Posted on 08/04/2012 8:18:49 AM PDT by EternalVigilance
In navigating the real world as it exists, there is no black and white, just varying shades of gray. If one does truly chose to live their life as a black and white purist, they have chosen a cruel task master who in the end will be their undoing.
No, Independents can be generally considered to be neither Democrat or Republican - The finer point would be *no* party affiliation, but smaller parties are often lumped in... The point being that Independents have no party affiliation.
Independents swung the congressional election in '06 and won Pelosi the Speakership; they also went for Obama over McCain. We don't want them swinging Obama's way again.
McCain lost because the Religious Right did not turn out in force, not because of any other thing... It simply astounds me that Republicans always step on Conservatives, thinking like rove: "Where they gonna go?" What happens is that they don't turn out. That's the problem the 'ABO' crowd around here doesn't understand... Conservatives stand on principle, and vote *FOR* those things. Without those things, there is no base, and therefore no win. Being fearful of middle straddling independents (which is not true in the first place) will get you nothing.
Then Conservatism is a lost cause, and you would be better off at some other site. After all, Conservatism is a dedication to the idea that certain principles exist and must needfully be preserved. What are principles, except those things which cannot be sacrificed?
'Varying shades of gray', at it's heart, is a tenet of liberalism.
What you call "real" is actually a destructive illusion, a fatal trap.
Here's real reality:
"Come to Me, all you who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For My yoke is easy and My burden is light.” -- Matthew 11:28-30"Good understanding giveth favour: but the way of transgressors is hard." -- Proverbs 13:15
Romney is winning as he hammers Obama on the economy and I think it's wise for Romney to keep that strategy and not be distracted.
Fact is, the religious right voted about the same in '08 as they did in '04. Sure, there are some who will not vote for Romney no matter what. But more and more conservatives are now more concerned with getting rid of Obama.
How did I know that would be the case.....
I disagree profoundly, and Chick-Fil-A is primary evidence to the point. There is no economic motive behind it, only moral positions.
Romney is winning as he hammers Obama on the economy and I think it's wise for Romney to keep that strategy and not be distracted.
Romney can hardly be seen as 'winning' at this point at all. That he is barely eking out a few points against the most anti-American president ever should speak volumes, but it doesn't seem to, at least in the way you are coming across to me.
Fact is, the religious right voted about the same in '08 as they did in '04. Sure, there are some who will not vote for Romney no matter what. But more and more conservatives are now more concerned with getting rid of Obama.
The fact is that Bush only got 21m votes out of the Christian Right in 04 - Up, no doubt from 00, but still not nearing the 30m votes the Christian Right is assumed to be able to produce (on an average turnout... it is supposed to be able to go up from there if you get them jacked up)... And that is not accounting for any new voters (folks turning 18 and eligible) since the 90's.
Relying upon exit poll data has many flaws, but chief among them is that they do not include those who did not vote.
The perfect Romney Republican sneer. You’ve got it down pat. Congratulations.
I note when many have lost the argument, they auto pilot to invoking religion as their final fall back line of defense.
“...you would be better off at some other site.”
My, my, are you the self appointed one for determining who should be on this site? Or, is such acts as yours condoned by moderators and Jim?
That's a very strange argument, since your post that I was responding to was primarily expressing a moral/religious strain of thought; dark, unprincipled, and fallacious though it may be.
In navigating the real world as it exists, there is no black and white, just varying shades of gray. If one does truly chose to live their life as a black and white purist, they have chosen a cruel task master who in the end will be their undoing.
"If you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed, if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not so costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no chance of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves."-- Winston Churchill
"[T]here are certain basic moral truths that all of us really know, even if we pretend to ourselves that we don't. ... [D]ifferent cultures disagree only about the details of morality, not about the basics. C. S. Lewis gave us a good example when he remarked that although some cultures say you can have four wives and some say you can have only one, up until very recently, every human culture has recognized the sacredness of marriage. ... Paul said in Romans 1 that we 'suppress' the truth because of our sins. But if the knowledge is really down there, then it can be dredged back up, no matter how deeply suppressed. ... Don't forget: People know more about right and wrong than they ever let on. And you can learn how to get past their denials in order to remind them of the moral truths that they can't not know."-- Chuck Colson
"Of all the dispositions and habits, which lead to political prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and Citizens. The mere Politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connexions with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked, Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect, that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."-- George Washington
My, my, are you the self appointed one for determining who should be on this site? Or, is such acts as yours condoned by moderators and Jim?
Your use of ellipsis is disingenuous and places my remark out of context.
What I said was:
Then Conservatism is a lost cause, and you would be better off at some other site. After all, Conservatism is a dedication to the idea that certain principles exist and must needfully be preserved. What are principles, except those things which cannot be sacrificed?The 'then' is a mechanism to offer up an inferred conclusion to your previous remark. Why spend time here if your 'varying shades of gray' obfuscate or outright deny the principles this site defends?
src
"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge or gallantry would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution is designed only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for any other."-- John Adams
"Without morals a republic cannot subsist any length of time...They therefore who are decrying the Christian religion, whose morality is so sublime and pure and which insures to the good eternal happiness, are undermining the solid foundation of morals, the best security for the duration of free governments."-- Charles Carroll, U.S. Senator and signer of the Declaration of Independence
I just finished hearing a tape of last night’s debate.
Why would a government with the power to coin money and the power to tax need to borrow money? You have a great question there, Tom, and I sure don’t have an answer! ;-)
Great job as usual. I recommend everyone listen to the tapes of these debates at Talkshoe.com. Lots of good stuff in there. Looking forward to Tuesday!
Keep on keepin on!
Thanks!
A short clip from the Wed. night debate that lays out my general view of government:
There will be some other important clips up shortly. The three hour recordings are a lot to wade through. :-)
Thanks!
A short clip from the Wed. night debate that lays out my general view of government:
There will be some other important clips up shortly. The three hour recordings are a lot to wade through. :-)
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.