Skip to comments.
The GOP has left me.
Self
| Juse 1, 2007
| Natural Law
Posted on 06/01/2007 5:22:56 PM PDT by Natural Law
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100, 101-120, 121-140 ... 161-178 next last
To: CommerceComet
That’s a fair evaluation of it.
101
posted on
06/01/2007 6:33:11 PM PDT
by
HitmanLV
("Lord, give me chastity and temperance, but not now." - St. Augustine)
To: HitmanLV
Simple integrity isnt extremism. What made your mind dart in that strange direction? Bear with me and I'll show you.
1. The Republican party is reputed to be the party of conservatives. It is supposed to represent those who want smaller government, lower taxes, fiscal responsibility, and genuine freedom. In fact, if you read the party platform, you find that the avowed purpose of the party is to pursue these goals.
2. Your post said, and I quote, "A hardcore conservative new party would do about as well as a hardcore liberal new party. Most people arent that extreme."
3. What we conservatives would really prefer is that the Republican party actually do some work toward the goals it says it stands for. That's integrity.
We don't want extremism per se, though Goldwater's famous speech certainly comes to mind: "Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice...and moderation in pursuit of justice is no virtue." Rather, we (I assume I speak for more than just myself, though I could be wrong there) would just as soon have integrity in our Republican elected officials.
So don't call it "extreme," please, when all we want is what the Republicans are supposed to stand for in the first place. It's not extreme to expect a Republican to act like a Republican.
Oh...and thank you for your patience. I normally am not quite that long-winded.
102
posted on
06/01/2007 6:33:45 PM PDT
by
Oberon
(What does it take to make government shrink?)
To: HitmanLV
It has to do with an overstatement of their policy positions, and a complete disregard for everyone else. And suppose their policy positions are as they state? Since when is it a moral imperative to subjugate one's own beliefs in order to appease/support the majority?
To: dvwjr
I meant sixth year mid-term, but nevertheless it's still the same reasoning.
The party in power still loses seats.
To: Oberon
It’s the ‘hardcore’ that’s extreme, not the conservatism.
Strange your mind darted in that direction, though.
105
posted on
06/01/2007 6:35:38 PM PDT
by
HitmanLV
("Lord, give me chastity and temperance, but not now." - St. Augustine)
To: NittanyLion
Since when is it a moral imperative to subjugate one's own beliefs in order to appease/support the majority?Since we're a democratically elected republic, and if you go overboard the majority will vote your dumbass out,
106
posted on
06/01/2007 6:36:27 PM PDT
by
HitmanLV
("Lord, give me chastity and temperance, but not now." - St. Augustine)
To: HitmanLV
It's just that the nuttiest 3% has no moral right to jack things up for the other 97%. I would say you have the tail wagging the dog here.
Who has jacked things up around here? Conservatives have stood for Life for thirty years. Now, we got Rudy walking around jackin' things up. Conservative can not trust him regarding Life. Life is held near and dear to the breast of the Conservative.
Then we have McCain is tryin to pass a bill that gives amnesty. The extremist know that allowing demoratic voters into our country will tilt the elections in the demorats favor. Maybe if you let some Cubans in, we will got for it. Cubans vote Republican because they already lived under a commie regime.
So, call me extreme for holding up to my principle. Apparently, the only way you get attention in DC is by being a squeaky wheel. The far left gets theirs. I want people to fight for what I believe in too.
107
posted on
06/01/2007 6:36:35 PM PDT
by
do the dhue
(May God have mercy upon my enemies, because I wont - George S. Patton Jr)
To: Natural Law
That’s nothing, the GOP clubbed me from behind and stole my wallet.
108
posted on
06/01/2007 6:37:50 PM PDT
by
philetus
(Keep doing what you always do and you'll keep getting what you always get.)
To: HitmanLV
It has to do with an overstatement of their policy positions, and a complete disregard for everyone else. You would do well to understand that standing up for a principle is in no way "immoral". You might claim that it's politically inept, and you might even be right. But to claim that the only moral thing to do is support the majority - even if said majority is unprincipled - is preposterous.
To: Oberon
It's not extreme to expect a Republican to act like a Republican.
HEAR HEAR
110
posted on
06/01/2007 6:39:55 PM PDT
by
do the dhue
(May God have mercy upon my enemies, because I wont - George S. Patton Jr)
To: do the dhue
Who has jacked things up around here? Conservatives have stood for Life for thirty years. Now, we got Rudy walking around jackin' things up. Conservative can not trust him regarding Life. Life is held near and dear to the breast of the Conservative.I am pro life but can see how someone can not be. The 30-year legacy of the pro life conservatives effectiveness is dubious - over a million abortions a year during that period. The debate these days isn't whether abortion should be legal or not (that's been settled, much to the chargin of pro lifers), but now its about public funding, parental notification, or partial birth abortion.
