You aren't very good at judging what other people are thinking or feeling.
You didn't raise any new issues or contribute to the debate
I had to spend some time correcting the errors in your previous post.
My point was, the most important and the most relevant issue to you on this forum in 2009, so far, has been the TV show "24". Its where you've made the greatest number of posts and where you've placed your greatest effort.
In case you didn't understand, the "24 Live" thread is a live thread for the show "24". It's a thread where conservatives can get together and pretend they are watching a show together. While there are a LOT of posts in such a live thread, they do not take any time, they are written in real time while the show is on, and are like comments made to someone sitting next to you watching the show. I spend one hour a week writing posts for the 24-live thread, the same hour I spend watching the show, which apparently strikes the fancy of some conservatives here at FR.
Okay. So, you had 14 other posted threads of your grand total of 66 threads posted in the 50 months you've been a member of this forum, attributed to one other single issue. What is that issue?
That's an interesting question. 15 of my threads are posts of my opinion column, but each column dealt with a different issue. I've never had a dictionary on my web browser, so I don't know how that would help. It didn't look to me with a cursory glance that any 14 of my threads were on any other particular topic. I'm pretty sure the 13 "Romney-related" topics were the most I did on any specific topic, with the Iraq War probably being the 2nd most. There may be even more dealing with the Webb-Allen 2006 Senate race since I live in Virginia.
I also had some vanity threads, most notably the "sick and tired of 'I'd hit it'" thread, and my christmas light vanity thread.
Right. You're just a lazy poster and not interested in contributing threads to the forum. You'd rather cherry pick threads posted by others.
You've been here a long time, so I would have thought you understood that we are supposed to try to use existing threads for discussions, not generate additional threads. It's not "the Freeper who dies with the most threads wins". It's certainly easy enough to post links to articles and excerpt them -- that's why we get so many duplicate threads. Your belief that commenting on a thread posted by someone else is "cherry-picking" is kind of bizarre.
The fact that commutation pissed off the Mexican government was fine with me. My guess is, it pissed you off too. So be it.
You should probably not quit your day job -- you won't make it as a mind-reader. I was quite satisfied that they had their sentences commuted, and would not have complained if Bush had reviewed the case and decided to pardon them. But I did not object to them being found guilty either. If we start picking and choosing when to trust the criminal justice system, the rule of law means nothing.
Also, it was the GOP that lost in 2008, not conservatism. Rush, Hannity, Levin and other rightwing pundits made that crystal clear.
You sound like the knight sitting on his butt with his arms and legs chopped off, yelling that you'll chop off the guy's kneecaps. Conservatives did not win in 2008. If we had, we'd have President Thompson, or President Hunter, or President Palin, or fill in whatever conservative YOU wanted to be President.
Conservatism is not dead, and Conservatism isn't a "losing philosophy". But CONSERVATIVES did not achieve their goals in 2008.
I'm surprised to see you mention Rush Limbaugh as a conservative given how much support he gave to Mitt Romney. Curious how you attack Freepers for making the best of a bad situation, but seem to give a pass to Rush who encouraged us to do so.
The conservative movement represents the ideology aspects.
The conservative movement is made up of people who hold to a conservative ideology and seek to apply it to our daily lives, our government, our society, and our communities. It is not a mutual admiration society, it is meant to be a force for action and results.
There is a debate raging about how we best achieve the conservative results we all want. I do not know if a Romney nomination would have acheived conservative results. I do know that what we got in his place achieved nothing, and cost us not only the reigns of power, but some good conservative congressman and senators as well in the process (along with some moderate/liberal ones as well, no big loss there).
I am not content to hold the "correct" ideology while the world collapses around me.
Your responses are typical for someone off in his own world. Nothing wrong with watching TV. However, you felt the need to defend the inordinate amount of time you spent this year, discussing issues related to a fantasy TV show --- "24" --- that have nothing to do with reality based issues of political conservatism. If being part of the pop culture-airhead mentality turns you on, have at it.
As for you correcting errors, that is a total falsehood. You agreed to having posted 66 threads and that 13 had to do with Romney.
>>>>>I'm pretty sure the 13 "Romney-related" topics were the most I did on any specific topic,
So what is your problem?
Then you felt it was necessary to give me your opinion on what is and what is not, an issue. Now I know. You're of the opinion, that "Winning elections?... governing as conservatives?...[and the] CWA?" aren't issues. They're just "Good things". Whatever that means. LOL
I raised several relevant issues, in turn, you made yourself the issue with your predilection for fictional debates/discussions centering around "24", along with "Hobbit hole" and "South Park". At least that's what you posted to me.
I agree with you, duplicate threads on FR serve no good purpose. But that is a far different issue, then not posting your own threads in favor of cherry picking subject matter that appeals to your strange interests. Face it, its lazy.
On the issue of Ramos and Compean, you're talking out both sides of your mouth. On the one hand, if Bush pardoned Ramos and Compean, that would've been okay with you. OTOH, you didn't object to them being found guilty either. Hmmm.
>>>>>Conservatism is not dead, and Conservatism isn't a "losing philosophy". But CONSERVATIVES did not achieve their goals in 2008.
True, we conservatives didn't attain our objectives in 2008. But I never said conservatism was dead, or that it was a "losing philosophy" either. The blame for the GOP losing in 2006 and 2008 falls squarely on the shoulders of Republican insiders and their penchant for embracing political moderation.
Finally, Rush never endorsed Romney for POTUS and he never called him a conservative. Why so many talk radio hosts backed Romney had more to do with their hatred for McCain and Huckabee, then it did with their acceptance of Willard as a viable candidate. After all, Romney finished in third place.
I say, no more RudyMcRombee's. PERIOD!
>>>>>I am not content to hold the "correct" ideology while the world collapses around me.
That is the difference between a principled conservative like myself and you, an unprincipled moderate. Carry on, if you must.