Lessons learned, and relearned, and relearned...

10/16/2007 | Jim Robinson

[Jim Robinson]

I'm sure we've all learned many lessons recently on who to elect or not elect. I'm going to start with a few and hope other FReepers add to and expand on the list (don't ask me how I know about these):

Never ever compromise with the liberals. Compromise with liberals is a one way street. They win, we lose. I've never seen the liberals compromise with us for less socialism and more freedom.

Never ever negotiate for your rights. You already own them. They can't give you any additional rights and any you give up are gone for good. Hold the line. Never give in. Never give up.

Never ever support or vote for a known RINO. They'll betray you every time and you'll always regret it in the end.

Never ever vote for or support a known abortionist. If a man approves the taking of the most innocent and helpless human life, how can he possibly be trusted with anything else.

Never ever vote for or support a known gay activist or supporter of gay rights. It's not about equality or fairness or compassion or any other liberal malarkey. The gay agenda is all about removing human decency and morality from our society. The end result is anything goes when it comes to perverted public sexuality. At your expense. At your children's expense. At the loss of your basic rights to free speech, free religion and freedom to raise your children as you feel best. It's about the government forcing homosexuality onto an unwilling public. It's about forcing employers to employ cross dressers and other perverts against their will. It's about forcing the taxpayers to fund sex change operations. It's about forcing the taxpayers to fund healthcare to treat homosexuals and those they infect with the inevitable diseases they spread with their vile activities. It's about forcing schools to indoctrinate your children into the "homosexual lifestyle" against your will. Against their will. It's about giving up your first amendment right to speak out against homosexuality. It's about giving up your first amendment right to freely exercise your religion. It's about controlling what you say, and what your preachers are "permitted" to say from the pulpit. It's about making speaking out against homosexuality a thought crime and banning the Holy Bible as hate material. It's about forcing homosexual marriage onto an unwilling society. It's about condemning Christians and Christianity. Don't go compassionate on these evil Marxist bastards. There is nothing "gay" in homosexuality and no freedom in "gay rights."

Never ever support or elect candidates who are weak on national defense, national security, national sovereignty.

Never ever support or elect candidates who are weak on border security.

Never ever support or elect candidates who are weak on defending the 1st amendment, the 2nd amendment, or any of our constitutional rights.

Never ever support or elect anyone claiming to be a "compassionate conservative." Hold out for the real deal. No nonsense, hard as nails conservatives in all areas, social, fiscal, national security, etc. Any candidate who willingly compromises in any one area will compromise in any other area. Your freedom is at risk. Our Republic is at risk.

"Republicans" who try to convince you to overlook a candidate's liberal positions on abortion, gay rights, free speech, free religion, gun control, property rights, federalism, judicial activism, illegal aliens, socialized healthcare, taxes, spending, national security, sovereignty etc, are doing you no favors. Never compromise on the principles and values you hold dear.

Never ever support or vote for known big government or big spending candidates. Big government is never the solution to any of our problems. Hold out for fiscal responsibility on everything. Hold out for local control on everything not expressly enumerated to the federal government in the constitution. Ninety percent of our current federal government is unconstitutional. We don't want our congress working "for" us. Don't add to our problems. Start working on dismantling the federal behemoth and returning the power to the states and the people as originally intended.

[ari-freedom]

it's high and complex. so make it low and simple. Any tax will punish. The question is what. I don't want to punish success but I certainly don't want to tax the poor (though I do believe they should contribute in some way so that they don't feel they are entitled to only take from society and not give back)

[cowboyway]

I was looking through the Constitution and found this little beauty and would like to add to the list:

No candidate should be considered unless he is a strict Constitutionalist.

"Section. 4.

"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence."

[Coldwater Creek]

Voting for the lesser of two evils still gives you EVIL!

[sageb1]

What about O’Connor?

[CaliGirlGodHelpMe]

“[The gay agenda is]about forcing employers to employ cross dressers and other perverts against their will.”

And more importantly, it’s about empowering leftists with the right to SUE and hence TRANSFER MONEY from people who have decent values, thereby putting more money and power to work for the left and taking it away from the right. That’s really what lefties are talking about when they say “gay rights”. Money and power.

