Posted on 02/06/2008 9:59:54 AM PST by William Tell 2
Dobson said this morning on Focus that he would not vote for McCain, Obama or Hillary.
He was more than willing to shoot Americans loyal to the king, especially if he caught them in his ranks.
“they’d be sitting out the next 20 years of Supreme Court decisions. Not a good ploy at all! “
So we get a bunch of Ginsburgs instead of Souters. Big fat whoop-dee-doo. They both vote the same way all the time anyway.
Sometimes you have to intentionally lose battles to win the war, just like the Russians did in the Barbarossa campaign (or intentionally sacrifice the Queen to win a chess match to continue your “chess board” analogy). But some people just aren’t smart enough to realize that, just like Hitler never was able to understand Stalin’s tactics.
“Conservatives may have to form a third party, ...”
Hey, there’s a brilliant idea! Let’s just hand the whole government over to the Democrats for good! That’ll teach ‘em!
Yeah, we'd risk having another David Souter, or Anthony Kennedy, or John Paul Stevens...a Republican would never put one of those clowns on the court. (Bush I, Reagan, Ford....)
Along those lines, I’ve seen it written here before. I’ll reiterate:
If McCain becomes president he will be able to help push through socialist legislation like pro-Amnesty without much push back from Repubs or Dems. If we get a Dem president, the same socialist legislation will have a much harder time getting through Congress as the Repubs will be able to actively rally against the president (actually solidifying the party). Basically, we’ll actually end up with worse legislation with a McCain presidency since we’ll lose any check and balance against socialist policies. Sometimes, like with Carter, you have to lose a little to get back what you really want. The best way there looks like a vote for a pro-war Dem president if McCain gets the nomination. - This is how we got to Reagan...
Did we quit when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?
H@!! NO!
>> So what if Hillary can’t get over 49%? That’s plenty to get the nomination, and plenty to go on to the White House. <<
Um, no, it’s not. 50%. Or to have third parties draw more from her opponents than herself (which is quite possible if McCain is selected.)
>> The RINOs are counting on Hillary-Fear to get them across the line, and I say that’s not good enough. <<
I agree.
>> I don’t believe you should go around declaring FReepers “fools,” but whatever you want to say, it’s a free country. <<
If someone is rooting for Obama to win anything, they are a fool.
>> I don’t feel like a fool, just a bit used by the likes of Rudy McRomney. <<
*Sigh* and Thompson, too... who seems to have served only to fill a vacuum until it was too late for a conservative to come in. But in that instance, I’ll be harsh because it’s me calling myself that. Well, “chump” is better.
They are already formed.
Just need more members.
We’ll see if he if he will still stick by that after Huckabee drops out. I could not imagine Dobson encouraging Christians not to get involved with the political process just because he does not like the candidates.
Yes.
Are you aware that Bush was the first, in 2004, to get at least 50% since Reagan in '84? News for you: There are always third, fourth and seventh parties that take tiny bites out of the vote total. We don't usually get an outright majority.
If someone is rooting for Obama to win anything, they are a fool.
OK, then I am a fool. I can accept that that is your assesment of me. I'll deal.
I hate to say it, but we'll have to let the whacked-lefties have the White House for a few years to remind folks why we prefer conservatives in the office. But cheer up, we don't elect Kings or Queens, we elect CEOs who can't have their way all of the time.
The only hope conservatives have is to eliminate the stupids from Congress and get conservatives (absolutely no candidates with skeletons in their closet need apply) as a majority in both houses.
Not true Bush got about 53% in 1988
Not true Bush got about 53% in 1988. The Clinton got less than half twice.
You want a repeat of 8 years of Clinton?
I am a conservative, not everyone with an “R” after the last name is a conservative.
You assume that John McCain will win POTUS. I think you are wrong. John McCain is not a conservative and will not appoint conservatives. His track record bears that out.
It’s way past time that the RNC and the RINO types learn the lesson they are about to be taught, because if they are not, we will be having this argument for a long time.
I am a conservative. I will not vote for John McCain. I will not vote for him no matter who he nominates for VP. He is a back-stabbing, loose cannon and does not deserve my vote.
Typical cry baby. Dish it out and you can’t take it.
Do the country a favor and stay home. Nobody wants a whiner like you in their party - especially conservatives.
You came to my thread I didn’t come to yours.
So if you think I am childish what does that say about you?
Listen ZMan I will reply to your insults with an insult.
Are you ready nitwit?
OK here goes - you are a wimp and a crybaby. Do not vote on election day. Nobody wants losers like you in their party. Crawl back under your rock.
Now do you feel better I stuped to your level.
Who died and left you boss?
But, to your brand new point: Better Hillary than 8 years of McQueeg because he'd act like Hillary and bring all the blame onto the Republicans, destroying them as a party for a generation. But you don't understand that, so go on and chew on people who are okay with taking it from the RINOs.
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.