Posted on 03/27/2007 6:32:11 AM PDT by pissant
By your definition.
Of course, you may have noticed, there are other opinions on that subject!
It's just cute when folks declare themselves the ones in charge of defining this or that! :-D
"Conservative" means what I say it means! So innocent in the ways of the world . . .
I'm off this thread. No opinions will be changed and I got the answer to my question.
Thank you all.
Which are full of Shitte, quite frankly. And I reference the GOP platform for that determination. The further a candidate varies leftward from the GOP platform, the less conservative they tend to be.
"Rudy hatefest threads"
"We aggressively defend our God-given and first amendment guaranteed rights to free speech, free press, free religion, and freedom of association, as well as our constitutional right to control the use and content of our own personal private property. Despite the wailing of the liberal trolls and other doom & gloom naysayers, we feel no compelling need to allow them a platform to promote their repugnant and obnoxious propaganda from our forum. Free Republic is not a liberal debating society. We are conservative activists dedicated to defending our rights, defending our constitution, defending our republic and defending our traditional American way of life."
No, not hate--just what happens when you allow a liberal debating society on a conservative site.
Ahhh . . . yes, it is fascinating: like the good old days, circa 1999, when we would hang the bell on that old tomcat, `Boy Clinton', and his supporters called us "Clinton-haters" . . . because they didn't know what else to say.
It seems to me that Rudy is getting plenty of leeway here to disseminate his peculiar political ideology.
Because we reject it doesn't mean we hate him.
Love the sinner, hate the sin.
Yeah, yeah. Whatever. Fred Thompson co-sponsored McCain-Feingold when he didn't need my vote, either. And I have no doubt that if he runs, he'll try to gloss it over. There is nothing particularly alarming about it.
It's like the guy in the movie Casablanca: "I'm shocked, SHOCKED that there is gambling going on here." Sheesh this is politics. What the heck do you expect?
That's one of the problems. The religious right expects their candidates to be so squeaky clean, that no one could possibly live up to their expectations. For example, no one in the senate was more supportive of the religious right than Rick Santorum here in PA. He supported you guys straight down the line. But he made one mistke, backing Specter in the prmary, and you guys were all over him like a bad suit. RINO this and RINO that. People are getting very tired of it and will be quite happy when Rudy Giuliani dispels the myth once and for all that Republicans can't win without the nutjobs.
I like Thompson, and he's electable. I like Hunter, but he's not. He won't get more than small numbers in any poll. He's invisible. He's also got the pendulum working against him, after eight years of Bush, a loud evangelical hasn't got a prayer [heh].
But much of the anti-Rudy hatefest is unfair. I'm not signed on with him just yet and I've got some concerns myself... but I jump into these threads sometimes because I think the hate is just over the top. Frankly, if he can come out with a commitment that he'll not sign any gun control measures, he'd lock it up.
I think of all of them, Rudy gets the war on terrorists right. I think he'd prosecute the war agressively, and we need that.
But more than anything, we've got a very, very long time between now and the election. Much will happen between now and then. I hope that we can circle the wagons a little better, keep it more civil, and quit shooting our own.
No a non vote is a non vote. I beleive that I am accountable for my vote and if the candidate does not meet my personal criteria of principles they do not deserve my vote. I am a christian first, conservative second, rebublican third.
Thompson is the man! Goodbye Rudy.
And the Rudy boosters should be cautioned by their emulation of Clintonist propaganda techniques. Instead, they have embraced them wholeheartedly - all the while saying that Rudy is our savior from Clintonism. The absurdity of it all is staggering some days.
A savage journey to the heart of the American Dream. :-)
Unfair?
Rudy is trying to say he is in favor of a PBA ban that has an exemption for the life of the mother. Yet he supported Clinton's veto of such a ban. That is just one example of where Rudy's past actions conflict directly with what he is saying now that he needs our vote.
And it isn't like Fred, where there are a few issues, such as his support of CFR. Rudy has so many issues that I have a hard time keeping track of them all. And his positives are blunted by the fact that he decides what laws apply to him - which is dangerous in a man who believes in aggressive law enforcement.
There is nothing unfair about most of the criticsm. Rudy is being judged by his past actions, which is the only sane way to evaluate a politician.
What you posted above are the same talking points Dem operatives use to glorify the Clinton era.
Rudy also supported CFR. So how can Fred's support of CFR possibly be an issue for Rudy boosters? That's my point. Y'all are being two-faced over Fred's few issues.
Sorry to disagree. To suggest Giuliani is conservative or even leaning conservative is an outright insult to conservatives. Giuliani is joined at the hip with the most radical pro-abortion elements. He marched in lockstep with the gay rights lobby and he honored gays at Gracie Mansion. His personal life reads like a page out of Playboy magazine. And his record on 2A is equally as dismal.
Nothing I could say would dissuade these so-called conservatives from supporting an individual who, without a legislative or legal mandate to do so, vigorously espoused and promoted positions that are anathema to social conservatives----more specifically, anathema to conservatives posting on FR---a conservative web site.
JimRob said it better than anybody else.
FreeRepublic Policy Statement By Jim Robinson "As a conservative site, Free Republic is pro-God, pro-life, pro-family, pro-Constitution, pro-Bill of Rights, pro-gun, pro-limited government, pro-private property rights, pro-limited taxes, pro-capitalism, pro-national defense, pro-freedom, and-pro America. We oppose all forms of liberalism, socialism, fascism, pacifism, totalitarianism, anarchism, government enforced atheism, abortionism, feminism, homosexualism, racism, wacko environmentalism, judicial activism, etc. We also oppose the United Nations or any other world government body that may attempt to impose its will or rule over our sovereign nation and sovereign people. We believe in defending our borders, our constitution and our national sovereignty. "
3/4/07 Posted by Jim Robinson: "Never in my worst nightmares would I believe Republicans, much less FReepers, would willingly go along with the wholesale slaughter of our helpless unborn generations (by supporting Giuliani). Shameful. May God forgive us."
I only made a correction to your errant comment regarding Conservative involvement in the Giuliani Campaign. There are Conservatives, MANY Conservatives, involved in his campaign. I was not making an ideological pronouncement.
Yes, and unfortunately for Rudy there are a hell of a lot more Republicans that aren't evangelicals and still don't support him.
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.