Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Liz; calcowgirl; Calpernia; indylindy; AuntB; Tennessee Nana; pissant; SoConPubbie; ElkGroveDan; ..

Ping!


2 posted on 05/11/2008 10:56:32 PM PDT by KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle (If McCain really CAN "win without conservatives," then why do you care if I vote for him or not?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle

Rules?

;)


3 posted on 05/11/2008 10:58:04 PM PDT by chasio649 (sick of it all)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle
My Position from the start has been:
If we need people we can process in new citizens who have never committed any crime including entering illegally.

And who are drawn from every country in the world

From Iceland To South Africa, From Norway to South Korea
Every corner of the globe, not giving ANY preference to the few nations to our immediate south.

My Position Has Not Changed.

I am a conservative not a Republican. I will vote for Republicans IF they are conservative. If Bush's opponent had not been Hanoi John Kerry, I would not have voted in the last election.

Islam's war against the west will inevitably bring the US a nuclear strike. The persistent open borders are a hot potato that will utterly destroy the party in power when it happens. I prefer that the borders be closed - but barring that, let it be the liberals who are destroyed if we're not going to move to prevent it.

This is as obvious and foreseeable as the earlier attacks on September eleventh. Aside from the loss we all will have of family and friends WHEN not if this happens, I recognize that the party who emerges in power will be able to radically reshape government the United States. Many on the left foresee this as well, and are actively working to keep our defenses weak.

I therefore am willing to sacrifice important pieces to win the game. Winning the white house or congress are less important than closing the borders. A candidate who could win an office, at the cost of placing someone in office that the left could justifiably claim failed to aggressively defend America costs conservatism control of the board.

By the same token I will not move to save a socially liberal republican candidate merely to defeat the democrat. Sometimes control of the board is more important than saving every pawn.

If I get a liberal in office who votes liberal while claiming (unchallenged) to represent the party with a conservative platform, then my voice is even more unheard than if a liberal democrat is in office. It means that conservatives will vote for anyone who claims conservatism, even if they are to the left of Hillary Clinton. It also means that the Republican party did this eyes wide open, believing that I (and other conservatives) would vote for a yellow dog if it was a republican. Sorry RNC that only works with democrats.

Semper Fidelis

6 posted on 05/11/2008 10:59:26 PM PDT by MrEdd (Heck? Geewhiz Cripes, thats the place where people who don't believe in Gosh think they aint going.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson