Posted on 02/19/2007 1:14:04 AM PST by Jim Robinson
Edited on 02/19/2007 2:20:11 AM PST by Jim Robinson. [history]
Would you like that hat plain, or with a sauce?
Jim my friend it's you who is missing the point.
\ nopardons doesn't care about 'conservative' positions because she's not a conservative.
She doesn't want a 'conservative' Party platform because she's not a conservative.
She doesn't want a pro-2nd Amendment conservative candidate because she's not a pro-2nd Amendment conservative herself.
She doesn't want an anti-abortion conservative candidate because she's not an anti-abortion conservative herself.
She doesn't want a secure borders anti-illegal immigration conservative on the ticket because she's not one herself.
She wants a candidate who reflects her idea of the Republican party. In short, Madame Guliani is her perfect candidate because he reflects her core political beliefs most closely.
So in short my friend what you're doing is akin to trying to teach a pig to sing. It's wasting your time, and obviously it's quite annoying to the pig.
Leave her to stew with her liberal friends. When the primaries come around and Dame Guliani gets trounced maybe she'll see the error of her ways.
Personally I doubt it but who knows. Stranger things have happened.
Best.
L
If we are not a conservative party, then our candidate will not be a conservative and his platform will be missing (or misrepresenting) critical conservative planks. It's really very elementary, m'dear.
You've corroborated what I said, whilst claiming that you refuted it.
You claim that I "scream", but then you break the stated posting rules; which I haven't done. You accuse me of having misstated the facts, then say the same thing. You complain about correctly used vocabulary, but haven't shown that it is incorrect.
Until the person makes his or her acceptance speech, the nominee is the presumptive candidate.
And maybe not.
The sky is blue on my planet. What color is it on yours?
L
Ping WOW
What's also really elementary, is that this nation does NOT have a populace that is more CONSERVATIVE than LIBERAL. In order to win an election, a candidate must therefore attract the votes of a majority of the populace, so that the electoral college votes, from each state, give a sure and certain win to one specific candidate. If that doesn't happen, then nobody's vote counts, since the election is then thrown into the pit of elected officials in D.C.!
And since the word "conservative" has taken on a different meaning, here, than it's usual meaning ( outside of the MSM, that is ), therein lies a problem for communication.
If "many" fringe parties, with supposed "conservative" candidates spring up, as you have mused, who then, do you imagine those candidates will be? Any names come to mind? I would be very interested to know whom you imagine would come to the fore.
When you can bring yourself to stay on topic, get back to me.
ROFL I will go to bed on that note.
You're shouting again. It's really rude.
But, completely by accident I'm sure, you've hit on the root of the problem. The Republican Party is in danger once again of being taken over by Northeastern liberals who claim that they aren't Northeastern liberals.
What this website and our gracious host are trying to do is to see that the Republican Party is in fact the home of modern day conservatism.
You however are working at cross purposes to the stated goals of this forum.
Promoting Dame Guliani as the Republican Party nominee does nothing to promote smaller government, respect for private property rights, defending the unborn, returning the Federal government to its proper Constitutional role, defend the 2nd Amendment, or any of the other things this website is dedicated to.
In short you're kind of the t*** in the punchbowl.
You're promoting someone who is diametrically opposed to the stated goals of this forum.
All the while you're trying to tell us it's for our own good. Then you get all shocked and suprised when most of the forum disagrees with you and makes no secret of their contempt for yet another Northeastern liberal attempting to pass himself (or herself as the case may be) as something they most obviously are not.
Get this through your head:
We don't give a rats ass if Dame Guliani is 'electable'. Bill Clinton was 'electable'.
We don't want 'electable'. We want Conservative.
Now if you can't deal with that maybe you should find another group of people to annoy because quite frankly I'm getting more than just a bit tired of your foolishness.
You're obviously not in agreement with the stated goals of Free Republic. You make that more clear with every single one of your posts.
Perhaps you should find another forum more to your liking and one which more closely reflects your liberal political philosophy.
I'm pretty sure the Log Cabin Republicans have a small discussion forum. No doubt you'll liven things up there quite a bit.
L
This is not a debate and mind reading/assumptions are not refutation, accurate statements of fact, nor relevant to the topic of this thread; or much of anything else, for that matter.
I want a strong leader and I also want to beat the Dem candidate.
Reagan didn't get rid of Roe V Wade and neither has any other GOP president since. An American president is NOT a kind, an emperor, a benevolent dictator ( or just a plain old dictator), or even a genie or fairy Godmother/father who will do what either of you want, in the twinkling of an eye, ignoring the rules and regulations of our government enumerated in our Constitution.
And Lurker................you have no idea what I do or do not want, vis-a-vis each and everything you have stated; misspellings, baiting, and personal attacks notwithstanding.
Please point out which of the suggested planks I listed above do not represent your brand of conservatism.
It's a strange kind of conservative who promotes pro-abortion, anti-2nd amendment liberals.
This is not a debate
Actually it is.
.... mind reading/assumptions are not refutation, accurate statements of fact, nor relevant to the topic of this thread; or much of anything else, for that matter.
Once again if you don't mind. It would be most polite if you could do it in English.
I want a strong leader
That remains to be seen.
and I also want to beat the Dem candidate.
And you don't seem to mind if the Republicans nominate a Dem to do it.
Reagan didn't get rid of Roe V Wade
What's your point? We're one or two SCOTUS justices away from voiding that abomination and you want to elect a pro-abortion President. I'm beginning to question not only your manners but your sanity.
And Lurker................you have no idea what I do or do not want,
Actually I've got a pretty good idea of what you want. One is known by the company one keeps dear lady. And you're keeping company with a pro-abortion, anti-2nd Amendment Northeastern liberal. In fact you're quite shrilly defending him as the one and only person who is 'electable'.
Now I have to assume that since you're supporting a pro-abortion, anti-2nd Amendment Northeastern Liberal that you are one yourself.
Why else would you support someone who supports murdering unborn children? As I said one is known by the company one keeps.
Or as my sainted Grandmother used to say "If you lie down with dogs don't be surprised if everyone thinks you have fleas, too."
L
Please stop talking about some ephemeral "person", who is going to save the GOP and America. Just complaining about XXX, or YYYY and ignoring Huckabee, Tancredo, Paul, Brownback, Hunter, and anyone I have left out, isn't helpful. And yes, I know and agree that McCain is terrible; which is why I didn't mention him. These are the known contenders. Newt isn't going to run.
Don't put words into my mouth; I haven't done that to you.
BRAVO
Post of the day.........Thank you for steering this site into its stated goals of advancing conservatism....i thought FR was losing its way for the last year....glad to see it being nudged into reality and back on track.
:)
If you are incapable of doing better than you have done, then I suggest that you refrain from attempting to continue. I'm not falling for the bait.
You're the one imagining that you can change it.
Actually he or she does. But why let the facts get in the way of your unsubstantiated assertions.
If you'd bothered to read the rules which I thoughtfully posted for your edification a few posts back you'd know that.
L
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.