I truly find it alarming as well. This is bordering on a 'purist' mentality, that only the most pure way of thinking regarding the subject philosophy at-hand is what needs to be supported and tolerated. This is counter-productive and leads, not to growth of a movement, but to its eventual downfall from within, since it will ultimately self-marginalize itself outside the mainstream.
Even the Founding Fathers, while they were all solidly against defeating the British (who was the real enemy in trying to destroy their freedom), they also had divergent views on how to interpret the Constitution after it was signed (Federal vs States rights). Well, our most immediate and threatening enemy to our citizen's freedom and our Constitution (more than of any President in our history) is sitting right in the oval office right now.
Even the Founding Fathers, while they were all solidly against defeating the British (who was the real enemy in trying to destroy their freedom), they also had divergent views on how to interpret the Constitution after it was signed (Federal vs States rights). Well, our most immediate and threatening enemy to our citizen's freedom and our Constitution (more than of any President in our history) is sitting right in the oval office right now.
Very well said.
You must be blind?
Nobody is callin for purity. Romney gets a 0 on the purity scale. We just want someone who is right of center.
Growth of what movement?? RINOism? Socialism? I would love to hinder the growth of those movements.
The founding fathers wouldn't have elected a Brit as President. Doesn't make any sense to defeat the enemy and then elect one of them as your leader, e.g. a liberal Masshole like Mitt.