Posted on 11/05/2013 9:08:54 PM PST by SaveOurRepublicFromTyranny
Will do.
I'm in my sixth decade, and have never heard or seen the kind of deep division we have in this country today. No one, and I mean no one, except certified looneys, ever talked about 'undeclared civil war' in decades past.
When you say, "people don't vote for crazy", you're covertly pointing a finger of recrimination at Tea Party conservatives like Ted Cruz and Sarah Palin, who unabashedly stand and fight for our Founding Principles. What you say is disingenuous, because "crazy" is exactly what the left has been voting for, for a long time now.
It appears that "crazy" in your world only applies to patriots and staunch conservatives, who have the temerity to come right out and express their love for America, and their pride in this country's fundamental construction.
Happy warriors win in purple and blue territory - ones that promise to "work with the other side" and offer other such happy talk.
That's disgusting. By way of implication, you're saying that Republican voters prefer squish 'moderates' like Romney, Boehner, McConnell, Cornyn, et al, and that they reject strong voices of conservative principles and American idealism.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Romney just gave Obama four more years on the job because he's one of those "happy warriors" you speak of. He was rejected by the conservative right, who saw too little difference between his liberal record in office, and the Democrat industrial complex.
I find it unbelievable that you've lived through five years of unrelenting Communist destruction, and are still talking politics like it's 1975. Unreal...
Until we come up with a way to counter the impact of the pathetically selfish (pro-abortion women) and the terminally stupid, we cannot win ...
You will never change the minds of those who are so morally bankrupt that they could murder their own child - they (and their “vaginas”)are owned by the devil - and thus they are a lost cause. Eventually they will die off, the pathetic consequence of a self-imposed “contraceptive” death sentence. Good riddance to them. The important task is to prevent them from corrupting the good seed of others’ children - the one’s they were not able to have butchered.
Then you have the entitlement class - also equally morally bankrupt and beyond reform - they are the terminally stupid, because while they decry “racism,” yet they are quite comfortable living their miserable existence beneath the government’s yoke. The irony is that the black slave of the old South was morally superior, self-sufficient and dedicated to family - and the caliber of his character was light years beyond any of the so-called “African American” bootlickers of “massah fedgov” that presently permeate our society today. These reprobates are true slaves; but they are too deaf, dumb and blind to realize the shackles bound upon them more tightly than any their ancestors ever suffered. Of course, this class of losers also includes non-blacks who happily enjoy their existence on the same government plantation, and do all they can to make certain no soul ever leaves.
Read post #15, longbow.
You don’t fight leftism/socialim with moderation/compromise/bailing.
And an ALL OUT effort doesn’t mean ALL OF MY TIME. It’s a focus that will be more rewarding for me than sending my $ and giving my support/volunteer time to RINOs who cloak themselves in the blanket of conservatism and often, lie to us to get elected and then reveal their true Rinoism.
Reagan may have “reached across the aisle” to accomplish some goals. But that was then and this is now.
When he did negotiate with the “other side”, it was often with Blue Dog Dems..Today there is no such thing..Most Dems are all out rat carrying liberal progressive socialists.
Being an activist...taking action...is more than some Freepers on this site do who lurk, complain and bloviate. Are you one of those slackers?
Nonsense. I'm talking about people that blather on about civil war, revolutions, etc. I quite like Ted Cruz and hope he runs for President. I liked Palin till she pulled her 2012 tease campaign, kept conservatives divided because so many of her supporters were tearing down people like Perry because they thought she was going to run and were trying to clear the field for her.
That's disgusting. By way of implication, you're saying that Republican voters prefer squish 'moderates' like Romney, Boehner, McConnell, Cornyn, et al, and that they reject strong voices of conservative principles and American idealism.
More nonsense. What I am saying is that if we want to make inroads in purple and blue states, we are going to need to attract some voters that don't ordinarily vote for us. Being a happy warrior is a good start. Talking calmly and with an even temper gets you further. Paying lip service to "working with the other side" is another winning position (there is nothing wrong with offering an olive branch to reasonable people in the enemy camp). Think Ronald Reagan, Scott Walker, etc.
What DOES NOT get elected in purple/blue states is firebrands like EW Jackson. Nominating him was idiotic. The guy was doomed the second he got the nomination - AND he was almost certainly a drag on the ticket.
I find it unbelievable that you've lived through five years of unrelenting Communist destruction, and are still talking politics like it's 1975. Unreal...
