Posted on 03/05/2008 10:14:20 PM PST by RussP
...
If there's a single thread that runs through the e-mails I receive from peevish Republicans, it's that none of the current candidates possesses the conservative purity of Ronald Reagan. One could almost get the idea that Dutch was betrayed by Pontius Pilate and crucified on Calvary. But that wasn't exactly the case. The fact of the matter is that Gov. Reagan gave Gov. Jerry Brown a run for his money – or should I say our money? – when it came to raising taxes here in California. But, in spite of the additional revenue, he was responsible in large part for the streets of our cities being turned into public latrines by the unwashed, the unwanted and the insane when, to save a few bucks, he oversaw the closing of California's mental hospitals. He also signed the nation's most liberal abortion bill. Although he had a change of heart a scant six months later, one never hears him condemned for flip-flopping ...
...
What truly confounds me are those cuckoos who would prefer to see such socialists as Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama win the election than to sully themselves by voting for a Republican who was only their second or third or even fourth choice. To them I say, before proving that you place your own ego gratification above what's best for America, keep in mind that most of the Supreme Court justices are in their 70s or even, in the case of John Paul Stevens, fast approaching 90. Do you really want one of those two Democrats stacking the Court for the foreseeable future? Presidents come and go, but justices go on seemingly forever. Kennedy and Scalia have been on the bench since Reagan put them there. Stevens, for heaven's sake, was appointed during the ...
(Excerpt) Read more at worldnetdaily.com ...
I understand the reasoning to vote for mccain to prevent a hillary/obama threat/win. We sure don’t want to have a repeat of the perot election either. We’re just in trouble this election cycle and there’s nothing we can do about it.
Are you drunk, slow, or simply too cowardly to own up to your own posted words? (For the record, my money's on a combination of all three.) Once again: You called him "an embarrassment to the military" and (not having enough of a sack to type the word "traitor" outright, presumably) snidely inquired "Have you just abandoned your former colleagues?" Anyone here is capable of following the link back to your original posting, and seeing what you wrote for themselves. This whole "internet" business is still something of a mystery to you, evidently.
At least scrape up the paltry, minimal amount of courage needed, for God's sake, to apologize to an American military veteran for implying (clumsily) that he might have "abandoned [his] former colleagues," simply because he doesn't want to cast a vote for your own anointed electoral savior of the moment. Be that much of a man, at least, if you can.
Pfeh. I can actually smell you from here.
I do have a thick head. No doubt about it.
You are either staggeringly disingenuous; terrifyingly ill-informed; or (quite possibly) both. Not only have I already provided you with multiple links to the very statements in question: one of your own has been busily slandering a Navy vet right in this very thread, solely because the latter doesn't want to cast a ballot on behalf of Juan "And None Dare Call It Amnesty" McCain. Good lord, but you people are flakes!
But you wouldn't be hectoring, would you? Nay, not you. ". . . staggeringly disingenuous . . . terryingly ill-informed . . . Good lord, but you people are flakes!"
As for your multiple links, to show you how thick headed I am, I'm not sure what you meant to show me. More of the same?
Now this link contained something interesting: As demonstrated earlier, which I commented on earlier here. And provided a link to Pence's Contract with conservatives hoping for comment.
Again: "... or, failing that: y'all can just go right on whizzing this election down your pantslegs. I sleep just as easily, either way." Lather, rinse, repeat.
But your awake time sure do seem to be a fitful, nervous fright.
You ain't no saint and I don't see how you got any room to complain.
Good for you.......
I wouldn’t presume to tell you how to vote, and would appreciate the same courtesy.
Because it's all just a big, colorful, nationwide game of shirts-and-skins to them, calcowgirl; not having anything whatsoever to do with actual positions, or philosophies, or real world outcomres thereof... and everything, just absolutely EVERYthing to do with having one, specific team "win," based solely upon whether the player(s) for said team sport the letters "D" or "R" across their respective backs.
That's it. That's all. For all the actual effects any given "player's" policies may end up having on all the rest of us, ultimately -- less freedom of political speech, here; another 40 or 50 illegal immigrants shoved down our gullets, there -- they might as well be cheering on their favorite football franchise.
Sad, ain't it...?
I think we are all tired. We don’t get a break anymore. It seems like when one election is over, the campaigning starts for the next.
To which you, using your brilliant writing skills, replied:
For that remark I call you a piece of $h!t.
Guess you can put me in that category too - anyone who can't put their little egos in a bottle and make sure our troops don't get abandoned - that can't see that this election is much more about our troops in harms way, but are stamping your feet, holding your breath and believing that YOU are more important than they are - is a pretty empty, self-centered shell full of unwarranted high opinion of themselves and their importance.
Smoke it...
Regardless of how I vote, or anyone at FR for that matter, I think McCain is going to get whomped.
As such, I’m puttin’ my money toward congressional seats. We’re gonna need some fighters.
It's lucky that you've already admitted to being thick-headed, as it prevents my feeling guilty over asking whether or not the above-referenced comes in an english language equivalent, or not. What, precisely, are you attempting to ask, here?
You asked, previously, for examples of Team Juan's whinnying and snorting hereabouts how we conservatives are "no longer needed," thank you. Did you follow the links from Posts #28 and #63? If not, then why not?
Post #42 provides a link showing how McCain's campaign, drawing virtually no monetary support whatsoever, is already running in the red; a direct result, arguably, of his unwillingness to provide conservatives any convincing reason whatsoever to aid him in that regard. Did you follow that link? If not, then why not?
You ain't no saint
Nor have I claimed otherwise. I'm not the one, however, attempting (presumably) to curry electoral favor for my chosen candidate by making assorted rude noises and gestures towards other, more principled conservatives, am I?
11/07/08 is going to come as one slow, awful awakening to you and yours, I'm afraid. Here's hoping you at least manage to benefit from the experience... if only just a little.
Yep. Very sad.
Unfortunately for them, some of us are still shootin’ for that other goal post. ;-)
Great plan, and I think I shall follow your lead.
But our troops can't - and guess what?
YOU and your sensibilities aren't worth more than they are -
I agree entirely with you...and yet anyone who doesn’t fawn over McCain is called a purist fool. Seems to be the ones who are arrogant are the ones who assume my vote belongs to McCain regardless of what he says or does...that’s an elitist entitlement attitude more commonly found in liberals.
Actually, this race is about Safeguarding our TROOPS - and making sure the democrats don't get to do to them what they did to the Viet Nam troops -
and all the rest of what will happen if the rug is pulled out...
Some things are more important than even you - even if you don't believe it.
Love the tag line! ;)
I have a whole lot more faith in our military than you do, apparently. I'm not singling you out... my comment also applies to all the other people who imply that anything but a Republican will end up in some mass death of our brave troops.
The military is non-partisan. The DOD is non-partisan. Yes, a CIC sets policy, along with his political appointees. But the military is led by well trained Americans from both political ideologies. You truly believe that a change in CIC will result in the Admirals and Generals putting men and women "in harms way" and being "abandoned"? I think that is pathetic--and wrong.
What has lord McCain actually done to demonstrate that he would NOT reenact Vietnam... I am most serious with this question. I do not recall one time that lord McCain has done squat for any Vietnam Veterans except prince Kerry. Lord McCain tried to pour out his holy moderate waters to make the Swiftboats Vets disappear. Lord McCain was not the least bit concerned about the MIA's. So what is changed.
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.