Posted on 12/10/2013 11:19:06 AM PST by cotton1706
Not only that but, in Virginia, Mary Cheney and Mary Cheney’s “wife” would campaign FOR Liz Cheney and Liz might get the votes of her actual neighbors.
“And, as a newbie here, I found out the guy, whom you called a JackAss truly is. And now, I also find out, he’s not as Conservative as he tried to pass himself off to be. “
Hey C. Edmond, which one of us do you suppose this “ wonderful Christian” is talking? I really don’t know much about Wyoming politics although one of my wife’s HS classmates is a “self-proclaimed RINO State Legislator there, so we do have that connection. I was merely trying to see if Enzi continued to be “acceptable” there in the wake of his sucking up to McConnell. I am about at the point where I vote against all incumbents just to keep them from doing as much harm as they have been for the past decade or so. And don’t you just love the terminology this “BAC” uses to describe someone with whom he disagrees. I don’t think Jesus would approve.
You conflate money and property. Without your property dude, or dudette, you are owned by the state. If you think you can do any good that way, you are mistaken.
This is why Adams insisted that property rights are the most sacred. He understood that which you do not……..
You should stop drinking before you start posting. I clearly agreed with the hereditary legacy politician point, and said so. As for Alan Simpson, don’t know where that came from. Simpson is probably an Enzi guy, if I had to guess.
Not sure…but I do know this, there are Freepers who insist that every issue and every candidate lead with abortion, and they insist that anyone who agrees with that is some kind of pro abortion liberal infiltrator who works with Karl Rove and Mitt Romney in the secret basement somewhere. They are just intellectual nothing burgers….
And they could not refute my evidence that while pro life candidates do win, but never by leading with social issues. So, since I'm pro life, and want so con candidates to win, I understand that the best way to do so is to be a limited government candidate too.
In post 45, “agrees” should be “disagrees” - …..the problem with “pre coffee” posting…:)
Ho hum...... yawn.....
So true! They are like the Blues Brothers. They are “sure” they are on “A Mission from G_d,” but unlike Jake and Elwood, their mission is to trash all “non-believers.” It's unfortunate that there is a “compliment” to the ‘loony left,” it's called the “religious right.” They decry the “radical muslims,” but while they themselves are not violent, there are parallels in their thought processes. They don't recognize our right to disagree with them. Extremism is an anathema!
Well even worse than that. I am a social conservative, and a believer, and yet I am trashed because I have differing ideas about how to accomplish what needs to be accomplished. One book I considered writing was “I Despise the Religious Right..and I Am One” - for just this kind of thought process.
“One book I considered writing was “I Despise the Religious Right..and I Am One” - for just this kind of thought process.”
I am right there with you! The other piece of it is the “behavior” of the “major organized religions.” Catholics give the likes of Nazi Pelosi a pass on her anti-Catholic pronouncements. The Mormons are hiding under their desks in SLC while Harry Reid trashes their belief set. The Jews, seemingly countenance large segments of Secular Progressive Jews who are working right alongside Obama in their collective effort to destroy this county along with Israel.
The BACs on the other hand, see everything through the twin prisms of abortion and homosexuality. They are fine with the likes of Akin and Mourdock. They have a hard time understanding why these people don’t have a wider appeal with the voters, and when these people loose, they simply shrug their shoulders and say “well we tried.”
I am a Tea Party supporter, but I remain concerned because “disorganized as it is,” it’s ripe for being co-opted by religious elements that have a very different basic agenda than simply the restoration of limited, fiscally responsible government.
I just bother you by rejecting the corrupt money-obsessive lobbyist cash-driven materialism of McConnell, Boehner, Cantor, McCarthy, Cornyn, Cochrane, LAMAR!!!, Corker, Ryan, Schock, and Kinzinger among soooo many other whores controlling the GOP caucuses.
Let's Make a Deal!!! Let's Make a Deal!!! Let's Make a Deal!!! Would the average "GOP" "leader" prefer to save the lives of millions of babies to be killed later or.... What's Behind the Curtain??? Gee, Monty, that's easy. It will be What's Behind the Curtain! Well, Worthington Farquhar, YOU WIN!!! You get a Congressional Country Club membership, six helpless children to whom you can do unspeakable things, three all expense paid junkets to fancy far away places and a guaranteed annual bundle of contributions from the US Polo Players' Association, the Chamber of Commerce, and a variety of truly predatory contributors totaling $27 million for each of the next twenty-eight years (adjusted annually for inflation, of course).
Old Farquhar will know enough to vote as a faithful slave of "the interests" from here on out. He will NEVER lead with social issues either and, if asked, will put a big smile on his infernal face and cut the ribbon at the opening of each new abortion mill in his constituency area.
Alan Simpson certainly never led with pro-life since he was a wholly owned subsidiary of Planned Barrenhood and an eager cheerleader for the butchery of the unborn of the poor lest they might cost him tax money. That's where that came from. IF he supports Enzi, that would probably indicate that he thinks that Enzi is a pro-abort or that Simpson has slipped intellectually and no longer understands the priorities of his fellow worshipers at the Shrine of Margaret Sanger. Don't trust Liz Cheney on social issues.