You sound no different than what people were saying when Clinton was in office. It's the exact same talk. Back then many conservatives thought he was the marxist who would drive us to civil war. Turned out, not so much. Geeze man, Americans voted for FDR 4 times - and he was every bit OR MORE the socialist Obama is. I think Obama has done great damage to this country, but he is just another in a series of left wing presidents elected by the American people that is dragging this country to oblivion. The thing is, as Europe has shown us, it is quite possible to kick the debt/craptastic economy can down the road for decades even. In the meantime, firebrand conservatives are not going to usually do well in purple/blue states. Conservatives who are happy warriors and sound inclusive will.
“Not by a Rat Virginia AG”
As of now, Obenshain has the lead. If the outcome is the same as the 2005 race, Virginia will have a new Republican AG.
It has been several times that you have ignored the question.
So you do expect conservatives to go along with the radical leftist, pro-abortion, pro-gay, pro-immigration, pro-drugs, porn, hookers, weak military agenda of libertarianism?
At this point we have to assume that your answer is yes, and that is the agenda that you are promoting.
Since I have never been a republican, coupled with the fact that I am calling you out for wanting to move the GOP to the left by adopting the left’s/libertarian positions, you really missed on your useless rino crack.
Libertarianism is identified by it’s pro-abortion, pro-gay, pro-drugs, anti-military, and anti-conservative positions, it is what a politician or “rinos” mean when they proclaim that they are becoming “libertarian on social issues”.
Libertarians voted for the libertarian because the pro-abortion, pro-gay agenda, pro-doper guy was the best match up for their libertarian ideals.
Sarvis was no Dem plant, he was simply the libertarian.
“THU NOV 15, 2012 AT 01:54 PM PST
Libertarians provided the margin for Democrats in at least nine elections
As we’ve perused last week’s election returns, we’d noticed a number of races where Libertarian candidates appear to have played spoiler for Republicans—certainly, more than we’re accustomed to. While we haven’t run a comparison with prior cycles, we’ve identified no fewer than nine contests in 2012 where the Libertarian received more votes than the difference between the Democratic and Republican candidates. What’s more, none of these involved the typical 1 or maybe 2 percent you ordinarily expect a Lib to garner: Looking at the three-way vote, all but one were over 3 percent, and three took 6 percent or more, with a high of 6.5 percent in the Montana Senate race. These definitely seem like unusually high figures.”
Beautiful dreamer, wake unto me,
Starlight and dewdrops are waiting for thee;
Sounds of the rude world, heard in the day,
Lull’d by the moonlight have all pass’d away!
Beautiful dreamer, queen of my song,
List while I woo thee with soft melody;
Gone are the cares of life’s busy throng,
Beautiful dreamer, awake unto me!
Beautiful dreamer, awake unto me!....
The GOP better figure out how to with a 3 party race. This was a preview of Hillary’s plan for 2016.
“We should forget Virginia and start grandstanding New Jersey.”
In no way, shape, form, or fashion is Christie a “conservative.” Merely having a “R” behind your name means nothing. New Jersey is NOT a victory. However, it isn’t necessarily a loss either. It is a draw.
Virginia is also a draw. Considering that the Dem was supposed to crush the truly conservative Rep running...since it was close....it is a draw and not a loss. BTW - If it wasn’t for the demoncrats paying to get the “libertarian” on the ballot...the Republican might have won.
“Cuccinelli would have won if the so-called Libertarian (maybe a Rat plant) hadn’t pulled 6% of the vote.”
Or if the national GOP has actually supported Cuccinelli. Apparently, the national GOP would much rather see an avowed Kommunist in office than an avowed conservative.
He was a plant paid for by Dems to hurt Cucinelli, which he did. Mission accomplished.
Dumbest? Really? Okay, I’ll tell Mark Levin since I heard him give this take several times. And he was there working for Reagan in 1976 and his administration.
Except that he wasn’t.
Sarvis was the official libertarian candidate, he was not a part of a long running conspiracy to get him to the top of the Virginia libertarian party.
The democrats didn’t pay for him or create his candidacy, they contributed to his campaign, knowing that it would hurt the conservative, that is very different from what you are claiming.
Read post 209, the left often counts on the libertarians to help them win elections.
Yes, dumbest. Reagan did not pick a moderate VP nominee in order to shove a stick in anyone's eye. The main motivation for every Presidential candidate choosing a VP nominee is to give them an edge. If a side of effect was proving some other point, then fine. Reagan chose the guy (Bush) who called his economic policy "voodoo economics". Bush was the moderate establishment guy and Reagan chose him. He did it because he calculated it would unite the party, give the ticket a more moderate face and give him a better chance to win the election.
And the RNC was AWOL also. It's us against them people.
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.