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. "
Yes, Reagan WAS a democrat, but, as Paul Harvey would say, you're leaving out "the rest of the story". WHEN Reagan was a Democrat the Democrats themselves were nothing like the socialist/leftist/lunatic party they have become today. WHEN Reagan was a Democrat, Democrats like Scoop Jackson were strong on national security, military strength and preparedness, etc., and they actually joined with Republicans in embracing the principle that, with regard to foreign threats, "politics stops at the water's edge".
Reagan was focused on the principles, not the party, or as he put it, "I didn't leave the Democratic Party, they left me". The constant references to the fact that "Reagan was a Democrat" are completely meaningless in the context of what the Democrat Party represents today.
"People will vote for Rudy (or Romney) because they want someone who can win the WOT"
I'm sorry, but I just don't follow that logic! What are either of those two going to do that would be different than, say, Duncan Hunter or Newt Gingrich? What are their unique qualifications?
I do agree that if we elect giulianni or romney we would have another fdr and jfk.
Thanks.
"So true, I am starting a database here to keep track of them so we can embed little microchips under their fingernails! If and when they log in we can identify and then exterminate them post-haste. Feel free to pass me your list so I can add it to my already growing list of names."
You don't have to worry. You should know that. They'll end up having to spin so much in their attempts to explain way Rudy's liberalism that they'll eventually self destruct on their own.
That and their complete lack of a sense of humor will ensure their self destruction.
Hi paulat!!!
I am doing great this fine Saturday evening.
Nothing like some interesting threads to keep me thinking and laughing.
Good to see you as well!!
LOL!
dig on the irrelevant!
God bless Roanld Reagan wherever you are.
He made us proud to be Americans again.
BTTT
Sad thing is, they just arrived here a few posts up. I'm gonna get out of here before their shrilly voices make me dizzy again. Good night!
And 250 - 300 posts.
I guess I should have put a /src tag on that one.
A Rudy supporter and libtard troll was called out this evening and rode the lightning.
You have to put my statement in context.
I am a big supporter of Newt 08 if he decides to run.
Wow, that was quite a busy little troll.
On a personal note, I like Tancredo. Hunter also looks like a great choice. It's early and I hope the GOP gets a spine and nominates a conservative that has a true core. On the other hand, anything looks better than Hillary or Obama. Aargh...
I also like Newt. I think he is playing a cagy late start game. I like Newt, Hunter, King from Iowa and a few others.
The difference is that Rudy and Romney actually have a chance of winning. Just because you agree with one guy more than the other doesn't mean that guy would make a great President. Congressmen and former House Speakers don't get into the Oval Office. Normally niether do Mayors but because of the times Rudy is different. Governors become President. For that you have Romney (who could most likely get it) or Huckabee (who is really running for VP). After his performance at the CPAC Brownback has nowhere to go but down, so he's done.
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.