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]
I was told earlier this evening that it's impossible for a conservative to win the general election against Hillary Clinton. That the socially liberal Rudy Giuliani is the ONLY Republican who can (a) beat Hillary and (b) win the war.
How many FReepers actually believe this hogwash? If we have no faith in our own conservative principles and values why do we call ourselves conservatives? How can we possibly hope to advance our conservative causes if we tuck tail and run when we should be fighting as if our very survival as a free people depends upon it. Because it does.
We cannot advance conservatism by running a social liberal for the office of chief executive. If you want proof, ask Arnie, the socially liberal Republican governor of California. No thanks. You can have him and the socialist horse he rode in on.
We cannot defend life, liberty or nation (see below discussion on securing borders) with a social liberal at the helm.
I'd like to build a winning conservative platform with a dozen or so hard hitting no nonsense points that we can all agree on that would help us focus on our best potential primary nominee and one that can defeat Hillary, et al, in the general.
Here's a starter list and it's open for discussion, cutting, consolidation, expansion and detailing:
Would a conservative platform focusing on victory in the war, national security, national defense, securing the borders, deporting illegal aliens, sound fiscal policy and defense of life, liberty, property and individual rights be a winner over Hillary's treasonous platform of surrender, weakness, open borders, socialist fiscal policies, "abortion rights," "gay rights," global warming, continued government abuses and subversion of our rights to freedom of religion, freedom of speech, right to keep and bear arms and private property rights?
Expanding on one issue, for example, I'm pushing for increased border security. I used to be in favor of some sort of temporary worker program, but not one that has a fast track to citizenship. I'm now coming around to the point of view held by the majority of Americans regardless of political party affiliation and that is we MUST secure the borders immediately. It's obvious that this war against Islamic fascism is going to grind on even after we put down the nasty business in Iraq. We must secure the borders against terrorist intrusion and infiltration. We must tightly control ALL immigration to the US.
It's also becoming more and more obvious that Americans are not happy with illegals taking jobs in an ever growing number of industries. They're no longer just doing field labor and or menial low paying tasks. They're creeping up the uskilled labor and union scale, only they're competing unfairly by accepting low wages and under the table payments.
We also need to seal the borders against drug smugglers, weapons smugglers, criminals, terrorists, etc. Catch them, try them and lock them up.
Americans are also tired of footing the bills for illegal alien health care, education, welfare, auto accidents, crime, disease, etc.
It's way past time to call a halt to this nonsense. I say we catch them at the borders and deport them. If we catch them again, place them in a work camp. If they want to work, fine, let them work in a work camp for their keep. Nothing more. And no illegal families or children or anchor babies. If it takes additional laws on the books, fine let's get it done. If it takes a constitutional amendment to stop the anchor babies, let's get the process started.
We should also catch and deport them when they show up at the DMV, voter registration or voting booth, unemployment line, bank, building permit office, welfare department, social security office, hospitals, free clinics, schools, jails, auto accident or traffic stops, etc. If they can't speak English and they don't have valid identification, then we need to hold them or call in the INS.
If we're going to secure the nation we must secure the borders, control immigration and stop pandering to the illegals or their enablers. Employers who willingly and knowingly hire illegals should be punished. If they pay their workers under the table and fail to withhold taxes or social security, they should be dealt with as felons.
So, we win the war, secure the nation, build our defenses, return to a sound fiscal policy, cut spending and taxes, and defend our rights.
How many states would go for this platform as opposed to Hillary's that is exactly opposite?
I think we'd even pull in California.
What say you?
Fred Thompson and/or Duncan Hunter for president ticket.
Newt has long since jumped the shark.
Send this message to all our leaders city, state and national. We have been told illegals are doing jobs we will not do, so lets tell our leaders this:
We need a congress & President who will do the job our congress & President will not do!
STAND UP FOR USA CITIZENS
NOT ILLEGALS
When we expressed concerns about Rudy's pro-abort past, we were derided as single-issue voters.
When we expressed concerns about Rudy's gun-grabbing past, we were called single-issue voters.
When we expressed concerns about Rudy's past support of amnesty and sanctuary city politicies, we were derided as single-issue voters.
When we raised concerns about [insert any number of core conservative issues here], we were derided as single-issue voters.
Apparently the other side saw Orwell as a playbook, not a precautionary tale. So they are much freer to engage in the wholesale destruction of truth, reason and logic on a site that nutures such an approach instead of challenges such an approach.
Meanwhile, it once again is possible to present a logical response to Orwellian idiocy in government without local Orwellian poster children descending on you, attacking anyone who dares to make sense in this senseless day and age.
