the person who more closely mirrors one's positions and work to field people of ability and courage from the real world with real-life experience. This type of change cannot happen overnight.
I think he was referring there to Carter, not the wife. He's trying to become a Carteresque ex-prez in order to snare the Nobel Peace Prize.
Next thing we know, he'll be picking up a hammer and nails (even as she picks up a hammer and sickle.) ;)
Good post RKV. Bttt
You can choose between bad and worse. I've seen that plan used for 40 years and look where we ended up.
No thanks. I will vote only for people with demonstrated integrity and principle. My vote is valuable and I will not spend it on worthless pols of any stripe and no matter the cry of necessity or claim of emergency. Those are the cries of the self serving and power hungry in their desperation to hold power.
If there is compromising to be done, it should be in our direction, not the Dems. Compromising in the wrong direction when your party is in charge isn't compromise, it's retreat.
And as long as the Republican rank and file listen to the siren call of the Party that the other party must be defeated at all costs, they will have no incentive to change their course.
Are we still Clinton hating?
RR was human...and it would be easy to point at the retreat after the Beirut bombing simply because OBL loves to cite that event. What we MUST remember is that RR hit Ghadafi after the Berlin bombing, and captured the Achille Lauro hijackers in mid-air. THAT was Reagan's contribution to the WOT...it was 8 years of Clinton's appeasement of WTC#1, Saddam, Khobar, and the African Embassy bombings that emboldened the Islamofascists.
And if you truly believe that we will be safer having the Treasoncrats back in control rather than even the most RINO of Republican in power...re-read MiaT's posts...and re-watch any documentary on 9/11 (excepting Michael Goebbel's card-stacking trash). I own them all...and re-watch them whenever the Pubbies let me down...and I start to think I will "never vote Republican again."
While I agree--we don't owe the Republicans our votes--we sure as hell don't owe our votes to the clintons.
But that precisely what you'd be doing--placing a de facto vote for hillary clinton--if you vote for a Perot, or if you sit out the election because of a Perot-surrogate issue.
You are conflating two issues, and in the process, deluding yourselves.
The first issue is policy. As long as DC is run by the professional pol, we will have policy that serves... surprise... the professional pol. It doesn't matter if that pol is a conservative or a liberal, a Democrat or a Republican or a Bull Moose.
You are deluding yourself if you think otherwise. (Think 'Barrett Report redactions loophole.' It is proof certain that not one honest, courageous politician exists in either the Senate or the House.)
The professional pol is a self-selected subgroup of Homo sapiens marked by mediocrity, corruptibility and dysfunction. The answer to the current mediocrity, entrenched power and lack of courage is not to help elect even more defective professional pols (or even less defective ones, for that matter). It is to begin fielding outstanding citizen-politicians. Just like the Founders envisioned.
The second issue is the '08 election. That is what I am addressing here. (The '06 election will set the stage and is, therefore, almost as crucial.) It is self-evident that a Democrat--and especially a clinton--would be fatal for America. Now is not the time for us to indulge our indignations.
Is it really asking too much to wait until we dispense with the clintons for good? Imagine how good you would feel, how many possibilities would suddenly open up, if we could deliver the coup de grace before '08 and remove them from the political stage... for good....
What clinton really meant:
"In general, I think that the fact that we got to be president is quite honor enough... (and what's taking you so long to give me my Nobel, anyway.)"
Fear is a powerful master and the only tool available to those who have no demonstrable record on which to stand. The fact that the Republicans must resort to fearmongering simply underscores their lack of accomplishment. I refuse to respond to the "The Evil Dem would be so much worse". Without demonstrable progress on domestic issues, Republicans will not get my vote.
Withholding my vote or casting it for a third party is significantly different than casting it for a Dim. It is not, as you allege, "a defacto vote for Hillary." It is merely one less that she must counter. If the Republicans want my vote, they simply must earn it. That point is non-negotiable.
Oh, you two are acquainted? Or does your presumption extend to speaking on HIS behalf as well?
Have fun with your sack mates at Stormfront.
Have fun with your ... right hand.
Incorrect. The first issue is principle. First. Last. And always. All else is candy-coated compromise, ideological prostitution.
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.