That would be dude, btw.
Funny, struck me as a bitter ole hag.
Sorry John Adams was over your head……lot of room up there.
Gay marriage? This is why some Tea Party people in WY aren’t behind Lynne? I guess if a canidate who was 100% conservative would be disqualified if the canidate has a gay relative.
In last post I meant Liz.
John Adams was the one-term POTUS who was the last of only two Federalists to serve in that office. Only four years after Washington, the Federalists were finished in POTUS elections. Jefferson triumphed over Hamilton and his gross favoritism for the entrenching wealthy over everyone else and Aaron Burr finished the job.
Next (other than a largely and understandably forgotten party or two, including the one that foolishly elected Adams II over Andrew Jackson in 1824 for one term before Adams II joined the scrap heap of history, courtesy of Jackson), the partisans of using the government to line the pockets of those already quite comfortable concocted the Whig Party. Henry Clay, "internal improvements" at federal expense (great contracts and plenty of lucre for "our friends") and all that. William Henry Harrison, a decent John Tyler, Zachary Taylor and the utter nativist and anti-Catholic buffoon Millard Fillmore and they were gone.
Finally, Lincoln was elected with less than 40% of the vote against no less than three Democrats in one election. One on one against Stephen Douglas and we might have avoided the Civil War, the Civil War income tax, "Reconstruction," etc., and slavery would have, as Andrew Jackson predicted to Sam Houston in 1837, faded away economically on its own.
The GOP has ever since borne the albatross and the stigma of the Hamiltonian/ Federalist/ Whig obsession of favoring the financial elite over the interests of everyone else. In today's world, see the likes of Nixon, Ford, Bush I, Bob (Tax Collector for the Welfare State) Dole, Bush II: the Wall Street bailout man, Crazed McCain, Clueless Romney, Drunken Weeper Boehner, Mitchell McConnell: Harry Reid's faithful servant, Eric Cantor, Kevin McCarthy, John Cornyn, LAMAR!!! and so many many more who are scarcely better than Demonrats on issues that matter to most Americans.
Oh, and yet again, I am awaiting your answer to #16. You are the guy who claims to prefer argument over insults to posters on this forum???? Yeah, and Spineless John Boehner is a conservative, too! Just as likely as you being an actual social conservative. How many millions of babies have to die while your favorite style of "Republican" unprincipled suck up fiddles away spending full-time on auto-lick of Wall Street's and K Street's Guccis?
Either the "GOP" exists for causes that are far more important than mere greedocracy like life, like marriage, like Western Civilization, like re-armament, like muscular foreign policy, like 2nd Amendment RTKBA. Conservatism is a rich tapestry of many causes more important than money. If the Wall Street and K Street crowds want to come along for the ride as a junior partner (far from the steering wheel or the gas pedal or the brakes), fine! Until that happens, let the Romneyite "GOP for sale" lose. One Herbert Hoover was more than enough.
I don’t argue with any of that, other than your idiotic notion that “property rights” are only about “money” as in “mammon.” That’s straw bullsh-t and I don’t have the patience for it.
If you don’t really understand that property rights are the “sanctitiy of life outside the womb” and don’t understand that you are worth zip zero nada to the pro life movement, the defense of marriage movement, the offering plate or any other cause…if your property is not your own, then you are not intellectually up to this debate.
What do you mean my answer to 16? Do you mean another number?
Typo: #16 should have been #36.
I was also a state chair for Ronald Reagan's campaign against Feckless Gerald Ford in 1976. As you may recall, the utterly unprincipled policy quisling Ford was a "Republican""leader in Congress before infesting the White House. Thus, he was a predecessor in cowardice to Boehner, Cantor, McCarthy, and, in spirit, to McConnell.
I have never indulged the foolishness that property is more important than life. Life is a "must have" if you are going to have liberty or property, each of which is merely a "nice to have" or even a "verrrry nice to have."
If you don't have the patience for that obvious statement, so what? In that case, you won't be missed as actual conservatives strive to preserve, protect and defend these United States, to say nothing of the remnants of Western Civilization in this nation. Money is only money. God is always and always has been and always will be God. He is the Absolute and we are but his creatures. Our property is not worth the innocent life of even a single one of his human creatures.
There are people who have or have had no liberty. Yet their lives are sacred. There are people who have or have had no property. Yet each such life is sacred. There are people who have or have had no liberty and no property (many of them innocents killed in their mothers wombs and some innocents outside those wombs). Yet each such life is sacred.
I don't notice the source of your quote as to property rights being the "sanctity of life outside the womb" but, in the context of this discussion, it means little without an awful lot more in the way of intellectual support. My property is my own, thanks to our Founding Fathers but, if that were not so, it would not deprive me of the intellectual ability to argue, much less against you.
You don't suppose you are being a tad pompous and with little justification? Your errors are your errors and not "idiotic notions." Assertions that one's opponent holds to "idiotic notions" do not display a very high level of intellectual debate. Insults are not arguments, at least not since the death of John Randolph of Roanoke. See, now I am being pompous.
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.