Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Nachum
and here come the purists....the holy men who think a candidate has to match their every single stinking thoughts word for word....

go ahead ...elect more democrats.....its pathetic the way so called "conservatives" and "freepers" destroy candidates on our side while electing every single stinking rat...

4 posted on 05/29/2014 9:58:21 PM PDT by cherry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: cherry

Jf being a purists means that I only promote and vote for candidates that well if required even to their last full measure to stand by their oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America then I am a purist and I will wear that badge proudly. If you can stand by the Law of the Land you have no business holding any office from Dog Catcher to POTUS.


14 posted on 05/29/2014 10:15:50 PM PDT by Kartographer ("We mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies ]

To: cherry; Artcore; Nachum

I am going to take a wild guess that you either didn’t read the article at all in the first place, or you have never had any appreciation for the NRA nor the Second Ammendment, or both.

We can figure out who is “pure”, if they are simply uncompromising on upholding the Constitution and don’t suggest that we compromise it either.

Carson is a pleasant, intellegent and credentialed man in surgical medicine, but who bases the 2nd Ammendment on your address.

LOL!

The article tracks his evolution of statements. Get a grip on what’s real, not the imagery.


19 posted on 05/29/2014 10:25:04 PM PDT by RitaOK ( VIVA CHRISTO REY / Public education is the farm team for more Marxists coming.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies ]

To: cherry
"and here come the purists....the holy men who think a candidate has to match their every single stinking thoughts word for word...."

I'm not a purist, and hardly a holy man. Moreover, I don't expect any candidate to match my every single stinking thought. But, I have two fundamental expectations of any person running for office, be it in the executive, legislative or (where judges are elected), the judicial branch. 1. That individual must support the right to life. If they don't, they philosophically communicate that every life is subject to the whims of government, and 2. They must unabashedly support the right of the individual to possess the means to defend themselves and their loved ones.

An anti-gun pol is either ignorant of the studies and statistics that overwhelmingly show the beneficial effects of an armed populace and ignorant of the historic and philosophical underpinnings of the Second Amendment, or they are perfectly aware of such things, and their desire to disarm the populace springs from far more insidious motives to concentrate power in the hands of government and foster dependence. Any anti-gun politician falls into one of those two categories: ignorant or malevolent. Sorry, but we already have more than enough of both types in offices throughout the land. Not going to give my vote to help elect one more. I would give Carson the benefit of the doubt and presume he falls into the ignorant category. If he educates himself in this area, and convinces me that he fully grasps the import of the Second Amendment, I could vote for him, but I would need to believe it was a true conversion and embrace.

20 posted on 05/29/2014 10:28:51 PM PDT by Joe 6-pack (Qui me amat, amat et canem meum.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies ]

To: cherry

Not “every single stinking thought” but unambiguously supporting our God given, constitutionally guaranteed rights would be nice. I do not consider myself a “purist” because I want elected officials who can read, understand and support the Constitution. I think his reported comment that “it depends on where I live” if I can exercise a supposedly inalienable right is a despicable thing to say. I would not want this guy in any position where he could impact any of my rights.


23 posted on 05/29/2014 10:39:31 PM PDT by jospehm20
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies ]

To: cherry
and here come the purists....the holy men who think a candidate has to match their every single stinking thoughts word for word....

And here come the GOP-E cheerleaders making excuses for every flawed candidate there possibly can be.
29 posted on 05/29/2014 10:56:42 PM PDT by SoConPubbie (Mitt and Obama: They're the same poison, just a different potency)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies ]

To: cherry
"the holy men who think a candidate has to match their every single stinking thoughts word for word...."

Yes and this same way of thinking earned us Obama for 8 years and cost us SCOTUS (most certainly) for generations!

The all to real stupidity of you who wanted only a pure conservative when ANY ONE of the conservative candidates would not have assured the life and reality we live in now.

ThANKS IDIOTS!
39 posted on 05/30/2014 12:10:24 AM PDT by JSteff (It was ALL about SCOTUS.. We are DOOMED for several generations. . Who cares? Dem's did and voted!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies ]

To: cherry

What you said...


57 posted on 05/30/2014 4:58:28 AM PDT by trebb (Where in the the hell has my country gone?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson