Posted on 12/10/2003 7:39:21 PM PST by ambrose
And that statement right there makes you the worst sort of 'conservative'. Hamilton and the worthless trash that followed in his name thought the same thing. Do you want a king as he did? I guess as long as they have a R by their name it would be acceptable to you
And IF you have " faith ", in your fellow man's intellect/brain power, then you don't live in the real word, but in a fantasy, of your own making! A vast portion, of your fellow men, voted for Clinton, TWICE, or stayed home, or voted for some moronic fringe candidate. The more or less conservative Dakotans vote for GOPers, but keep returning Daschle. I could keep right on giving you examples, which challenge your " faith " in flyover country, but your blinders are tied on so tight, that no blood ever reaches your brain.
Tell me, if they're not a conservative, what difference does it matter what party they're from? Does your partisanship go so far as to override conservative thought?
And I have no desire for a benevolent dictator. Nor do I have a desire for a king. However I do have a desire to elect a conservative that follows conservative principles. Not one that calls himself one only to go forth and expand the government to proportions not seen since LBJ
Yes, I'd take a sort of Conservative GOPer. That's a far better choice than a damned Dem. OTOH, you'd rather starve to death, than to accept 1/2 a loaf.
Tell me, did you enjoy the 8 years of the Clintons ? If not, then you'd best try a little pragmatism. ;^)
No, there are more than a few conservatives that would work. Someone along the lines of Walter Williams, Thomas Sowell, Clarence Thomas, Jesse Helms, Strom Thurmond. Those are men that I would consider conservative.
Yes, I'd take a sort of Conservative GOPer. That's a far better choice than a damned Dem. OTOH, you'd rather starve to death, than to accept 1/2 a loaf.
Well if they're a 'sort of' conservative how is that going to forward this incrementalism you speak of? Surely that type of conservative will be more interested in the votes and to gain those votes would be more apt to compromise any position that would be considered too conservative to gain the most votes. This has happened time and time again on the national stage. Talk a good talk on the stump but when they get into office they're more concerned with playing the game
Tell me, did you enjoy the 8 years of the Clintons ? If not, then you'd best try a little pragmatism. ;^)
Look I'm not calling for a rebirth of the Founders themselves but I would expect some consideration instead of empty promises year after year. As I said I will always give a politician credit where credit is due. I don't dislike President Bush. Rather, I like the man and appreciate the respect he has brought back to the office of the President. However, I'm not going to say he's governing any better than moderate to moderate liberal. And that's why I can't see any progress of incrementalism back to the conservative agenda
Strom used to be a Dem, a segregations, Sowell is a Libertarian ( and Libertarians are NOT true Conservatives at all ! ),and you can't name me one viable candidate, who would fit YOUR bill. LOL
By " sort of ", I meant someone who isn't as faaaaaaaaaaaaar to the right as I might want and certainly, there is NO ONE, far enough right, to suit your credential test. Reagan was Conservative enough for you!So sort of, to me, includes Reagan and Bush. :-)
Hmmmmmmmmm ... so Bush, the " moderate liberal ", the man who gave us all two tax cuts, is fighting this war superbly, and has a long list ( easily found on FR ! ), of CONSERVATIVE accomplishments,doesn't suit you much.
Look, politics is the realm of the possible; it isn't some pie in the sky, UTOPIAN Nirvana, where everyone gets everything they want in a candidate. The Dems have used incrimentalism well, VERY well, for THEIR purposes. It works.It's baby steps. You are NOT going to get instant gratification; not now...not ever! Get over it! Learn to accept what IS possible, work to keep the damned Dems out, and stop being childish. ;^)
Thank you. This is worth repeating.
It isn't, and passing and signing federal legislation that limits political speech within 60 days of an election is neither conservative nor loyal to the elected official's oath of office to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States.
Hi. Are you with Chuck Baldwin this time around??
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.