Posted on 07/25/2005 3:28:22 PM PDT by moutland
While I generally agree with your comments on principle, it is not a good idea to let someone pass themself off as a conservative when they're actually quite luke warm on the subject. It's the best way I know of the enable others to be luke warm, and quite comfortable in that position.
Thanks for the comments.
Outraged, are you?
People should really "tow the line" and "walk the walk" and "do the right thing," huh?
Well, MOUTLAND, this little diatribe of yours is a VANITY; it's supposed to be MARKED as such so those of us who don't care about your hissy fit don't have to bother reading it.
If we get a terrorist nuke attack, God forbid, there are lots of very painful ways to retaliate, including places to bomb, without being dumb about it.
Agreed!
Tancredo's column that Hewitt is criticizing is close to being on target. IMO the states cultivating and financing terrorism, foremost Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iran, Syria, Egypt et al have to know there will be serious repercussions for both their direct and indirect actions.
To be honest, I don't pay much attention to those writers and commentators who seem to just repeat the orthodoxy. The kinds of commentators I like to read or listen to are those who are of the opposing side, or those on my side who, while we don't see eye to eye on all things, they show me things I didn't know or examine things from a position I never thought of--Mark Steyn and Rush Limbaugh, for example.
So, back to the original point, I don't SEE the point in abandoning someone because he's not the "right" kind of conservative, though of course you and anyone else is perfectly free to do that. I just don't think it's a smart way to feed one's mind.
Yes, you did: Anyone who disagrees with those you listed ... are... BushBots!
whew. no wonder they call us bigots. some of us apparently are.
Your timing is impeccable - I was just called that on another thread. LMAO.
I will admit to being somewhat reticent to list exactly what a person must believe in, to be a conservative.
I do think it's a lot easier to pick a few core issues and see how people stand on them. While I wouldn't go so far as to say this eliminated them from being a conservative, I would say it does cause some circumspection about what their views on other issues would be.
This could cause me to view them as a moderate conservative which isn't much better than a moderate democrat IMO.
lol! Are you also being told that you don't love this country as much as "that" person does? And if you don't agree with "their" point -- you aren't a *real* conservative or patriot?..... OOOhhh.. the sting of such pithy adjectives.. lol.
I myself am partial to the ones who imply that "you" just don't understand what the United States Constitution says.......and/or the Founding Fathers.
Like THEY have some sort of "inside" on the true meaning of each and every word of it.
I like Hugh Hewitt a lot and I don't think he's a "RINO" for a moment, nor do I doubt his conservatism for a moment. However, I will say this: if mounland hadn't posted a thread, I would have. But I would have probably entitled it, "Why is Hugh Hewitt kissing the butt of this CAIR assclown?"
I have not followed Tancredo very closely at all on the immigration issue. However, it doesn't matter what Tancredo says, WE'RE NOT GOING TO BOMB MECCA! Therefore, it's a moot point. I think Hugh is obsessing over this Tancredo quote. Big time.
.. and they insult with ad hominems, direct and implied, while attempting to "persuade" you to their line of thinking. "Oh yes, pls, can I have some more of that?" blech.
OOoohh.. that be down! LOL!
Ron, thanks for the ping. I needed a good laught it being monday and all, and reading some of the replys from the fever swamp provided it.
Particularly
Hugh is still just angry that he was forced to admit that Tancredos supporters weren't just a tiny minority.
cripplecreek
Someone should run a poll of conseratives on this subject.
"Supporting" Congressman Tancredo on this issue identifies you as an American interested in comforting noise rather than progress in the GWOT.
Well put!
Tancredo speaks Osama smiles
Sorry to hear that, Doug. You're one of my favorite callers. And that doesn't sound like General I. But, we all have our moods and moments... even Hugh and the boys. He goes silent on me for long periods as well. But, I just keep posting
But, to question Hugh's credentials and contributions as is being done here, is ludicrous. Just keep in mind that what Hugh brings to the table, is a sense of level headed strategy. He plays the long game... keep the offense on the field, hold the ball and push it up the field ten yards at a time.
I like Tancredo. But, on this he's just wrong. If you are going to shoot a man, shoot him. But, don't stand around and threaten to do it. And you best have a damn good reason for doing it. But, if you don't intend to shoot him, then dont point the gun at him.
That war is one we want to hold off as long as possible. Bush knew it and has been fighting the smart war for four years. So let's keep fighting it smart and aim our words as carefully as our shots.
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.