Holding up your principles is fine. If you can't get a majority on your side, you lose, plain and simple. And sometimes, that's a good thing.
111
posted on
06/01/2007 6:40:16 PM PDT
by
HitmanLV
("Lord, give me chastity and temperance, but not now." - St. Augustine)
To: NittanyLion
No - I was saying the only way to get things done is to persuade a majority and branch out from just appealing to a nutty 2%. Just a thought.
112
posted on
06/01/2007 6:41:32 PM PDT
by
HitmanLV
("Lord, give me chastity and temperance, but not now." - St. Augustine)
To: HitmanLV
I agree with that. I just get a little sensitive to comments claiming that it’s inherently immoral to defend principles.
To: HitmanLV
Its the hardcore thats extreme, not the conservatism. Define hardcore.
All we want is for Republicans to start acting like Republicans instead of cowering in fear of the MSM and co-opting socialist ideas, that's all.
To: NittanyLion
I never intended to suggest that. It’s just that nutty minorities that are certain they are right, and with no respect for everyone else, have historically caused a lot of trouble.
115
posted on
06/01/2007 6:44:02 PM PDT
by
HitmanLV
("Lord, give me chastity and temperance, but not now." - St. Augustine)
To: Extremely Extreme Extremist
But most of their loss was that they abandoned the winning conservative principles that have made them successful. In poker, there are times (not uncommon, in fact) when it would be sensible to raise, or sensible to fold, but completely irrational to call. To call the bet might seem a "compromise" between raising and folding, and in some sense it is, but that doesn't mean that it isn't less sensible than either of the more "extreme" alternatives.
Likewise, Democrat-lite might seem a nice safe "compromise" position for a politician, but it is often the least defensible. As an example, suppose that the Democrats introduce a $100,000,000/year program that the Republicans know full well is a bad idea. Consider two scenarios:
- The Democrats force through the program for $100,000,000/year despite near-unanimous opposition of the Republicans, who make abundantly clear that they believe it's a bad idea.
- The Republicans offer to go along with the program for $50,000,000/year.
In the long run, which scenario will be better for the taxpayer?
In the former scenario, when the program fails, Republicans will be able to suggest that the program always was, and still remained, a bad idea and should be scrapped; the Democrats will shoulder all the blame.
In the latter scenario, Republicans will not be able to say the program had always been a bad idea since they had supported it. The Democrats will be able to argue that the program would have worked if the Republicans hadn't robbed it of the necessary funding. The Republicans will shoulder most of the blame for the program's funding, which will be increased to $100,000,000 for the next year. When that still fails, funding will be increased to $150,000,000 for the year after that, and even more for subsequent years.
I'm not saying it's necessary to take an absolute hard line on everything, but RINOs often undermine conservatives while simultaneously drawing blame to them.
116
posted on
06/01/2007 6:44:25 PM PDT
by
supercat
(Sony delenda est.)
To: NittanyLion
You might claim that it's politically inept, and you might even be right. But to claim that the only moral thing to do is support the majority - even if said majority is unprincipled - is preposterous.
HEAR HEAR
Great post
Teddy was the ultimate extremist:
117
posted on
06/01/2007 6:45:12 PM PDT
by
do the dhue
(May God have mercy upon my enemies, because I wont - George S. Patton Jr)
To: Extremely Extreme Extremist
Hardcore in this case is indulging in their fetish issues with no regard to what a majority thinks.
Like shoring up the border probably appeals to a majority.
Shooting illegals on sight at the border probably is hardcore.
118
posted on
06/01/2007 6:45:40 PM PDT
by
HitmanLV
("Lord, give me chastity and temperance, but not now." - St. Augustine)
To: Natural Law
Calling that pack of RINO's republicans doesn't make them Republicans when their actions clearly make them Democrats. Completely agree with that!
They need to go.
119
posted on
06/01/2007 6:46:32 PM PDT
by
LasVegasMac
(Give me 10 days and we'll be at war with those SOB's - I'll make it look like their fault!")
To: claudiustg
What political conservatives and on-the-ground Republicans must understand at this point is that they are not breaking with the White House on immigration. They are not resisting, fighting and thereby setting down a historical markerAt this point the break became final. Thats not whats happening. What conservatives and Republicans must recognize is that the White House has broken with them. What President Bush is doing, and has been doing for some time, is sundering a great political coalition. This is sad, and it holds implications not only for one political party but for the American future. He and his people have always held us in contempt. Some of us have known it all along. It's just out in the open now.
120
posted on
06/01/2007 6:47:12 PM PDT
by
EternalVigilance
(Mitt Romney: Bill Clinton with a home life and an "R" by his name...)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100, 101-120, 121-140 ... 161-178 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson