Conservative
Liberal
Posted on 03/04/2007 4:46:35 PM PST by johniegrad
I thought you'd have switched to Sharapova by now.
Unfortunately FR has been infiltrated by 'single issue' Rudybots, oops, 'moderates'. Or those who have compromised their principles at the drop of a hat, which means they were never really conservative to begin with. Or those who have sold their soul to the devil. (sarc)
The Rudybots are a strange bunch too when it comes to Rudy's countless liberal positions and the excuses they make for him. They're like the girl (woman) who meets a scum sucking lowlife bum and thinks (hopes?) they change him after they're married - which sane people know is impossible. A person is who he is and nothing can or will change that. And Rudy is a LIBERAL (he's also a mentally unbalanced bully).
What was that all about? I was making a point to a Rudy follower. Wrap your head and keep me out of your wrapping techniques. BTW, politics isn't for the weak hearted. Have a great day!
"Oh and don't forget the endless Evo\Crevo battles."
"sad isn't it?"
Here is a classic example:
Posted on Feb 10 still going on March 5
A look at how Kansas' science standards would change (If and when evolutionists alter them) ^
Posted by DaveLoneRanger
On News/Activism ^ 02/10/2007 5:22:58 PM CST · 1,918 replies · 15,720+ views
Why don't you do some research and read about Rudy's ideologies. I don't have to make this stuff up because the truth is there for everyone to see.
I take that you are NOT a Conservative. That is fine but do NOT expect me to agree with you on RUDY.
And do "NOT" call me a liar again. The truth about Rudy is out there. He is NOT a Conservative and he is more Liberal than Moderate.
With all due respect, listen for the play on words. Even RINOS understand that aspect of Politics!
If Hiliary and Giuliani are both nominated then both candidates will be pro abortion. Since a third party candidate has little or no chance to win, which of these candidates would you be better off voting for? I share your concern as a Catholic also but should I expect a better outcome from Rudy or from Hiliary? If the progress has to be incremental through the selection of the judiciary, then who should I vote for? If there is a chance that the judiciary can be properly aligned then don't I have to vote for the candidate who might be able to do that? I don't think the President will have much influence on this issue other than through nomination of judges.
I was involved on three other threads, and as you know, I try and respond as completely as possible to each poster to me. I said I would look this over, but found it interesting that 2 in 2 days posted the founder's purpose. Clearly they were meant to get rid of the "sheep" who would rather think for themselves. Nor do I understand your pings, especially to a couple of the names I saw, except to once again give a "heretic alert".
Sadly, you continue to equate social conservatism (conservative standing on issues such as abortion; tolerance and acceptance of homosexual behavior as 'normal'; forced support through taxation, of research and application that is antithetical to our faith) as the 'social right'.
I am not going to continue to repeat myself to you. The laundry list I gave you represents the agenda of the social right. That agenda represents not only a litmus test for all of the candidates, but represents what they believe to be the issues of importance. That is why I call them the social right, not social conservatives.
Actually, conservatism originated and has been sustained for lo these many years through just the positions you prefer to denigrate as 'too far to the right of pure conservatism'.
I gave you a pretty concise history of conservatism, none of which you refuted. Nor do I denigrate anyone's beliefs, unless they interfere with my desire for a conservative, efficient government, focusing on the issues of importance to the American people, which is what the 109th completely failed to do. Yes, for the past several years since the rise of the Christian Coalition, conservatism has been hijacked, if you will, and attempts made to transform it into a religious/moral/social crusade rather than what it's founding fathers ever believed or intended. That you and others here find my efforts to show this history, and more, to show how it has been hijacked speaks volumes for how close I am to the truth, not how wrong you see my actions.
This smacks of an Alinskyesque tactic, to freeze the target ... well, you likely know the rest of the methodology since you're employing it so precisely to try and change the definition of conservatism.
Yes, I confess. I am trying to change the definition hijacked by people who are using conservatism, not because of its roots or its core principles, but because a large percentage of conservatives are religious, and therefore vulnerable to this redefinition.
But again, I do not decry the RR, only what it wants our government to do, in spite of what most Americans want. The 109th Congress demonstrated that these social goals took precedence over all else, which explains of course why the Republican Party no longer leads the Congress.
Okay, you have effectively outed me once again to the forum founder and his chief lieutenant. If what you folks want is a forum, not of ideas, not of debate, but simply a lock-step acceptance of an agenda, so that you all can ditto each other, fine. There are a few hundred of us who regularly post here, who are challenging that kind of group-think. Simply ban us all, and you no longer have to listen to any thoughts not propounded by the founder.
Take care.
Since this post was directed at multiple posters, I have to ask if this slur was directed at me.
I tend to agree with you but how do you respond to posters who claim there is a moral obligation to vote conscience through third party protest knowing that they cannot win?
If he is a servant to his Creator, then he must respect the dignity of each individual created in His image. If you agree with this, then is working to eliminate abortion an intrusion into the private lives of others and anti-conservative? Honest question.
No, I don't expect to **end up** with 100%...
But no savvy negotiator goes into a deal with the price tag already marked down and the asking price 1/3 off their Actual Cost. Actual cost as the price of giving up moral ground. Actual cost in pain and suffering of the unborn and aged. Actual cost in missed blessings of righteousness: "Blessed is the Nation whose God is the LORD."
And that's what giving up moral imperatives for a candidate like Rudy would do.
Don't settle so cheap, Sister!
"My mama told me, you gotta shop around."
Just keep window-shopping for a while. And if you are a person of prayer, pray for America.
Difficult for me to disagree with. Do all you can to get the kind of candidate nominated that you want. Does it include supporting the kind of candidate you get in the general election?
Voting for a third party candidate who has no chance of winning is the same thing as voting for the liberal.
And conservatives with consciences should never, ever do that.
There is rarely ever a candidate running at the national level who is as conservative as I am (that included Reagan), but voting for a loser against the more conservative candidate, IMO, is far from moral. One might even argue that it is the opposite......
Very well put.
Aight, serious question here: What has happened to this site?
It had to have been something, because it is definitely different.
Not sure what you mean by "navel gazing". Also, just for clarity sake, what do you notice that is different?
Looks like its a conservative website to me. That generally means a Republican website, but in the case of RINOs, I don't think so.
'Twas not intended as a slurr, but merely a cite to the obvious. Jim Robinson has not been a shrinking violet on this subject lately.
I guess I haven't been on the site as much. Knowing what the "mission statement" says didn't help much because what it says and what I have been seeing here lately aren't the same. There must have been some other interest also based on the number of replies. I went to bed last night after about reply number 250 or so.
The primaries are coming, so slug it out. That's the way it should be. While this is a conservative site, I don't think anyone here has laid claim to omniscience (yet). For goodness' sake, debate! There's nothing wrong with that, just do it within the rules.
The problem is that there are not so many conservatives that we can start throwing people overboard. Just tell the truth in your posts. People here at FR, though maybe not everywhere, are smart enough to separate the wheat from the chaff.
Finally, I will vote for the GOP nominee, I don't care who it is, and rest easy knowing the Dem candidate will not be as good. I will work as hard as I can for the conservative candidates I believe is best and let the chips fall where they will.
What concerns me are the number of posters who would not support the party nominee if he won the nomination fairly. I'm also concerned that the conservative electorate not posting on FreeRepublic may also feel the same way and stay home or vote third party.
Conservative
Liberal
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.