One of the things I have come to accept in my time since 98 reading and later posting on FR is that people like you who scream ‘don’t you dare question my conservatism!!!” the loudest are the ones whose posts tie in the closest with the OPPOSITE of FR’s existential statement and purpose.
Since all we have to go by here are the words of the posters (since most of us are just nicnames and unsearchable/knowable as actual people.
I happen to use my real name as a handle and encourage people to look me up as I have held my positions a hell of a long time, though some longer than others. You and Johnny use nicks, which is fine. But here’s the difference...
Johnny’s posts are almost if not lockstep with the ideals of Free Republic, it’s founder and the ideals of conservatism.
Yours encourage compromise of principle to elect moderates for the sole purpose of ‘winning’. So tell me this. In order to ‘win’ are you willing to elect pro choice candidates and thus sacrifice the very lives of children to ‘win’?
Yes or no.
Are you willing to willing to elect anti-gun moderates and thus sacrifice the 2nd Ammendment to ‘win’?
Yes or no.
Are you willing to elect mocerates who will reach across the asile and ‘compromise the principles of Free Republic and America to ‘win’?
Yes or no/
Before you post another rationalization for continued GOP BS, we need to know EXACTLY where YOU stand. Because simple logic says you cannot have these things both ways.
Lastly, if you are willing to state ‘Yes’ on ANY of these positions, much less all of them, you are flat out lying by calling yourself a conservative. Because conservatives do NOT accept the sacrifice, nor are they willing to trade the lives and souls of children, the right of self defense/liberty granted to us by God, nor the principles we guide our very existence by for so fleeting a thing as a ‘win’.
Oh...forgot the most basic one of all...
Does principle matter and do you feel that principle is situational...as with situational ethics? Yes or no.
If yes, then no more need be said as your position on the rest is clear. If not, please explain in detail why not.
I, and I suspect MANY of us want to see your answers. In fact, as always when I ask this question (which the compromise wing has yet to do anything other than duck) I’ll open it up to any of the compromise wing of ‘conservatism’ to address.
You stated it pretty well. Don't support killing babies. Don't try to restrict arms. Shrink government (really shrink it, not the shell game). Don't compromise with evil.
/johnny