Posted on 04/19/2007 11:04:50 AM PDT by Mia T
*************
Seems like a simple concept, doesn't it? Yet apparently it is too complicated for some.
JimRob’s word is final but, I am still needing to know. Not that I am PO’ed at Jim, it’s that a long standing voice here has been turned off.
What, are we promoting a person for POTUS? I have not decided yet!
The tactics I've seen by those who shout the loudest about being conservative clearly contradict that claim.
Plus, just about all the Rudy boosters have no problem ripping into McCain, so it ain't like they don't have their own targets.
But do they try and get them banned? Anyway, both McCain and Romney have been ripped by many on the social right here, and from what I've seen, much more so than mainstream conservatives. It's clear to me that the purpose of the attacks on the top 3 have been designed to weaken support for them in order to bolster one of the one percenters who would be more acceptable to the social right, but of course completely unelectable.
First it was Brownback, then Hunter. When it was obvious neither would ever make it past 1 or 2 percent in any Republican poll, they all went after Newt. Newt of course has more baggage than a 787, and when the admission of an affair came out, they then jumped on Fred's bandwagon. So far, little is known about him or whether he is even interested, but I notice now how off-limits he has become to any negative comments.
The social right needs to understand that conservatism embraces so much more than a handful of social issues, and those issues are not going to drive the election campaign. They must then look to what the real issues are facing this Nation and what Americans will be voting on.
Surely you understand that lower courts must comply with precedent, and that the USSC must at least consider the rationale for the precedent. As for Roe, it stands alone, and one more appointment will bring it down. Who should make that appointment? Should it be Hillary, or a Republican president?
First of all, Reagan basically defined modern conservatism, and his social conservatism was robust.
His social values were not what made him a good president, nor is he generally quoted as a designer by those who discuss conservatism. Nor am I in any way demeaning anyone's social values, as by definition we all have them in one way or another. But Reagan's lasting legacy has nothing to do with the social aspects of conservatism, but for his tax and defense policies, and his efforts to confront and help bring down the Soviet Union.
Not having at least some social conservative values makes a professed conservative a two-legged stool (with the other two legs being fiscal and national security). The only way conservatism works is when all three are embraced.
You oversimplify true conservatism, by attempting to put it into 3 narrow cubbyholes. True, most conservatives today have a distaste for abortion and ultimately want it sent back to the states. But a conservative's basic attitude is that of how he views the individual and the government.
A liberal wants the government to control the lives of individuals and wants it to be a strong, powerful central government. A conservative believes that individuals have responsibility for their own lives and their own fortunes, and favors government operating at the lowest level (state and local) thereby reducing the need for the federal government in many areas it operates in today.
Conservatives have a great appreciation for the institutions of government that the Founders created, and believe that the first duty of government is to protect the rights of all of its citizens and bring about a secure Nation.
Conservatism does not mean belief in any religion, but an understanding that religion must be free of government interference. Conservatives generally believe in balancing a budget and do not like deficit spending. They want a strong military, but do not necessarily support the need to be the world's policeman.
There is much more that encompasses classical conservatism, but I deny vehemently that many of the issues of importance to the social right are necessarily tied to conservatism.
Once again, the rules here have always boiled down to a basic concept - conservative good, liberal bad. If you find that suffocating, so be it. But conservatism happens to be the core guiding mission for this website, and it's tough to pursue a conservative agenda if you're dragging a bunch of liberalism around with you.
Yet there are many who are nothing short of radicals and extremists here who represent nothing conservatives embrace who operate with impunity simply because their issues fall within the scope of your defined "conservatism". But let me say that conservatives do not embrace extremism, nor the tactics they use.
True conservatives are unafraid of being challenged because they can fully support their positions.
I'm not going to debate Rudy with you as you seem to want to turn this discussion into a Rudy rant. My position on this is simple. Support whomsoever you want during these primaries, and when the time comes to vote Hillary or the Republican candidate, no conservative will pass that up.
It's about half way through the thread.
Conservatism embraces much more than the social values some here have, and no none of the three front runners would put those issues up as campaign issues. The tactics many here have used for years in defense of what they call "social conservatism" are also not consistent with conservatism.
I believe you have missed about 99% of my argument.
Both sides have gone a bit overboard at times.
But it's about Rudy,isn't it?
And Rudy can shout all he wants about conservative values, but I'm not buying it. And neither are many other Freepers,including the founder of FreeRepublic.
But do they try and get them banned?
And more importantly, why have the Mods seen fit to actually suspend or ban many Rudy supporters? They clearly have legitimate reasons.
And many anti-Rudy folks have been accused of being Mods! How paranoid is that?
I've not seen anything that Mia has said about Hillary that I find out of line. I won't discuss the anti-Christ point because it's not relevant. I don't want to see any lies told about any of the Republican candidates, because like Mia, I believe any of them would be infinitely better for this Nation than would Hillary.
