Posted on 08/31/2013 4:46:03 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
I for one like what the tea party does.
I believe that powerful political professionals like Rove have destroyed the republican party and done the most to make it EXCLUSIVE.
Huh?
Dependent in the sense they Just. Don't. Listen.
They must have some really good crack up at Salon....
Once they started getting a bit of “push back” in the comments section, they really began showing their reliably, vicious underbelly.
Translation of this article: conservatives refuse to accept and back all the nutty things we Marxists er progressives want to inflict on the country.
Stopped reading right there.
If conservatism can be many ... it isn't conservatism.
A famous and influential FReeper posted this on another thread:
When the Democrat delegates booed the decision to revise the God-less platform stance of the Democrat party, I thought it was a Biblical moment, still do. Nothing could have distinguished the Democrat party from the Republican party more. There should have been ads running in 15 second spots both in English and Spanish.
There were "denominations", but all knew God ... and all knew Jesus ... and worshipped or respected that.
EVERYONE came to America to be free ... and that freedom was worth the "price" of accepting the mores of the land .. and it was Christianity.
Common sense simply doesn’t sit well with the left.
We could’ve and SHOULD’ve taken the country by storm at that point ... but we’re always hoping things will be as they seem ... which we’ve learned (?) ... ain’t.
Idiot writer. She refers to the House as radical. The fact is, between the House , the Senate and the Presidency, it’s the House which most closely reflects the will of the people.
The State legislatures and governorships better represent the heartbeat of the country. These clearly lean conservative.
Article was written by a leftist communist feminist who does not know history or worse yet, is the typical harlot of the demfem party.
Whether we should have taken the country by storm or not at that point is academic. It is a matter of "branding" and positioning. It is to set in stone as to who embraces God and who does not, and to give the low information voter a clear choice. Ultimately, this leads to taking the country by storm.
The TEA Party are normal, everyday, hard working Americans... how did you democrats become such a lockstep marxist/satanic cult... arsehole?
If you are defining an ism or an ist, it is relatively easy to do when you define it broadly or generally. But if you try to define it precisely, narrowly, or particularly, it becomes very difficult.
The more narrow you define, the more exclusionary it is. And at whatever level of narrowness or particularity you or someone else may define the ism, the ism can always be defined more narrowly.
That is why those who try to define more narrowly always turn on each other
Me and you, we're conservatives, and we purged those who were not conservative enough.
But now that they are gone, and I start thinking about it, I want to define conservatism even more narrowly, and I don't think you are as conservative enough, so get out.
We should not LIMIT Conservatism by tying it to the Christian faith. We can support all of our arguments without bringing religion into them, but they are much richer with a religious underpinning.
That doesn't mean denying the importance of the Christian faith in the formation of this nation, because most of those who came here were religious in nature, but we've seen immigration from all parts of the world, and many more religious groups. Why should we shut them out of the Conservative movement by making it look as though none but Christians are allowed? They may agree with us on everything, but believe they can't be a part of us because their faith is different. Seems really silly to insulate ourselves in that way.
She’s right. The Democrats have both ideologies well represented. The liberal Stalinists and the moderate Maoists.
The Communist takeover of the Democrat Party began in the 1890s.
Absolutely WRONG! The Constitution states that everyone has Freedom of Religion, and that means any religion or NO religion. Citizens have to accept the LAWS of the land; mores are something completely different.
People are free to live as they please, within the law, but if others don't like that, that's their right, as well. The problem we have right now is those who disagree with some particular lifestyle choices are proclaimed to be 'phobes' of that lifestyle, and the media attempts to marginalize them.
Sometimes here in FR I make a statement and someone replies and soon I feel like I'm on a loooong journey that brings me back to where I was.
I think I know now why old men sit around and play checkers or chess .... we DO have the answer(s) but younger people want to dissect them.
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.