[Coldwater Creek]

Fred left the Senate for personal reasons, not for the betterment of the people of Tennessee.

[WildcatClan]

I am not an expert in the intent of the founding fathers as are you, but whatever their intent, it’s irrelevant if they didn’t write it into the constitution.

What they did write into it was your right to be heard and to vote. You have the right to vote any candidate out of office that you feel may have been there too long. Fred championed CFR which took away some of your 1st amendment rights, which is written in the constitution.

I am glad Hunter has represented his district in which there are 2 Democrats for every Republican. Hunter has always served this country and served it well. He left college to go fight in Vietnam and then returned to be a farmer and eventually a lawyer.

I am not sure how it would serve the interests of the constitution or America had Hunter left congress and you are going to be hard pressed to find a conservative who will support you there. If Hunter was elected, passed CFR and cast a few votes, then left for Hollywood and a lobbying career do you think that would have satisfied the framer’s intent? If he had done so, we still wouldn’t have a fence or anyone running in this election who had ever done anything to secure our borders. If Hunter is indeed, marginalized, it is you who claim to be conservatives, who marginalized him by prostituting polls and jumping on bandwagons, the horse hitched to them can’t pull.

[ari-freedom]

Reagan. she was in favor of regulating abortion (eg webster vs reproductive health services) but not in favor of ditching roe.

[sageb1]

right

[ari-freedom]

Republicans should guarantee a conservative candidate to every electable position and should protect each of them from RINO’s.

[John Valentine]

Isn’t Duncan Hunter the one who said that he thinks I ought not be able to sell my shares in NASDAQ to someone from Dubai because “he doesn’t trust them”?

Why yes, he was!

When some know-it-all starts telling me what I can and can’t do with my legitimate assets, or who I can or can not sell them to, that’s someone who is weak on property rights. That’s Duncan Hunter.

Property is not only real estate, and no matter how Hunter stands on Kelo (and I suspect he’s not as strong as you might wish) he needs to widen his horizons to other forms of personal property.

[John Valentine]

Duncan Hunter is a mildly flawed Presidential candidate in my opinion, but despite that I will concede willingly that he has served his country with honor in the military and with distinction in Congress. I would consider it an honor to know the Congressman. Were I a resident of his district, I am certain that I would have enthusiastically voted for him in election after election.

But if you think he can beat Hillary, you are dreaming the impossible dream. He won’t manage to break 2% even if he gets Dr. Dobson’s seal of approval. He has no chance at the nomination. And, frankly, I don’t buy your blaming people like me for his failure to catch on. That’s HIS fault. And maybe yours.

I have to tell you that while I haven’t let anything but Hunter’s own positions sway me, the persistent belitting and trashing of other candidates in general and Fred Thompson in particular by Hunter supporters is quite disgusting.

And these efforts have been to no avail in any case. Fred is off and running in the polls, up 6% since the debate last week, and climbing.

Fred will soon be ahead of Giuliani again. Hang on!

[WildcatClan]

Isn’t Duncan Hunter the one who said that he thinks I ought not be able to sell my shares in NASDAQ to someone from Dubai because “he doesn’t trust them”?

I don't know if he did or not you didn't provide a link. I hope he did, but I have no proof that he did. Did you really want to sell your shares to someone from Dubai? So, it's total allegiance to the evil money cult and national security be damned?

Hunter isn't allowed to think? If he said it, then it was in the best interest of national security, as I have my doubts he really cares to whom you sell your shares. Your whole argument is flawed and not only conjecture but poor conjecture. You invented a straw man and then knocked him down.

So you do trust Dubai? Where is the outrage from you over the poor souls who were convicted of funding terrorists? What about the companies and individuals convicted for selling American technology and strategic assets to enemies, potential and otherwise? It was, after all, their assets, shouldn't they be allowed to to with them as they wish?

