Conservatives, Cut Bush Slack

The Chicago Sun-Times ^ | June 22, 2002 | Thomas Roeser

[Ms. AntiFeminazi]

Some on the right think he's a gungrabber.

Challenger Targets Tancredo Over Gun Control
Denver Post ^ | 5 Apr 2000 | Mike Soraghan
Challenger targets Tancredo over gun control
By Mike Soraghan Denver Post Staff Writer
April 5 - Conservative Republican U.S. Rep. Tom Tancredo, the congressman from Columbine, is supporting the statewide gun-control initiative to close the "gun-show loophole." "I support anything that is designed to keep guns out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them, and this fits," Tancredo said. "This is a reasonable gun-control provision." That's consistent with Tancredo's move toward the middle on guns since the Columbine High School massacre last April.

[Texasforever]

Sorry but I am a redneck male that doesn't post pictures of my "wife" to prove my manhood.

[Reagan Man]

Altho I guess I am a silly ass for believeing that FR is REALLY still dedicated to constitutional restortation. -- Seems we've slipped into being just another Rino cheer leading team.

May be it's time you found another politcal forum to whine and complain on. I mean FreeRepublic doesn't meet your standards anymore. So, move on, crybaby.

[Tuor]

So let me see, if I'm not going to vote for your liberal lite or a third party that will achieve only about 0.0001% of the vote, I'm not a good citizen. Okay. Thanks.

Their view is that since they voted for someone based on Party and little or no other criteria, we have to do it, too. Otherwise, they will decry us as being 'smug' when we tell them that we voted for individuals based on our principles, rather than which Party they belonged to. And, if we cannot find any candidates whose principles we agree with, we are declared poor citizens for not holding our nose and voting for somebody -- usually somebody of the Party they support.

I vote for the person I feel is best for the job, whatever their Party. I have never hidden that fact or stated otherwise. I will do so in the future. I will not vote for Bush. I will not vote for Gore. I will not vote for Clinton.

I *did* vote for Buchanan; not many others did. He lost. That's how our elections work. I don't feel at all ashamed I voted for someone who lost. I *would* feel ashamed if I voted against my own principles and the person won -- even moreso if that candidate proved even worse once elected than advertised. I don't vote for winners; I vote for whom I think is best for the job.

Party, in itself, means nothing to me. It may give me an indication of the person's principles, but I can usually learn those while the candidate is campaigning and, if applicible, by the candidate's voting record. Parties may be inevitible in our form of government, but it doesn't mean I have to support them.

Tuor

Give me liberty or give me death.

[Torie]

The amusing thing would be to get all of the self described hard right wingers (actually some of them have certain left wing views but whatever) discussing who should be annoited as the perfect "conservative/libertarian" candidate, and what ideas he/she should push. It would not take long before they were at each other's throats. Folks that toss the word traitor and socialist around with such fecklessness, and not naturally talented at compromise and coalitions. Thus the ensuing pugilism should be quite entertaining to watch.

[Jim Robinson]

Oh my. A lecture on right and wrong coming from Demidog. I am thrilled.

Ok, you've convinced me. I'll vote for Harry Browne and allow Hillary Clinton/Gore/Daschle/Gephardt (whomever) to win the Presidency. And, I'll sit at home and not vote for the Republican for Senate because he is not pure enough for you. This will ensure that Boxer/Feinstein, et al, continue to hold the Senate and the Democrats control of the agenda.

Now, we can all sit back and bitch, cry, moan and whine while Hillary, et al, pack the Supreme Court with liberals and install their slate of liberal activists throughout the federal judiciary. And together we can enjoy our righteousness as they destroy the shredded remnants of the Constitution. Joy to the world.


But at least we can be secure and smug in the knowledge that we did the principled and right thing.

[redrock]

"Conservatives, Cut Bush Slack"

Not only no...but HELL no!!!!

redrock

[Roscoe]

And the winner of the most bizarre post of the evening award is....

