Posted on 07/24/2002 2:46:24 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
Sigh... this would be such a great thing to have here in New Jersey. If only, if only.
Too bad we don't have more people in Congress like Mr. Paul -- if anything, "Dr. No" seems to have integrity, which in government, is certainly a good thing.
Maccabee-AJB attended the 2001 National RLC Meeting in Las vegas (fourth picture down, blue shirt) on this page.
Oh. I get your game...
RINO as defined by sane, literate, and rational republicans:
n. 1. acronym for Republican in name only; 2. A member or officeholder of the Republican Party who does not share the political beliefs of the Republican Party; 3. A liberal or non-conservative Republican
RINO as defined by tpaine:
n. 1. Any person affiliated with the Republican Party who disagrees with tpaine's percieved political positions.
In other words, your definition of a RINO and the real definition of a RINO are fundamentally inconsistent with the inconsistency occuring on your part. I think that about covers it.
As for the RLC, I suppose you are welcome to join our organization if you like, but I would recommend that you investigate the true meaning of conservative and libertarian political beliefs and evaluate your own political positions in light of them before doing so. Otherwise you need to reevaluate whether or not your personal political leanings tend to align you with the general political consensus of conservative organizations such as RLC and NFRA among others. From what it appears based upon your postings here they do not.
It is interesting a pro-abort such as yourself would mention Ron.
He's pro life, you know. But that would make him a "RINO" in your irrational mindset where an accusation of failing to be a "real conservative" seems to accompany your response to practically anybody who disagrees with you on issues such as this and others. Not that you understand what that term means in the first place...
Are you not the one who pinged me here and followed up by baselessly questioning my conservative credentials? Answer that and then tell me who you think is obsessed.
One should not get into the business of picking specks out of the eyes of others when he has a log sticking out of his own. In light of your recent charade regarding the questions I posed to you over issues of morality, it would seem that that your position qualifies as an extreme example of the above.
As for the article, what specifically do you wish to know about my opinion? Do you ask if I want to get RINO's out of elected office? If so, I need only note that I have been actively pursuing that goal for the last five years in Texas.
I do not completely agree with the characterization of the Texas slate this year as ready for the fall or preferable to the alternative. The governor Republicans nominated is a tax and spend mohammedan-loving politically correct "hate crimes" legislation supporting RINO. The rest of the statewide non-judicial ticket is made up of eithern incumbents and establishment get along crowd types, except for Land Commissioner nominee Jerry Patterson - the only true right winger in the bunch. The judicial ticket is both good and bad - two major RINO incumbents are on the ticket, but we did manage to knock off one of our RINO governor's pro-abort "moderate" appointments to the state supreme court in the primary and replace him with a conservative. So I guess that's my take on the article.
it pretty obvious that I have a 'base' in asking it.
Even delusional persons find what exists immediately before them in their minds to be obvious, no matter how absurd it is to the rest of us. Your "base" constitutes nothing more than the fact that I disagreed with your goofy positions on morality and specifically abortion. Since basing a conclusion on something that is itself irrational leads to an irrational conclusion, your assertion is baseless.
You appear to be obsessed.
Is that what you tell everybody who responds to your posts when you ping them? I don't believe that I have done anything more than that, which hardly qualifies as an obsession in the normal understanding of the word given by sane and reasonable persons. Then again, you are neither.
Are you not the one who pinged me here and followed up by baselessly questioning my conservative credentials? Answer that and then tell me who you think is obsessed.
Seeing that you will not answer the question, it pretty obvious that I have a 'base' in asking it. -And yes, I pinged you here, exactly for that reason.
You appear to be obsessed. - 36 by tpaine
-----------------------------
Seeing that you will not answer the question
One should not get into the business of picking specks out of the eyes of others when he has a log sticking out of his own. In light of your recent charade regarding the questions I posed to you over issues of morality, it would seem that that your position qualifies as an extreme example of the above.
Misdirection. - Our previous arguement has no bearing here.
As for the article, what specifically do you wish to know about my opinion?
It's not an 'article', it is the official position of the RLC. -- You loudly pass yourself off here as a conservative republican, and I would like your position on their position.
-- A simple enough request, which all your bafflegab bull to date has not answered. - Can you?
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.