Posted on 03/02/2011 10:07:39 PM PST by Brown Deer
"We" lost in California because California is lost -period.
Catering to selfish pocketbook interests of the citizens in Sodom & Gomorrah is what you advocate. How does one out corrupt the corrupt without themselves promoting corruption?
LOL. You refute nothing by pointing to failure and claiming a victorious plan to avoid it. Leading is not about preventing failure with safe tactics of compromise it is about promoting success and involves risk.
Nice strawman.
My wife of 13 years is doing just fine. Our daughter is too young to care right now about marriage.
Look, DOMA is an important issue but in the grand scheme of things RIGHT NOW, it’s secondary. I know a lot of you don’t like to hear this but that is reality. It’s pocket book stuff that will get Obama thrown out in 2012. If the GOP goes down the path of social issues in 2012, they’re doomed. This is not hard but for whatever reason we have conservatives that never get it...to make changes, you actually have to WIN ELECTIONS.
The tea party did quite okay before the media and others started claiming to speak for them, define them, and tell them what was important and what was not important. There are any number of reasons people are mad as hell at the establishment. You want to narrowly define what is important BEFORE the people do by action?
Why don't you take your own advice and shut up about 'we' -speak for yourself! Stop getting your panties in a bunch and stop whining. You can do nothing to stop the debate and prevent the outcome from a dialog within an open free market of ideas decide what will decide is valued and what is not.
You do not care to defend DOMA -fine, BOEHNER disagrees with you. Excuses are irrelevant when you are wrong... Remember, Bush was not reelected for his fiscal policies -stick that in your argument to establish a winning strategy of fiscal policy against moral corruption...
McCain SUCKED all around -both fiscal and moral... That is how the leftists won...
I agree on McCain, that’s why I didn’t vote for him. Then again, I also knew how stupid it was to put Sharon, and O’Donnell, and others in the general ballot. What did it gain?
Well, let’s see. Harry Reid is still in the Senate. Great move on our part. Sigh. We have a complete liberal boob up in Connecticut and could have at least lived with a guy that was conservative 40% of the time, but now we get one that is conservative 0% of the time.
It’s all about being smart. I want conservative candidates, too. More importantly, I want to win. In certain states, having a conservative candidate on the ballot is an automatic loss and we need to be smart.
No different with certain issues. Do you want Obama to win a second term? Then be smart. If you don’t want him to win a second term, we pound him on economics and jobs and foreign policy. Go down these social issues at THIS POINT IN TIME means 4 more years of Obama. Address the social issues in 2014, but not in 2012.
This isn’t hard, but we’ll screw the pooch again on this I’m sure.
The Founders spoke much of Religion,Morality, and Knowledge being necessary to good govt. and the happiness of mankind.
The even codified that in fundamental law.Northwest Ordinance.
And in the Bible—that authority cited more often than any lesser source1730-1805— the Moral issues go hand in glove —indeed when one neglects one duty to God their riches seem to
disappear.And I seem to recall the pretender in the WhiteHouse seems to have won an election— as did more than a few of the socialist Democrats?
What it takes to win against evil is high moral character and defending what is holy which you think is not worth the fight. You are the fool. How can you pray to God for help in defeating evil (Which Liberalism is) when you don't think there is anything more important than money and your job? We did not get to this financial crisis first. We got to a moral crisis first. A fact you are willing to just ignore for the sake of political power gain. God was taken out of the classroom and public square long ago and this is just another result of that evil.
You have posted an incredible misunderstanding of my position.
From a related post of yours:
It is not a point of setting the morals aside. You just won’t get the necessary power if your sole message is morality, even if it is mixed with fairness and financial prudence.
No, I don't think I am misunderstanding your position.
Your attempt to minimize the defense of one of the cornerstones of our Republic in deference to financial matters, which are important, is IMHO gets many conservatives ticked.
You want the moral question separated from the financial restraint and good government question and you cannot do that. It is all related.
Fighting for the sacredness of Marriage is fighting for the foundation of Western Civilization and Our Country. You can keep hammering away on the walls and the ceiling which are the financial issues but if you don't support the foundation the house is not worth anything.
Fairness and financial prudence is a result of exercising morality. Preaching and defending morality touches all aspects of life.
We have to battle evil hard on all fronts.
Monday morning quarterbacking is not leadership. People chose who they wanted rather than accepting the establishment. They won some and lost some -THEY did this -not the establishment. What did it gain FREEDOM! The power gained by wearing the collar of a master is not freedom -it is delusion...