[DoughtyOne]

I voted for Dole in 1996. It was the dirtiest I've very felt after casting a vote. I never felt bad for voting for Nixon. The man was flawed. He was also an excellent President. He got what he deserved, end of story. After Dole I swore I'd never again vote for a man I did not respect.

[Demidog]

He was pro-choice, supported special rights for homosexuals and publically supported Bill Clinton.

This is BS. He supported no special rights for gays. He never supported Clinton. He said that Republicans should stop with the whitewater investigations. He was right. They should have stopped the whitewater investigation since it had the unfortunate affect of actually bolstering Clinton's support (mean ole Republicans) and was about a 10 year-old land deal that made most people fall asleep when one attempted to explain the details.

[TaRaRaBoomDeAyGoreLostToday!]

I have seen too many threads like this. It is one thing to debate/discuss issues but they can be rough and post whatever they want and it does not get pulled. I suspect they say what they want post what they want but when they get a dose back they cry to mommy the abuse button. How sad...

[SBeck]

Nothing wrong with "Braveheart" except that William Wallace lost his head and it still took 800 years for the Scots to gain autonomy. That said, there is a lot more to be gained from the subtle art of compromise than for the all or none approach to filling one's agenda. (A better source for the arts of war and politics is Sun Tzu).

[Ms. AntiFeminazi]

However, a snippet of Truth, where disclosed in part or out of context, can be fashioned into Falsehood, thereby defrauding the original Truth from whence it came.

cal-um-ny
1: The act of uttering false charges or misrepresentations maliciously calculated to damage another's reputation
2: a misrepresentation intended to blacken another's reputation

Whatever works, huh Demidog?

[Jim Robinson]

Well, if you believe it, it must be true.

[agrandis]

I know I sound like a broken record, but regarding "The War on Terror" ... when do we know when we've won? Fight we must, but who, where, why, and how? I don't want to be right about this prediction, but it is an easy one to make: it is far from over in Afghanistan, and the way we are going about it, it is impossible to "win," even there, in the long run. This "terror" has been going on for thousands of years, with the invasion of Europe by Mohammadans, and piracy by them on the high seas. Are we really willing to end this terror? Based on our lovey-dovey attitude toward Islam, it doesn't seem like it.

What I'm saying is that wars need to be finite, and against a determined group of people, with a recognizable victory its goal. Wars on Terror, or Crime, or Drugs, or Poverty, or Cockroaches aren't won, they are fought indefinitely, at great cost to life, limb, property and, most importantly, freedom.

A war on Al-Queda I support, but not a "War on Terror." A "War on Terror" terrifies me as much as any terror attack, especially given who conducts it (many of them part of the same crime machine Clinton is a prominent part of). Even the defeat of Al-Queda (may God grant it) will not have much of a long-term effect. The defeat of "multiculturalism" would have a much more efficacious effect.

No protracted war can fail to endanger the freedom of a democratic country.

Alexis De Tocqueville

Thanks for reading my rant!

[DoughtyOne]

You know Torie, I've never called myself a hardliner. I've said I don't like voting for people who help to pass liberal legislation. And I don't think it's right of you to comment on our liberalisms, when you are the one that thinks 40% tariffs on our exports to others are okay. Why not knock off the name calling and argue points on merit?

[Freedom2specul8]

"Didn't you hear? They are pushing for an 'ignore' button...and they are simply practicing. After all, we wouldn't want to spoil their fun by forcing them to engage in debate...after all, their vision of FR is to make it a pep rally, instead of what it has always been; a place to promote conservative ideals. "

LOL Ignore button..and no debates..I've heard that as well on another thread. :) Just to make it clear, I've only read the above post on this thread.. Thanks for the ping Christine.. :)

[Don Myers]

"Conservative solutions that worked in the 19th century may not be adequate to deal with 21st century problems."

I am not sure just what "conservative solutions" will be required that is different from the past. I remember a phrase that goes, There is nothing new under the sun.

[DoughtyOne]

Oh don't be sorry about it.

[agrandis]

Be honest: mail order bride? And she has either a tattoo or a weapon hidden in her panty?