Posted on 03/23/2007 7:27:42 AM PDT by VictoryGal
Boy, that's a pretty g*ddamned big assumption on your part. I am registered, have been registered for years and have voted in every election for years. I just vote for conservatives not liberals of either party.
Your words, not mine. I believe you said:
I figured that's what would happen when I ceased to be a Democrat so I never bothered to join the Republican party. I think I hit the nail on the head.
Now how do you think someone should take that? Once again, if you are not a Republican, who we choose to be our candidate is pretty much none of your business!
Ever heard of an Independent? One who believes solely in the Constitution? There's only one person in DC that can brag about that.
And any party that nominates people who will only continue the usurpation of that document makes it my business.
You mean Bernie Sanders? He's an independent. Is that who you mean?
And any party that nominates people who will only continue the usurpation of that document makes it my business.
Really? I have no idea of what your thoughts are on the Constitution. We have many differing viewpoints here on FR, from conservative to downright radical. Since I don't play in the Democrats' back yard, I don't have a say in their nomination process, and I feel the same about others who don't play in the Republicans' yard. But that's just me.
In any case, it's a lot safer to sit on the sidelines and just criticize our Party than to actually register as one and have to take ownership.
Bernie Sanders? That's a hoot!
Ah yes. The Constitution is a living document. Isn't that a liberal premise? Seems that Republicans are leaning to that interpretation as well.
Good God!!!!! I don't ownership of the things Republicans do.
I feel better already. You said there was only one person who was an independent in DC who believed in the Constitution. That leaves only one other, Joe Lieberman.
Ah yes. The Constitution is a living document. Isn't that a liberal premise? Seems that Republicans are leaning to that interpretation as well.
Nah, it's the same great Constitution we've had around for about 230 years. But I usually hear that from folks who just plain don't like a USSC decision for one reason or another. Hopefully the words haven't changed meaning, but a lot of folks differ over the meaning of those words.
I didn't say there was only one Independant in DC who believed in the Constitution. I said there was only one person in DC.......
That's Ron Paul and although he wears the R after his name most Republicans hate him. I was told by a Freeper last week that Paul was a liberal according to his voting record.
The thing is, he votes against ANY legislation that is unconstitutional.....especially expansion of government. Obviously that's not something mainstream Republicans can support.
UH, well, this is what you said which was why I asked about Sanders and Lieberman:
Ever heard of an Independent? One who believes solely in the Constitution? There's only one person in DC that can brag about that.
Ron Paul is a registered Republican, though he does tend to vote rather independently.
That's Ron Paul and although he wears the R after his name most Republicans hate him. I was told by a Freeper last week that Paul was a liberal according to his voting record.
Well, he does have some rather strange supporters, including the John Birch Society and Lew Rockwell, neither of whom can much brag about conservatism. I think most here dislike Paul more because of his total lack of support for the war on terror than anything else. He is popular for his stance on immigration, but the social right doesn't like most of what he stands for. The American Conservative Union gives him only a 76, which does not meet the description of a conservative.
He is all over the board, and is probably closer to a Libertarian than anything. You might find this of interest:
Take care.
Obviously I didn't make myself clear concerning the highlighted statements. The first two statements were in reference to me, not the person in DC.
I've read all about his voting record. As long as he votes against a Republican bill, regardless of its unconstitutionality, the ACU et al consider it a vote for liberalism.
I've requested, via email, an explanation of why a constitutional vote gets him a liberal label. I've gotten no responses.
I understand, but I can only speak for myself. Since 1968, I've been voting for virtually every Republican candidate, handing out flyers door-to-door, marching in parades, and campaigning for Republican candidates. After the last six years of the GOP abandoning everything the party once stood for, I'm embarassed to have campaigned for them. If the poll had asked me if I were a Republican, I would have responded, "never again."
Yawn. You "we must nominate a corrupt greaseball Noo Yawker" to defeat the ALL POWERFUL HILLARY folks are getting old... ;-)
And what, pray tell, does a morally and politically bankrupt Mayor of a Third World city have to offer? Remember, said polls showed Colin Powell as the leading choice of Republicans in early 1999.
Rudy's foreign policy skills are limited to Cholo festivals and Hasidic festivals. We need Teddy Roosevelt, not a third rate barrister with Wilsonian tendencies (albeit without the intellect).
"Isn't it funny (in a sad way), how we were laughing at the apparent falling apart of the Democrat Party just a few years back - they couldn't seem to win their way out of a wet cardboard box and the bickering and cannibalism among their own was a sight to behold."
Don't worry! The dems were and still are a house of cards that will topple at any moment. They are less together than even the repubs.! They offer nothing positive or any meaningful solutions to problems we face whatsoever and will self destruct all on there own. Anyone who has been watching them can see that they are a real mess!
2006 was an anomaly and we would be wise not to overreact and make wholesale changes in our approach to voters. Conservative values are timeless and will once again win out if we are patient!
The MSM is now pushing the idea that polling reflect public opinion. Maybe for about one day it does. Underlying opinion tend to be constant, and most polls are reliable only about the support that the propositions that are offered to those polled.
Well, I'd suggest that he is not the font of constitutional knowledge, nor are most on the Libertarian side of politics. The Constitution was created by men who knew it was not the perfect answer, and that both it and our Nation would require much change to make our Country the "More Perfect Union" envisioned in the Preamble.
Many on the fringes of the political spectrum see the Constitution far differently than most Americans. Most do not believe it was a license to put an F-18 in every driveway; most understand that all Americans have rights, not just white Christians.
Anyway, good luck with your choice. I hope the link helped you. Take care.
I'm not here to speak on behalf of anyone. I answered a question about why Rudy and McCain are currently in the lead. Name recognition and a certainty that they would not push the right wing social agenda are two reasons that they are currently in front. I could also add that they are perceived as having the strength to carry forward on the war on terror and to protect the Nation against its enemies.
As you say, it's a long season, and the decision is still more than 10 months away.
Are you sure you are responding to the intended post? I haven't a clue what you are referring to.
Rudy's foreign policy skills are limited to Cholo festivals and Hasidic festivals. We need Teddy Roosevelt, not a third rate barrister with Wilsonian tendencies (albeit without the intellect).
With all due respect, I don't know what the hell you are talking about. The post was completely about Ron Paul and independents.
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.