Posted on 04/21/2007 6:42:25 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
“You are truly a juvenile . What ‘principle’ do you stand on?”
I stand on my conservative and limited government principles. However, unlike many of the rudy boosters here, I do not have the kind of stick up my butt that prevents me from having a sense of humor.
That’s the worst thing about rudybots, and how you can tell they’re on the losing side- almost no humor at all. Meanwhile the people fighting for conservative principles are usually having fun doing it.
I guess having to constantly redefine and categorize “conservative” to fit a lifelong northeastern liberal can wear down any sense of humor they might once have had.
I want a candidate who says exactly that!
Fact is :
Clinton cheated on his wife. So did Rudy.
Oh, TommyDale, dont take the guilt all upon yourself. Spread it around. Who else is willing to stand up and be responsible?
Never mind, it couldn't be that the 2006 losses were due to a poor Republican campaign, and low voter turnout, it couldn't be that voters were turned off by the RINO wing for having no character, it couldn't be that the RATs outsmarted us, and are in it for a 2008 replay of 2006.
Take heart and shed the guilt.
It really is very selfish of you to hog the blame. /s
I agree. I actually changed my FR screen name because I could not believe the things I was reading on FR, a conservative forum.
Add to that contempt for the 2nd amendment and national sovereignty and the constitution in general.
Placemark. Got to run some afternoon errands.
Picking up some plastic flowers for Peach AND FairOpinion.
Heh. LOL
Back later folks!
:)
We can thank Bush for Scalia and Roberts but he doesn’t have the strong ideological bent that Reagan did (neither does Thompson IMO). Reagan was a philosophical conservative across the board. Bush is conservative on some issues.
Now of course, we can go round and round about ideology and practice. Reagan wasn’t able to implement his full agenda on cutting the size of government because his hands were tied by a Democrat Congress.
President Bush had a majority in both houses and neither he nor Congress were interested in cutting the size of government. They expanded it at a level not seen since LBJ.
Of course, Bush never claimed to be for limiting the size of government. He triangulated himself as a new Republican to capture the so-called middle back from the Clintonistas. He was to be a “compassionate conservative” which is another way of saying a “big government conservative” in the words of neo-con Fred Barnes and other admirers.
He was/is right on the social issues which I thank God for but we are losing ground on so many other fronts.
That is pretty good Bunny!!
;0)
And what to you say to the socialists who want to police every one of your actions, thoughts, statements, and beliefs about race, gender, and sexual minorities? The “thought police” are your real enemies, not us.
I could care less what you do or believe, but I’m tired of being accused of trying to set up some Christian dictatorship. People of faith, most of them, would carry you on their backs. You have created a “straw man,” and a very dangerous one. You are shooting at rabbits out your front window while the ravenous wolves are right behind you.
I don’t know what libertine values you practice or want to promote, but if you are tired of transfers of wealth to parasites, assaults on your freedoms, a top down system of intrusive government, and a lack of societal common sense, we are your friends.
What a marvelously well-read ghoul you are. We’re all very impressed.
See ya’ later. Maybe I’ll FReepmail you some new polls.
Heh. LOL!!
;)
Just FYI (and it doesn’t take away from your overall post, but thought I’d point it out), Bush appointed Alito and Roberts, not Scalia and Roberts.
It is completely fair to compare our two conservative leaders, and George W. Bush INDEED compares favorably with Ronald Reagan.
And it is accurate to state that most conservatives (myself excepted) were bashing Reagan with a vengeance in his second term, just as Reagan Man bashes Bush now.
The true legacy of Bush will not be known for some time, but the PBA ban will stand as a shining example of what his consistent non-bending pro-life stance has wrought, and what he has done to protect us from Islamo-fascist attacks can never be taken away from him, no matter how hard his accusers try.
And it turns out that claiming their candidate’s strength on national security while ignoring the fact that two of these issues, gun control and illegal immigration, are intimately associated with national security, is going to be a very difficult rock for Rudy’s people - I assume you are one of them - to try to move out of the road.
***Good luck on getting a response to that item. But it was a well stated post.
I wonder if could get Michael Reagan to run?
Killing off the intellectuals? Sweet stuff. Stalin, Castro, Chavez would approve.
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.