Posted on 02/24/2009 7:14:01 PM PST by Jean S
Live thread.
Charisma is unecessary if you are a dictator. It is only in democracies that a leader requires Charisma because he must motivate with his character, his presentation, his words - where in a dictatorship, the dictator can motivate with his guns.
Yes you did. When it came down to Obama vs. McCain, you and your fellow Paulistinians rallied against McCain, because you favored Obama over McCain. This is because Obama shares the blame-America-first foreign policy mindset as Ron Paul.
Given a choice between McCain and Obama, I choose "none of the above."
Given a choice between McCain and Obama, you favored Obama. This makes your intentions no different than any of the lefties who act as disrupters.
Not quite. Of the Republican candidates left standing...
As you already know, my argument has no relevance to the GOP primary. What I'm saying is, you, your fellow Paulistinians, and the far left, all favored Obama over McCain. The rest of your post is filled with nothing but non sequiturs that have no relevance to my argument.
That’s how it was when I was in HS (’87-’90). There wasn’t even a section on the Vietnam War. I took an elective Social Studies class my Senior Year in HS — Current Events — and THAT is when I learned what I did about politics & events in the The Cold War Era & Vietnam - at least the parts I learned in school. But, I was lucky to have a good teacher, and I was lucky to have taken that class. Had I not taken that class the last required time period we learned about in History class was WWII and the period immediately following it!
What "conservatives" are you referring to?
ROTFLMAO!! Now Jindal is a "conservative"? Same old question:
How does Jindal (on his record) prove that he can harness all three pillars of Conservatism? If you cannot answer that question (which you cannot), then Jindal is not a Conservative.
Incorrect. NONE of the above are conservative enough. NONE of the above can serve all three pillars of Conservatism, and all of the above will fail, or at best, squeak by.
The problem is that you are not defending Conservatives.
I second that- and there are damn few here, especially young ones.
As a 57 year old Republican, I do the same thing, and I will continue to do the same thing until I’m toes up.
Well, D1, I am 10 years behind you, but I plan on doing the very same thing.
Folks, if you’re having a problem with a guy who is advocating we return to true Conservative ideals, I’d suggest you re-evaluate your beliefs.
Couldn't have said it better myself.
Your point about “Conservative” vs Republican is well taken.
There are many college campuses these days with ‘Young Republicans’ clubs on them. They are pretty sound Conservatives. I plug them whenever I get the chance.
Thanks for the nice comments.
A good portion of those on rabscuttle's lists are hard core Reaganites, myself included. Yes there are Libertarians too, as in the current Republican climate, it seems the last of the Reagan Coalition other than the Reagan core not willing to sell out are the civil libertarians.
That you would call them liberal says more about the NeoCon Republicans than it does about the Libertarians. When you assault Conservatives for standing upon principle, there is little wonder why Conservatives no longer support Republicans.
Great oratory gave us Reagan, Lincoln, of course, Teddy Roosevelt. Right? These are times that call for someone with stentorian stature and great oratorical skills, failing the stentorian, I’ll take the oratory for $100.00. V’s wife.
ditto. V’s wife. (I’m gonna listen to Rush today).
Don't get me wrong, if she secures the nomination, I'll support her, wholeheartedly, but right now, I think we have other options to lead the conservative movement. And as far as the attacks from the pro-Palin group, this already wreaks of the RomneyBot attacks many made after a lot of us supported Fred in 2008.
1. Unable to respond to what VP duties are.
2. Alaskan proximity as experience in foreign policy.
3. Bridge to no where comments
4. The newspaper reading competencies.
5. Knowledge of Supreme court rulings.
Again I reiterate, I love Sarah, and her conservative stances. In fact, I was as excited as anyone else when she delivered her acceptance speech last fall. But since, I have come to the conclusion that I can not support her unless she is the general election candidate. So at this point it's either Jindal or Sanford for me.
And as far as Jindal's falling short last night, just remember the bent one failed at his 1988 dim key note address. So it's too early publishing Bobby's politcal obit yer.
......and Rick Santelli as Sec. of Treas. in 2012
I think you left the saracasm tag off, or has the PC light been turned on here at FR?
Wow were you a former RomenyBot? This sounds like the same tactic....Insult if you don't agree. You post at du too?
I've been a staunch conservative since 1975, and I want the whole package like Reagan. That person is still out there to find, but it isn't Sarah.
Very smart! Good idea: speech from podium.
Sorry my mistake . Jindal got a few good punches in but.... I got worried when he talked about the feds fixing stuff like health care ALA Bush fixing medicare. Bush has created such a mess with his reckless deficit spending and his unpopularity, and yet he was sold to us by talk radio as the conservative messiah, another Reagan(They dont talk that way anymore) . The thoughts of elected republicans using the government to fix anything else is scary. Yet the media and public demand it from them, hands always out.We need to point out WHY Obama is killing private industry and increasing welfare and government.
Keeping your family safe is a pretty low standard. They are likely to be TOO safe under the democrats and socialism that Bush/McCain gave us.
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.