Posted on 11/04/2007 5:42:45 AM PST by libstripper
Thanks
In other words, stupid Americans cared that billy was boffing a young intern and Rooty doesn't want us thinking about morals or adultery or his past indiscretions before the election.
I am in full agreement with your “(Long sigh.....)” comment. I am not advocating a litmus test for or against any candidate. All I am saying is that your priorities for character issues are just as valid to support a candidate as mine are to me. There are so many posts against candidates and so few posts for.
All of these negative posts are too reminiscent of one of the foremost tactics from the democrat playbook. That is where they try to lower the accomplishments of others to make them look better; rather than seek to excel and join the doers. Their goal seems to lower the playing field to meet the average than to raise the average.
That is what is missing in the dialog and rhetoric. Ronald Reagan always spoke in the bright future and the positive. He never had to build himself up on the weaknesses and the backs of his opponents. He was a visionary who saw greatness in the future. None of these RR wannabes has that component in their soul that Reagan had – heart/soul. They can say all the words they may want to and try to sound like him, but without the character to have the words come from their souls, they will come across just as much aa phony as Ms. Clinton.
Point taken. My first choice is Duncan Hunter, but I don't realistically think he's going to win at this point, so I have to make some compromises on who I will end up voting for in the primaries - it will narrow down to 2 or 3 choices by that time. We all have to have that dialogue in our hearts on what we are willing to accept and what we can't.
I agree with you that it plays into the dems hands when we fight among ourselves - we should build up the good points in our candidates and try to come to some sort of civil agreement in the end on who we can all vote for. At the end of the day, even though we've all had our disagreements with each other, we will have to join together to win and we will have to look forward rather than backward.
I have to admit, I LOVED his comments.
So, based on your definition, the vast majority of the GOP is made up of rinos? After all, the majority of the GOP is on the wrong side of the immigration debate.
Shame on all of you. And that ends this.
All that being said, if modern Conservatism would actually work to put Hillary in the White House it's not a group I want anything to do with, nor would Ronald Reagan support. REMEMBER, Rudy worked for Reagan. It's just infuriating and I'm hoping that this mindset changes if and when the time comes. I know the Conservatives on this website love this country first and foremost and I do respect how they feel. But this hatred towards anything Guiliani is just over the top and becoming unseemly.
I ask Rudy haters here...who do you think Ronald Reagan would vote for in a Rudy/Hillary matchup???
Conservatives ARE NOT trying to put Hitlery in the White House, conservatives are trying to keep her out by nominating a real conservative. And for the record Hildy, YOU have NEVER been part of conservatism.
REMEMBER, Rudy worked for Reagan.
In case you missed it, going from Associate Attorney General (the number 3 job in the Justice Department) to U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York was a DEMOTION. Reagan wanted him out of the Justice Department and sent him to New York where Rooty Toot accepted plea bargains in high-profile white collar cases.
I know the Conservatives on this website love this country first and foremost and I do respect how they feel. But this hatred towards anything Guiliani is just over the top and becoming unseemly.
NOBODY here "hates" Rooty Toot, we just don't want him to be the Republican nominee for president.
Isn’t Hildy the one who called one of the good conservative ladies here a “bitch”, and got banned for the heavy shilling of the liberal Rudy Giuliani? Why is he/she even allowed back on FR? This constant promotion of Giuliani is wearing thin again.
Jim Robinson decided that there might be some entertainment value in having a Free Republic village idiot:
| Will FR embrace socialism to make way for Rudy Giuliani as a Republican presidential candidate? |
||||||
| Posted by Hildy to Jim Robinson On News/Activism 04/26/2007 8:04:58 PM EDT · 11,382 of 18,393 You will “KEEP” me around as an example - that’s rich. FR has become one big circle jerk. Not with a bang, but with a whimper. I mourn the great site this once was. Goodbye Jim. It was a great decade and it’s been an interesting ride. I wish you and your family nothing but happiness. Life is too short for this kind of nonsense. Please close my account. Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11,354 | View Replies |
||||||
This constant promotion of Giuliani is wearing thin again.
Yep, there are still a few around here that don't understand that this is a CONSERVATIVE forum.
She insisted her account be closed, but was denied.
LOL
Maybe not "hate", but the constant shilling and lying by the Rudybots have created an intensive dislike for the guy.
You call that "fighting terrorists"? Puhleeeze!
Rudy was pilloried by damn near everyone for his set of cajonnes. That is what leadership is.
No. That is called "grandstanding," nothing more.
I don't hate the liberal Rudy, but I do hate liberalism. Remember what JC said, love the sinner, not the sin.
As a Democrat, Reagan voted for Ike in 1952 and 1956, along with Nixon in 1960. Reagan then said, the Democratic Party went too far left for him. He became a Republican in 1962. Happened before, could happen again.
Don’t get me wrong, I don’t like him and I WILL NOT vote for him. I was merely stating that I bear him no ill will personally. I think the best thing Rooty could do for the GOP is to withdraw and retire from politics.
Personal hatred is generally the domain of the left and the Rooty Rooters around here have been demonstrating it on a nauseating level.
I am very much alive in the 21st century, and working for pro-life and pro-2nd Amendment causes. The only demographic analysis that matters will be who the social/religious conservatives cast their votes for in November 2008. It will not be for a liberal, pro-abortion, gun-grabbing socialist.
"All that being said, if modern Conservatism would actually work to put Hillary in the White House it's not a group I want anything to do with, nor would Ronald Reagan support. REMEMBER, Rudy worked for Reagan. It's just infuriating and I'm hoping that this mindset changes if and when the time comes. I know the Conservatives on this website love this country first and foremost and I do respect how they feel. But this hatred towards anything Guiliani is just over the top and becoming unseemly."
Rudy Giuliani was a mistake by Reagan. Any true Reagan conservative would recognize that. The hatred against Giuliani is a figment of your imagination. The real travesty is that the Giuliani people refuse to open their eyes to Giuliani's contempt to pro-life, pro-2nd Amendment voters, and to the Constitution itself.
"I ask Rudy haters here...who do you think Ronald Reagan would vote for in a Rudy/Hillary matchup???"
First of all, Ronald Reagan would not have sat idly by and allowed the attempted takeover of the GOP by the New York liberal wing of the party. In this case, he would have gone with a third party candidate to preserve Conservative principles.
Ain't it though? Same ol', same ol'. Only a liberal can save the Republicans. Does not compute.
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.