>As a conservative site, Free Republic is pro-God, pro-life, pro-family, pro-Constitution, pro-Bill of Rights, pro-gun, pro-limited government, pro-private property rights, pro-limited taxes, pro-capitalism, pro-national defense, pro-freedom, and-pro America. We oppose all forms of liberalism, socialism, fascism, pacifism, totalitarianism, anarchism, government enforced atheism, abortionism, feminism, homosexualism, racism, wacko environmentalism, judicial activism, etc. We also oppose the United Nations or any other world government body that may attempt to impose its will or rule over our sovereign nation and sovereign people. We believe in defending our borders, our constitution and our national sovereignty._____________
Is this the winning platform for 2008?
If not, what is the weak link(s)?
Meanwhile, it once again is possible to present a logical response to Orwellian idiocy in government without local Orwellian poster children descending on you, attacking anyone who dares to make sense in this senseless day and age.
***Good writing.
I don’t see any weak link. It’s not intended to be a platform for a political party, but one paragraph in JimRob’s mission statement. It is also one of the few items I was able to use with the rudybots and have them admit that, yes, they were not really social conservatives; so I find it to be an effective paragraph.
I see you’ve gone on to other threads like American Idol and responded to posts since this one. So I gather from such crickets that you concede the point that these rudybots were not honorable. I’ll keep that in mind for future reference.
I believe that these three items are of strong enough concern to pull many hedonists (who are more about licentiousness than socialism) away from the Democrats this next election.
Your whole list was good, but I cynically believe that many potential voters are incapable of paying attention to that many campaign points at the same time.
I also believe that focus on Item 2 neutralizes the pro-aborts hysteria on the impending Supreme Court vacancies by giving prominence to concerns that hit home harder with many of the apathetics who don't really have a vested interest in baby killing.
There still here. They’re just too cowardly to stand up and admit that they follow and support a pro-abortion, gun-grabbing, illegal-alien supporting Liberal candidate.
“They are ugly and liberal to the bone.”
Bump!
What do you think was BS?
The entire post was typical liberal pap. The idea that the United States should not do what is necessary to protect itself, like building a barrier to illegal invasion, because people in other countries will think less of us, is absurd.
The idea that terrorists recruit because the United States lives in prosperous freedom is ridiculous.
The entire concept that we should embrace depraved governments so that they will be our friends is not only historically wrong it is downright stupid.
The only hope the world has is for countries that are prosperous and free to remain so and be strengthened without regard to the views of the putrid swamps that surround them. Freedom spreads only from the strong. Popularity, on the international scene, not only is usually worthless, it is often a sign that what a country is doing is wrong.
"We have Nicaragua, soon we will have El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Costa Rica, and Mexico. One day, tomorrow or five years or fifteen years from now, we're going to take 5 to 10 million Mexicans and they are going into Dallas, into El Paso, into Houston, into New Mexico, into San Diego, and each one will have embedded in his mind the idea of killing ten Americans."(Thomas Borge, Nicaragua Interior Minister as quoted in the Washington Times, March 27, 1985)
Cheers!
Jim,
Is there any candidate that has a moral conservative platform? Are you running?
And yes they're honorable...and your argument you gave is a non-sequitor.
They are honorable to decide to back a candidate that may be able to beat Hillary or somebody else the RATS choose...rather that throw a hissy fit and stay home on election day.
And tell me how they are supposed to come back here after being told their longevity didn't count for anything? Take their money and then show them the door? Is that honorable?
Is it honorable to pull the stunt jedward did?
Please do tell?
I'll learn from that and stay away from threads that get my blood pressure up. FreeRepublic has been my home page since 1998.
“Is it honorable to pull the stunt jedward did?”
Do you think I’m not honorable?
Do you think I’m not honorable?
You answer my question...and then we'll get to yours.
I asked you directly very early on in the Bugzapper Thread if you were a retread and you lied to me.
This after we had a very good repor with each other on the MELD threads.
Here’s the response I gave to Chena.
“If anyone has lied it has been me. I like the way you worded it though “wrong to have outright lied”. When is a lie acceptable? What’s your limits? If someone’s personal identity is involved in anyway shape or form and someone like you and the others that have found the time to come here from “over there” to spotlight this situation, then I’ll lie every time, and let God sort it out. Example: Two soldiers are in war together, and one gets captured very near where his partner is located. The enemy threatens to kill the soldier if he does not show them where his partner can be found. The soldier (knowing exactly where his partner is) points in the opposite direction of his partner and says “he was going that way”. The soldier lied, and you would say he “outright lied”. I see you as a 3rd soldier and you also got captured along with the other, only the role you would play is to say to the enemy “no he wasn’t, he’s right over there about 20 yards in the brush”.”
Anyone looking find ill motives with me are not going to find them. If you, a relative or a friend’s identity was involved, you would have to ask yourself that very question, that is if you lie of course. Honorable is a very subjective term, so I’m not going to define my actions under that umbrella. Besides it’s all just a big conspiracy to some anyway.
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.