Well, let’s see. Harry Reid is still in the Senate. Great move on our part. Sigh. We have a complete liberal boob up in Connecticut and could have at least lived with a guy that was conservative 40% of the time, but now we get one that is conservative 0% of the time.
It took many years to get to this point and will take years to undo this mess. I see a good long term beginning where you see short term failure... It seems you focus alone on central government victory -the fed --asi if 'us' in power in DC is the goal. WRONG! The goal is individual power -local power... Replacing their king with our king would be simply more of the same...
It’s all about being smart. I want conservative candidates, too. More importantly, I want to win. In certain states, having a conservative candidate on the ballot is an automatic loss and we need to be smart.
In my opinion it is all about being principled. Without moral principle the only difference between a single issue fiscal conservative and a single issue nanny state leftist is who gets the money e.g. who is in power to promote taking or promote keeping with both camps driven primarily by selfish greed that place national interests always secondary...
No different with certain issues. Do you want Obama to win a second term? Then be smart. If you don’t want him to win a second term, we pound him on economics and jobs and foreign policy. Go down these social issues at THIS POINT IN TIME means 4 more years of Obama. Address the social issues in 2014, but not in 2012.
This isn’t hard, but we’ll screw the pooch again on this I’m sure.
In my opinion, the 'social' issues are going to be addressed whether you like it or not. This uprising is principled and not simply driven by greedy self interest as you imply... People are fighting for America and our posterity
LOL. Monday Morning Qbing? Are you joking? Some of us, the bright ones anyway, were saying this MONTHS in advance of them even winning their primaries. Hardly MMQB.
We do this crap every couple of years and you guys then wonder how it is that Obama gets elected, wins a 2nd term (likely if we play this string out)...how it is that someone as God awful as Reid is re-elected...etc.
Some people fail to grasp the obvious. There is a point to where you do more harm than good by allowing ultra left liberals to control gov’t. Sometimes it requires having to back someone that isn’t as conservative as you or I would like, but when we don’t do that we get Harry Reid for another 6 years.
Some day we will learn, but I’m sure it won’t be any time soon.
I would suggest therein lies your blind spot. It is the impotent elite who have a problem with the people that tend to impose their will upon the people IF given power.
Obama and his "bright ones" do this now. No doubt it was a bright one that banned the incandescent light bulb.
You can have the bright ones -I will stand with the right ones -where right is premised upon principles unalienable, many without logical basis or reason.
There is a difference between being bright and elite. I have no love affair for the elite in this country which is why I use my BRIGHT brain to realize who can actually be elected and thwart these elite bastards. That’s the difference.
You guys are sometimes so beholden to the ideal that you actually perpetuate the existence of that which you abhor because the idea cannot win the election. It’s a great irony, but I see it all the time.
Well -maybe -compromise in some things for some people is not an option? You may be asking too much. I think this concept embodies American exceptionalism that always seems to triumph given the opportunity versus a the centrally planned and coordinated collective mob rule concept that tramples individual input for the sake of collective supposed consentual outcome of 'equality'.
However, though both sides may disagree -many know where those of moral principle stand and will always stand on many things.
In this effort against the left I think we stand together in much. As for myself -I will not cut the conservative baby in half for the sake of political power because I feel any such supposed political victory would be hollow and short lived as it would premised upon compromising some of the very things I stand for and would die for.
In my opinion, our country has compromised itself to the point it now is critical that we get back to basics and renew the foundation rebuild all upon them. Yes, one of the basics is less government and with it less spending. However, that is just one. The ship is sinking and bailing water is a good thing to do; however, we must as well fix the broken planks the leak water into the hull...
That was NOT what I advocated. I never minimized it. From my own quote that you cited:
It is not a point of setting the morals aside. You just won’t get the necessary power if your sole message is morality, even if it is mixed with fairness and financial prudence.
Then there's this from you: You want the moral question separated from the financial restraint and good government question and you cannot do that. It is all related.
That is NOT what I wrote. You are bearing false witness.
My opinion is simple: Morality alone won't win the power that is necessary to bring change, but morality mixed with other important issues WILL. Remember, I live in California - - we didn't win our elections.
“That decision belongs solely to the SCOTUS.”
I agree! Obama is in contempt of court there, in addition to going ahead with Obamacare after that was declared unconstitutional, rather than delay implementation pending Supreme Court review.
Tar, feathers, and impeachment of lying scumbag..
One of only a small few Reps with guts and reason.
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.