Posted on 04/06/2014 5:43:23 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
Evolve, adapt or die. That is the fate of our current Republican party. We must evolve as a party and find a way to attract millennials to the conservative movement or we will never succeed in realizing our ideals of individual freedom and freedom from government interference.
Initially, I received criticism from political pundits for speaking to non-traditional audiences. I was told it was a waste of time to reach out to these audiences, specifically students from both Howard University and University of California, Berkeley.
My response is this: I have never been one to watch the world go by without participating. I wake up each day hoping to make a difference.
You might be a Republican, Democrat or Independent. I speak before these audiences, not to preach or prescribe some special formula.
My intention is not to tell you what to be. You are more important than any political party or partisan pleadings. My intention is to motivate all Americans and defend their rights.
My hope is that in discussing these topics, more Americans will be open to the conservative message. A message that favors choice in education, a less aggressive foreign policy, more compassion regarding non-violent crime and encourages opportunity in employment.
As a conservative [*cough, *cough] politician, it is clear to me that we must start discussing these topics more with audiences that might not normally hear our message--specifically young adults and students.
Preaching to the choir is not working for the conservative movement. We are growing stale and moss-covered. We must evolve, adapt or die.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
That ain’t what you were saying Skippy.
You DO understand that you can try and lie to me, but what you said is still back there in black and white and it was NOT an attempt to “motivate” Conservatives to stand up for the Constitution, but to pee on the campfire.
Do we really need to read your post 124 again?
Backpedalbackpedalbackpedal
I heard Rand Paul being interviewed by Glenn Beck on his show recently, around 4 or 5 weeks ago. Glenn (who despises McConnell) tried to get a straight answer from RP about why he endorsed McConnell. Rand never directly answered the question. However, Rand did say that at the time he endorsed McConnell there was as yet NO "other" candidate.
“Do we really need to read your post 124 again?”
Yes. There is no lie there, there is no backpedaling.
So before you start with your claims of being somehow wronged - why don’t you do your best to explain what the heck you are talking about.
No, you weren’t defending conservatism, you were promoting libertarianism and a move to the left for the GOP, as led by Rand Paul.
Your quoting this “My intention is to motivate all Americans and defend their rights.” is meaningless, Obama, or Bill Maher could say that, anyone can.
We both know what you want to push, just do it.
Libertarians like to make a veiled feint to the left on a thread, and then they go into their protective closed loop, and won’t defend their liberalism openly, the discussion then becomes one where they despise you, are arguing passionately against you and conservatism, yet they won’t say anything, it is really bizarre.
You know that you are arguing with someone who is promoting social liberalism, but they are too guarded to speak openly and defend their politics, usually they just start a sort of chant, usually repeating the words constitution and liberty over and over, with no connection to the specific political issues, or candidate, or election that they were promoting, or in a couple of cases GOD, over and over, while opposing God, in an effort to neuter social conservatives and Christians and steal from them language that still means something to conservatives.
They will argue at you for days without daring to ever say anything openly, it makes for bizarre threads, but they are promoting ideas and politics that they know are troll positions here, so they play an ugly and disgusting troll game to spread their message of moving left, and trying to stay between the lines.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3141542/posts?page=180#180
Then convince the poster at the above linked post that you didn’t mean to pee on the campfire because he got the same message from your posts that I did.
I’m all for Rand Paul, and if Ted Cruz or Scott Walker doesn’t get the nomination, I’m voting for him.
“No, you weren’t defending conservatism, you were promoting libertarianism and a move to the left for the GOP, as led by Rand Paul.”
I was not promoting libertarianism. I quoted a libertarian saying something conservative, and said I agreed with that one statement.
Nope. This is Free Republic. We’re not a big tent all viewpoints are welcome liberal debate society. We recognize the Truth that America was founded on Judeo-Christian principles and that our unalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are granted by God our Creator and that our constitution was based on these truths and will work for no other type of society.
We do not believe that abortion or homosexual marriage are rights granted by God. In fact, He forbids both. Look up the word unalienable. We believe as our founders did that God grants these unalienable rights, not government. When government grants a right, government can just as easily deny it. When government attempts to deprive us of our God-given unalienable rights (freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of association, freedom to conduct business without the homofascist government intervening, for example, as the homosexual agenda essentially does) then we have an unlawful tyrannical totalitarian government.
The liberaltarians refuse to oppose this. They believe the homsexualists have a government granted right to stomp their fascist boots on our necks and deprive US of our lawful God-given unalienable rights.
And if they’ll do that for the homosexualists, they’ll do it for the abortionists and the border jumpers and right on down the line. A liberaltarian cannot be trusted to defend our God-given liberty, our freedom of religion, our constitution, or our national sovereignty, even if he claims to be Christian.
FReep You Rand Paul (FURP) and the RINOS you ride with!!
“Then convince the poster at the above linked post that you didn’t mean to pee on the campfire because he got the same message from your posts that I did.”
You were both wrong. The statement I quoted was conservative as it gets. Period.
Argue about the person if you want. I agreed with the one statement he made, and said so.
Again, the statement I agreed with is conservative.
Argue about who said it all you want. I haven’t defended anything else or him. I said the statement is conservative on it’s face. period.
Colonel, your descriptions of newly dispatched, still smoking zottees is more entertaining than anything Rand Paul could ever say.
Thanks!
It is just a generic quote that anyone could say, and even mean, it isn’t conservative or liberal or anything.
How you are trying to construct it into some great revelation or meaningful position statement, is baffling.
Libertarians do this all the time, they will devour a thread without saying anything meaningful or clear, they’ll be arguing and yelling, and even angry, yet they won’t actually say anything, they just keep it vague and cryptic.
Your post doesn’t read as if we were wrong.
If that isn’t what you meant, you can ask the mods nicely to remove said posts as they weren’t giving the intended impression.
They might oblige you.
“It is just a generic quote that anyone could say, and even mean, it isn’t conservative or liberal or anything.”
The context mattered, and the audience. At least it seemed so to me, that’s why I mentioned it - as the isolated statement.
Do you really think liberals want to encourage people to defend their liberties? I don’t. Maybe some time in the past, but not now. That is a quaint conservative notion.
So much for Rand Paul being “the great conservative hope,” eh?
The posts stand. You said your peace, you did your best, and now you just want to argue. It’s over.
“The posts stand”
Then , again, show me how many founding fathers said this: “Saying “I’ll fight ‘em to the death” accomplishes less than nothing.”
“Then , again, show me how many founding fathers said this: “Saying “I’ll fight ‘em to the death” accomplishes less than nothing.””
I covered that in a previous post. Go back and read that.
I’m not inclined to argue with you unless you have a point beyond some personal attack, which seems to be all you have in this instance.
Quoting you and pointing out your statement is not conservative is not a personal attack.
You are shown to be lying with that statement and your posts afterwards trying to weasel word around it.
We both know what the main thrust of that article and his recent positioning is.
In typical libertarian fashion, you have some politics that you are dying to spit out, but instead you just keep repeating yourself and arguing while not saying anything.
Do I think that libertarians use the word “liberty” to advance liberalism and to conceal/soften the language of support for issues like the gay agenda? I sure do.
If they aren’t telling conservatives to embrace gay marriage for the founding fathers and liberty, then they are telling us to do it for God, but they are always pushing the libertarian position on homosexuals.
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.