Posted on 03/03/2007 5:38:03 PM PST by ZULU
"Therefore, we wholeheartedly support the Bush Doctrine of pre-emptive strikes on known terrorist states and organizations that are believed to present a clear threat to our freedom or national security. We support our military, our troops and our Commander-in-Chief and we oppose turning control of our government back over to the liberals and socialists who favor appeasement, weakness, and subserviency. We do not believe in surrendering to the terrorists as France, Germany, Russia and Spain have done and as Kerry, Kennedy, Clinton and the Democrats, et al, are proposing.
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. "
I was wondering, because people I knew who had the Perot bumperstickers on their cars, I would hardly consider conservatives. Most of them were malcontents that griped about everything and had no point of reference. Conservatives have a point of reference, a set of principles. To me, Perot and Giuilianni are similar animals.
What is an extreme right wing wacko? I like the sound of that.
Fred Thompson isn't perfect by any means, but he is fairly solid on most conservative issues and he could win.
I could live with a Hunter/Thompson ticket.
Just a side note....Many get Fred Thompson and Tommy Thompson mixed up.
It was another thread. It's been removed already.
You better get used to the flood of coverage going to the candidate you DON'T want for POTUS....because no matter who the GOP candidate is...he isn't going to get nearly as much MSM coverage as the Dem candidate.
I think that is a rule or something.
Just a thought traderrob6. He didn't just support abortion. In my reading he supported pulling a full term baby from the womb and... well, you know the rest. The only people who support that kind of barbarity are the far left feminist fringes and the politicians who pander to them. There is some sickness in any man, D or R, who can not stand up to the feminist few on this one issue. Was he pandering? So far, it seems he was not. Seems he approves of this kind of thing. Maybe I've seen misquotes.
Fear of a boogeyman stampedes lemmings and sheeple. Citizens need not follow the Pied Piper of NYC down a moral slippery slope.
I note an undue level of anxiety in true Conservatives here-- for God says FEAR NOT......and of Faux Conservatives here--who are trying to cause a Rudy stampede.
In a sense, it doesn't matter who is which, both can lead American voters astray. We must guard our heart, eyes, ears and steps.
Some of us consider one presidential election and the Iraq War as just another couple of BATTLES in the perpetual war of Good vs. Evil that has gone on since Satan's revolt against God and subsequent exile from Heaven. I'm sure you understand that paradigm. Whether or not you personally subscribe to that Weltanschaung (worldview), those of us who do--believe that giving slack to evil practices such as abortion means forfeiting a battlefield. When one considers that there are many battlefronts in the war and that the war against evil goes on perpetually, don't expect moral warriors to Chamberlain in order to win a pyrrhic victory.
Meanwhile, there are those who profit supplying the materiel for wars--and there are those who profit or plunder in victory. Any who let go of the Righteousness end of the rope in this deadly serious series of Tug-Of-War battles play into the hands and plans of moral Quislings and the tyrants to whom they pander, human and otherwise. Those who refuse to vote at all are playing ostrich--there is nothing morally courageous about default.
As regards those who vote third party as a moral statement, the obviously most notable example is of course those who say that they morally cannot/ will not vote for a pro-abortion candidate. I fully experience and understand the anguish these persons of conscience deal with.
The decision to vote for third parties in such a personal state is not based on emotions--as you postulated on a thread several days ago. Nor is it based on logic--for logic would say "Never mind the moral torpedoes, let's all move Leftward in our candidate and votes so we can win." The problem then is, exactly WHO wins? Not the Right. Not Life. Probably not Liberty. And without that, what Happiness is there to pursue? A rising tide lifts all ships--and a slippery slope sullies all citizens.
I do not have the answers to those--including myself--who foreseeably could be be hit with with a Double Bind, a Catch-22 situation. BUT--I personally intend to vote straight GOP--with the gauntlet thrown down that I am committed to do everything I can to drag the wayward Elephant back toward the Right curb on the straight and narrow highway that doesn't lead to destruction--so that Conservatives born and unborn don't end up in...moral back alleys with third party coat hangers.
Meanwhile, although Hillary is being thrown up incessantly as a boogeywoman -- there will be no stampeding many of us Pro-Lifers into a false Hobson's Choice in fear of her shadow. We (most of us, that is!) are using logic, reason and appropriate emotion to evaluate and vet possible candidates. I would postulate that nobody who is Pro-Abortion is functioning from a purely logical standpoint either, BTW.
Cheers.
Mods deleted the comment. (I didn't see it either.) It claimed to be retired when I called it "kid" the other night; but sounded like a sophomore (in pre-school)
"As long as all of you right wing whack jobs stay in this thread, FR will be just fine through the '08 elections! Kudos to ZULU for rounding you all up! ATTABOY ZULU!"
You really do live in fantasyland don't you?
I'm afraid you are right.
WHY aren't there more REPUBLICAN oriented media organs out there?
Do they ask for party affiliation on admission applications to journalism school?
Garde la Foi, mes amis! Nous nous sommes les sauveurs de la République! Maintenant et Toujours!
(Keep the Faith, my friends! We are the saviors of the Republic! Now and Forever!)
LonePalm, le Républicain du verre cassé (The Broken Glass Republican)
I just want to make sure there's intellectual consistency among people-- and you two seem to be consistent. I think most of us want the same things (the things outlined in FR Policy statement), however, sometimes you might need to go an unlikely route to achieve the end you desire. And I just wish we weren't so quick to vilify those who might take a different route than ourselves.
While Guiliani is much more liberal than I'd like, if he were elected, there's a decent chance he'd put the people in place who would be able to move us closer to the goals we want (FR Policy)--what good does it do to nominate someone who would get killed in a general election, thereby paving way for MORE liberal policies than have been enacted over the past 50 years... Basically I see the disagreement on FR as a disagreement on tactics, not on desired results, and I don't see the sense in calling people "abortionists" because they want to try a different route. You shouldn't alienate anyone who can help you achieve your ultimate goal.
Blah blah blah, I need to go watch a movie with my husband.
Do you really? Then why come to this thread and participate in a 'fight'? Just start your own thread where people will 'discuss' the subject in a manner more to your liking. They might even support the candidate that you are choosing to support.
I'm glad ZULU initiated this discussion. And so are quite a few others, it appears.
"If you want Rudy then fine have it your way."
Huh? What would make you think I want Rudy? I wouldn't pi$$ in his ear if his head was on fire.
I want a conservative that can live with the party platform just like it stands now.
I agree wholeheartedly and I'm trying to do that, but I'm afraid I'm not very good at it.
When I found FR 9 years ago it was a far different ballgame than it is today since it has been swamped with RINOs trying to convince conservative FReepers to accept a NYC style liberal RINO who has taken a stance at one time or another against the greater part of everything Republican conservatives decry and oppose.
Excuse me for jumping into your conversation, but, are you talking about Fred Thompson?
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.