Posted on 03/01/2009 9:36:10 AM PST by careyb
Sorry, I shouldn’t have bothered responding to this “conservative” cr*p
Its obvious that Soros, Rahm, Obama state media outlets,and the DNC are trying to divide the GOP by spreading rumors.
Obviously. Why do these idiot Republicans keep falling into the trap.
I will go back and answer your loaded rhetorical questions to me in post #145
But first comments on these statements:
Attacking Obama as a personality is a disaster when he is so popular. Rush can do it, he is not elected, and even Rush clarifies his words on this point.
Yes, he make clear what he meant, but the MSM and liberals still call it a personal attack, and your words seem to say you agree that it was personal. It wasn't.
Did you want GWBush to fail ?
No. I did want every non-conservative policy of his to fail though. Illegal alien policies, TARP etc.
Did you demand elected republicans get on TV and say "I want Bush to fail" when he pitched amnesty and stimuluss and TARP??
No, but it would have been nice if they fought harder against those, and some did.
You remember Rush saying "I want Bush to fail"?
No, but then Bush wasn't 100% tax us to death, and 100% socailist in his programs. Obama is.
Now to answer this post:
I dont want you picking fights between republican conservatives over nothing
OK
...by making it sound like they said something they never said('Solid Conservative equals Obama being successful with all his taxing & programs to fast track us to socialism via the Alinsky model?. ')
Cantor said he doesn't want Obama to fail. You called him a solid conservative. I answered showing how and why I disagreed with you. If he doesn't fail, all of what I said will happen.
And I am not loyal to the GOP and do not want them to win if they do the wrong things, like Bush and McCain did many of the wrong things.
We agree there.
So pose your got-ya question to someone else.
"got-ya question?"
LOL
It was a simple question, "“Either Obama fails or the GOP fails. Which do you want?”
I think I have my answer.
You do not want Obama to fail as that is a "solid conservative" statement.
I don't think have to quote where you said that.
It’s difficult to be conservative and have to take flak from both Democrats and Republicans.
If this stuff isn't documented, no one will believe it happened!
Not only does he say Limbaugh's comments are incendiary and ugly, Steele also says that Rush is an entertainer and that is all he is.
Oh my, that's a little naive.
How embarrass it must be for the GOP to have an "entertainer" out there being listened to by millions of people setting out the principles of conservatism instead of them!
We will have to agree to disagree... and that’s ok.
Cantor did say that he gave Obama a list of ideas. He also said that they were dismissed. Cantor was asked a question... did he, as a Rep, agree with Rush on wanting failure. His answer was no, he did not want obama to fail. I take that on face value. I am not reading any more or any less into what the question was, nor the answer.
And in answer to your question... no, I do not believe that Cantor wants Obama to succeed in his socialism and generational debt. But I also believe that Cantor, like many other ‘Conservatives’ are afraid to come right out and say so.
:)
Fine if that is your style.
Just pointing out some rules of protocol.
Be a little more discerning in the future please.
Stephanopoulos baited Cantor with that question, and Cantor should have qualified his answer right then.
I watched this clip, as well as the one of Steele posted earlier. I also watched Rush’s CPAC speech, in it’s entirety.
I believe that what we are witnessing is a battle for the soul of the GOP. On one side, we have the big government “inclusive” types, such as McCain, Specter, Collins, Snowe, Graham (and apparently Steele and Cantor), who believe that government provides the answers to problems, if only we have the “right” people in charge. Their objective is to gain power, so that “right” people can rule. In order to gain power, they’re willing to compromise.
On the other side we have Rush and other “Reagan Republicans” who see the government not as the solution, but as the problem. These conservatives see government in the Jeffersonian sense, as a necessary evil, necessary to protect what IS important - individual rights.
It’s the federalists versus the anti-federalists all over again.
Admittedly, this is an oversimplification of the split, but not by much.
Personally, I stand squarely with the latter group, and I see no reason to join with the former group in order to gain political power. I don’t want the “right” people to rule my life. I want to rule my own life.
I don’t want to take the slow road to socialism that the statist Republicans offer as their alternative to the fast road presented by the Democrats. I don’t want socialism period. I agree wholeheartedly with Rush. Bipartisanship, in the common vernacular, is capitulation. Screw that. I will not compromise my conservative principles period.
Until and unless the latter group wins the battle for the soul of the party the GOP will simply remain Democrat lite. If the latter group loses the battle, then, IMHO, it’s time for a new conservative party.
I am with you. I wish I could watch Rush's speech.
Cantor doesn’t represent Conservatism. Cantor represents the old neocon agenda. Cantor doesn’t represent America’s best interests.
Fine if that is your style. Just (sic) pointing out some rules of protocol. Be a little more discerning in the future please.
No. I'm just pointing out rules of common sense and courtesy. I would recommend to you that you be more discerning.
Every specific Cantor gave in the video was conservative.
The beat goes on.
Over and over again Cantor clearly qualified his conservative position. Again I would request that you be more discerning.
No common sense or courtesy there.
Thanks for using my discerning line back to me.
I'm honored and flattered!
BTW, even though it was your post that started the berating of posters on this thread, I won't berate you.
You have free reign.
Ask me to be more discerning again, could you?
I like the originality!
To be fair, that could be "violent agreement." Rush is on record as saying he does NOT want AMERICA to fail. After all, isn't that the whole point of opposing any socialist initiatives? We want socialism to fail. If that means Obama wakes up and does the right thing, great. That way HE doesn't fail but his stupid policies do. Win/win. Otherwise, if Obama still pushes these wrong-headed initiatives, I too want him to fail.
Now what Cantor isn't admitting is that Porkulus WILL FAIL America big time. It does little or NOTHING effective to stop the job hemorrhage in 2009. If Cantor doesn't want Porkulus to fail, then he damned well better get started writing corrective legislation because without that, we're sinking like a stone.
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.