I could care less about your "suspicions", I have a few of my own. Like Fred on abortion and border security, I suspect he isn't as strong as you might think. First Amendment rights, who was it that championed CFR? Oh, that's right, Fred, Baker's boy. I suppose it would have been alright to sell Ford Motors to Polish interests during WW 2? Because, Poland was an ally and there is no way Nazis could have purchased strategic American manufacturing capabilities via an agent, right?

Be thankful someone is looking out for your interests. Your whole scenario is based on a hypothetical and what someone was thinking. The question isn't "what Hunter was thinking", but rather, why you aren't thinking.

[John Valentine]

Look, I heard him say it in the debate last week. I don’t have a link. He was the only one that had any problem with people being able to sell their assets as they see fit.

I don’t know what your problem is with Dubai. It seems entirely irrational to me. To me, Dubai is a fairly innoccuous place where I can buy bacon, ham, sausage and other pork products in the Muslim world. It has a booming economy that used to be what I expected from our own country.

We are not at war with Dubai. Far from it. They are an ally of ours in a very troubled part of the world. If there were people funding terrorists, I also note that you say they were “convicted”. Ditto with the companies selling restricted technology. What’s your problem? Guilt by association?

By the way, I am very sure that there were Ford Motor Company shares held by Germans, let alone Poles, right up to the start of the war. So what? I’m also sure that there were plenty of Americans holding sahres in Krupp, Bayer, etc. Big deal. Neither has anything to do with the price of cheese in Belgium.

Finally, your remark:

“Be thankful someone is looking out for your interests.”

EXACTLY the Democrat’s line, almost to an exact quote from Hillary Clinton. Sorry, but I don’t need somebody looking after my finances, and I especailly don’t need the government taking on that job.

[DoughtyOne]

I’m going to have to agree with you Jim.

You’re right.

[Jim Noble]

If he mentioned him at all, or even hinted at an endorsement for the candidate from California, he’d go from 1% to 10% overnight.

What's your plan for the other 90?

[mkjessup]

Not only have you drank deeply from the anti-Thompson Kool-Aid, usually served by jealous supporters of marginalized candidates, but you have a liberals view of our congress.

The fact is, I liked Thompson until I learned more about his positions which are not truly conservative.

It has nothing to do with jealousy or a 'liberals' view of Congress (them's fightin' words pal), but the fact is, both Thompson and Hunter have law degrees, Hunter briefly used his for the benefit of low income Hispanics, where he began to understand the need to curb illegal immigration.

Thompson used his legal expertise to serve as a spy and stoolie for the Nixon Administration while he was on the Watergate Committee, and he admitted that. And one of the most egregious examples of Thompson's poor judgment was his willingness to provide legal representation to two of the Libyan terrorists who blew up Pan Am 103. He had no problem with it. In an ironic twist of fate, the wife of Teddy Kennedy (Victoria Reggie) resigned her partnership in a law firm who chose to take on Libya as a client post-Pan Am 103. It is a sad day when the wife of the most liberal 'Rat in the Senate has more ethical backbone than a Republican candidate for President.

In this instance, Duncan Hunter's 26+ years of experience in the areas of national security and military preparedness are *assets* not liabilities. America is at war, do we want someone with the knowledge and experience to lead us in that war, or do we want someone who will need training wheels after taking the Oath of Office?

The answer should be obvious except to those who have saturated themselves with purple FredAid.

[mkjessup]

We want conservatives in all 3 areas of fiscal, social and security (that’s why I push that with my tag line)

Thompson fails in those categories. See the details of his voting record. If you need further convincing, his vote in the Senate obstructing the impeachment process of Bill Clinton ought to seal the deal NOT to vote for Thompson.

Any candidate who chose to cut Clinton some slack ought to be anathema to any conservative.

[mkjessup]

First time I worked with Dick Vigurie was 45 years ago, at the 1st national YAF office in NYC. I don't think that someone who opposed nominating Reagan is a perfect conservative political analyst! (Same thing was true of Senators Goldwater, Tower, and Thurmond).

This isn't 45 years ago. If you can refute or explain Thompson's voting record and his actual positions on the issues, then I could easily question Vigurie's views.

In this case, the facts speak for themselves.

Thompson is just another millionaire lawyer RINO.

[ejonesie22]

Very true, very very true...