As one poster here said, Mia was banned partly for suggesting that Fred might be running to drain off votes from Rudy and setting up his friend McCain to take the nomination. True or not, I saw the same thing on two other sites, and cannot understand why it would not be worthy of discussion and debate. Fred is not even in the race. But when obvious misstatements or outright lies are told of any of the candidates here, the poster should be called on it, regardless of the social values of the candidate. Conservatives do not have to lie to make a point.
Two wrongs don’t make a right, and even if some posters don’t get punished for wrong, it doesn’t mean it is wrong to punish other posters for doing wrong.
If it is done by those who profess that their religious and social values rule their lives, yes, it is completely wrong, and inconsistent with the values of conservatism.
Are your reading comprehension skills really that bad?
The Constitution guarantees certain rights that for the most part guarantees a certain amount of freedom. Those freedoms are restricted by almost every law in existence however, as the first duty of government is to protect the rights of its citizens and create a secure Nation.
This means one that is founded on the principles of Constitutionally limited government, which for me rules out Giuliani.
Fine. Vote for whomsoever you want. If Hillary can provide that freedom you seek, go for it.
The purpose of the primaries is for you to support the Republican candidate you feel best meets your standards. I'm not defending nor denigrating any of the Republican candidates. I am only concerned about the general election and keeping Hillary out of office.
She has been a most creative force against the Clinton led holocaust that started in 1992 and is about to enter phase II if we don't all unite to stop it.
I think that's her point.
Yes, the abortion holocaust started long before the Clintons.
Thank GOD and President Bush and all who united to get him elected, we finally have a true victory in the fight to stop the abortion holocaust this week in the Supreme Court upholding the ban on the partial birth infanticides.
As conservatives, we ARE pro-life - both for the born and the unborn. It is the socialists/the Marxists who see human life as disposable, as not as valuable as snail darters, as nothing to the power of the STATE. Should they take full power, we will see suffering and death on an untold scale in this country.
I just think we are shooting our own - all of whom will be needed in the fight against the darkness that will definitely fall should the Dems (especially Hitlery Clinton) come to full power.
At times, yes. For the most part though, one side knows it can do so with almost complete impunity while the other must tread very lightly, and that no matter how valuable you are and have been to the forum, one little slip of the pc rules and you are gone. A little moral relativism it would seem.
But it's about Rudy,isn't it?
And Rudy can shout all he wants about conservative values, but I'm not buying it. And neither are many other Freepers,including the founder of FreeRepublic.
It would seem so to read the comments of the social right here, but with me it has not been about him at all. The issue is simply why the most important election of our times is going to be held hostage for a candidate who meets the approval of the social right, a relatively small part of the Republican Party.
She also managed to try to define the basic concept of pro-life downwards, and also tried to imply that Fred was in the race just to draw votes away from Rudy.
FreeReign said:
I'm pro life and pro Fred.
Mia did nothing of the sort.
Read this:
What if Thompson's sole purpose is to give McCain the nomination by skimming off just enough conservatives from Rudy? (NB: gross is net, i.e., McCain has no conservative support to lose.) FRED'S GREATEST ROLE?: an alternative theory of Senator Thompson's not-yet candidacy
Mia - Your banishment from Free Republic is truly one of the more asinine bans I’ve ever seen. That you were called an abortionist troll is so ridiculous that I’m embarrassed for the person who actually had the criminal stupidity to call you that.
You will be deeply missed, Mia. Since the ‘thon has gone relatively well, although I’ve been told it’s going slower than previous fund raisers, I do believe it’s likely that anyone supporting Rudy too vocally will be banned. It’s quite the little echo chamber that is being created here, primarily by a group of people who thought that Alan Keyes should be our nominee in 2000.
As has been noted by many freepers in the last year, many good posters have left FR. Thank you for the years of entertainment and your creative criticisms of the Clinton machine.
To Dirtboy,
MiaT is gone and your still here.
In a word:
Reichsmordwoche
cc: MACVSOG68; syncro; jla; miss didi; peach; dog gone
Yes, the purges still live through those who fear the truth.
Well said!
However, I was expounding on dirtboy's response you your last post, and specifically the part of your post where you said: But as you are aware, the rules are different for different candidates. And that, my friend, is simply disingenuous.
I believe 100% of your argument there was that it was disingenuous that Rudy was treated under different rules than other candidates. If that is only 1% of your argument, you should probably post the other 99% of why it is wrong for the most liberal candidate to get a lot more grief and for posters against him to be given a lot more latitude than they are when criticizing a more conservative, more acceptable candidate.
I'm sure you must have one great argument if what you said was only 1%. But so long as it's trapped inside your head, it isn't doing you any good. Let if free, if it loves you, it will come back to you -- no, never mind that....
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.