Posted on 02/28/2007 7:54:19 AM PST by Al Simmons
LOL. I said a few weeks ago that I thought fair number of freepers were mentally disturbed. These posts are proving me right every single day.
Brits don't get a vote here, silly!
Excellent.
459 and 460. He spent awhile composing them both and hit the desktop and laptop enter button at the same time.
I am as pro-life as anybody here, having given birth to 5 children. I am pro-gun as anybody here, owning 2 myself. As for homosexuality, well science is still out on whether homosexuality is genetic or environmental.
The election of liberal RINO Schwartzenkennedy was a dress rehearsal for the attempt to elect liberal Giuliani. Same arguments, same rationalization, same marginalization of the social conservative base of the party, same crap.
You didn't have to agree with Reagan on social issues to vote for him. Northeastern liberal and moderate Republicans voted for him. And you didn't have to agree with him on economic or constitutional questions either. Southern and Catholic Democrats were also for Reagan. To vote for Reagan, you had to A) want to stand up to the Soviets and B) want to put recession and inflation behind us.
I don't know if Rudy would make a good or a bad president. I certainly disagree with him about a lot of things. What people are responding to in Giuliani, though, is the same kind of broad, popular, patriotic appeal that Reagan enjoyed. Those Reagan Democrats, if they're still there, aren't going to vote for Duncan Hunter, but it looks as though they may vote for Giuliani.
Whatever Rudy is or isn't, he certainly isn't John Lindsay, or even Nelson Rockefeller. It may not look like that the further you get from New York, but in the context of local politics he was very much the anti-Lindsay, and at least a little bit the anti-Rockefeller.
M.Thatcher lives in NY.
I've made that argument to him a few times and only get silence or some babble back in response.
Should your posts with all thatunladylike profanity be restored as well? Muahahaha! Turnabout is fair play, dearie.
Geez, you really hate it when people beat you at your own game, huh?
You'd think someone called you a treasonous liberal.
An interesting choice of words. I was reading Common Tator's post, and persuing the replies on this thread, when that thought ran through my head. "Republicans and conservatives are spiraling out of control, and it won't get better until we hit rock bottom"
2008 will likely be the bottom. At this rate, given the deep divisiveness here, and the angry, anti-Bush unity on the left, 2008 will be a Democratic sweep. A combination of Iraq and border policy has shattered the right, while the left and the center are gaining momentum.
If we're unable to honestly assess the mood of the country, and rally behind a leader acceptable to the majority, we'll lose. As of this thread, it seems that conservativism in general doesn't care about doing either of those things.
Of course, between having an amnesty before securing the borders and Ahnold wanting to give illegals health care, that will only MASSIVELY INCREASE illegal immigration. If the GOP turns around and nominates a pro-amnesty candidate, that alone could be sufficient to rift the party. Throw in Rudy's other liberal positions and the party will be giving the finger to conservatives. But of course, they will still expect our vote come November. After all, if we are unwilling to let go of 80 percent of our core values, we are unappeasables and 100 percenters, using the new RINO math.
Well, whether you like it or not, abortion IS a woman's right this minute; I have yet to see any of you provide the details about just how it will be defeated by liberals.
And the POTUS doesn't have much to do with it.
And in this election abortion isn't going to be a big issue.
And in this election gay rights isn't going to be an issue.
And we have no business in ANYBODY'S bedroom.
I've yet to see anybody say teaching homosexuality in school is a good thing; perhaps you can provide a link for that and I'll change my statement on that.
And I said we have to compromise to win because there aren't enough of us to win and we need to appeal to independents.
Now, can you prove me wrong on that, or are you advocating a loss in 2008.
If so, just how will that further your agenda?
Oh, and I meant to say, I have an article in my file that Sen. Brownback would support Rudy as presidential nominee, but thinks that he (Brownback) will enter race. (This was before Brownback announced)
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1752817/posts
Ultra social conservative Pat Robertson thinks Rudy would make a good president.
Asked if Giuliani would be an acceptable 2008 presidential candidate to Christian conservatives, Pat Robertson told ABC's "This Week:" "He did a super job running the city of New York and I think he'd make a good president."
I don't know one candidate that runs on that platform especially at the Presidential level. It was an appeasement to special interest groups so they could go away happy and then gets put back in a drawer for four more years. The more I think about it the less happy I am with Rove and his reaching out to the wrong group for votes -- he pandered.
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.