Posted on 05/28/2014 6:28:32 PM PDT by Kaslin
You just conceded to the Left - there's nobody who is 100% conservative by the standards set her, ergo, it's best to allow someone who aggressively pushes the homosexual agenda and abortion and is willing to put the force of government behind these sicknesses, than it is to vote for someone who has mostly conservative credentials, but has opined that homosexuals might be OK in certain places, but it's not the government's job to make the call.
Nobody said they wanted perfection but if you go out demanding imperfection, you’ll never get good candidates. The GOPe purists seek to destroy conservatives by pushing memes like that.
And most of that is covered by the republican party platform.
The republicans can't even run a presidential candidate that is in accord with the party platform. Why should I vote for them?
I will work tirelessly to see the liberal republicans destroyed in their general elections. The republican party can get conservative or it can be destroyed.
/johnny
They did that in Virginia for Governor and the GOPe refused to give the same funding and support they had given years earlier. The GOPe lost the governors race on purpose out of spite for conservatives.
And we are supposed to vote for their candidates??
No way
Democrats vote for Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi to lead congress, Republicans don't, 100% of the time. As for the presidency, Democrats vote for higher taxes and more government, always. Do you really want this?
Look at federal tax receipts as a percent of GDP. They went up under Carter, down under Reagan, down again under Bush 41, up under Clinton, Down under Bush 43, and up under Obama: 
Except for 2 years, congress was controlled by the dimocrats during Reagan’s 2 terms. When tax receipts as a percentage of gdp went down.
After ‘94, congress was controlled by pubbies during the ‘toon’s term. When tax receipts as a percentage of gdp went up.
Try again.
Well, why don't you take it up with Mark himself?
The solution to the intractable differences between liberals and conservatives is:
“We have our states, you have yours, and a small federal government we can both tolerate.”
Thus, our offer of compromise to their proposals should be: “Our compromise is to tolerate your proposal being the law in states you control.” (That could be high taxes, socialist medicine, legal pot, welfare for illegals).
Folks, this is not hard to grasp. It is not complex. Just like Obama zombies, people supposedly calling themselves conservatives want so badly to believe that there is a white knight or the horizon, they are willing to do anything including flush their entire reason for claiming conservatism to get one.
This guy is a very educated man. He makes many good points. He even has flashes of actual conservatism.
He is also a fraud.
A conservative does not preach the Compromise Gospel in the name of winning. A RINO does. A Cheshire Conservative does. Or a Dem when they think they can profit from doing so. If your neighbor told you to compromise your beliefs, would you?
Well? Why not? Many are willing to do it over some guy they only read about or saw on TV. Why not? Why not compromise your under age daughter to the resident sex perv in the park? Don’t get uppity and offended with me unless you can say one ‘principle’ is good to keep and another isn’t. Because that is what Carson and anyone that backs him is saying with this ‘compromise’ crap. Words mean things.
Principles are inviolate. And people that are willing to compromise them away deserve no ‘rights’ at all because in their own spirit of compromise, those are fair game to trade away as well. Can’t have it both ways.
So until any of the compromisers here are willing to address the above, which is a fact based and non-strawman argument, so please spare me that lame ass excuse, they need to go sit in a corner and reevaluate their reason for hanging out on right wing forums. Because they aren’t here to further conservatism and protect our core principles.
Not a moron: I did read it, and many other questionable things he’s said and written since he first opened his mouth publicly. He’s like an actor who’s still learning his part.
Even two more years of Dems and all that will have happened anyway, just a lot sooner.
You're projecting.
Your 'argument' is simply not convincing. It's still a FACT that taxes have gone up when Democrats hold the presidency and they have gone down when Republicans are president, and that Democrats vote for Democrat leaders. You're going to have to do more than wave your hands to provide convincing evidence of anything different.
Presidents only sign or veto legislation passed by congress.
When the president was Republican and the congress was democrat, as in the 1980’s tax receipts as a percentage of gdp went down. When the president was Democrat and the congress was Republican, the opposite happened.
That’s not projection. That’s on the chart you posted.
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.