Posted on 03/22/2014 2:46:47 PM PDT by SoFloFreeper
That is one of the most ignorant thoughts imaginable, it is the complete opposite of truth and reality.
Social liberalism is the disease that leads to and creates liberal economics, only social conservatives vote for limited government, Capitalism, freemarkets, freedom and they are the same voters who created the nation, built it and vote conservative.
“”If we concentrate on those who understand and believe in limited government, the rest will slowly take care of itself.””
You think the democrats, the left, are winning those voters because of the lefts’s/libertarian social gains of the last 50 years? Are you nuts? The Republicans win those voters, they are called things like Evangelicals and social conservatives.
The anti-limited government vote is the social liberals, you are a rare breed to be joining us small government crowd, the vast majority of you social liberals are on the left, and always will be.
Wow - talk about delusional. Do you actually believe there is a quick fix to the socially liberal cesspool we have become?
Do you not understand that the reason that we have been infested is because we haven't stopped the government from overstepping its bounds? If we actually get some limited government representation, and build on it, we won't have a Justice Department suing States for enjoying the powers given them (by not giving them to the Feds) by the 10th Amendment.
You seem to be the one with problems seeing - do you not understand that the Left purposely set about to modify us socially and encouraged all sorts of depravities. They kept at it long and hard enough to make gains and used the welfare "free stuff" meme to help bolster it. The social issues are no a part of their big package deal and plan - an immoral/amoral society is easier to manipulate for their benefits.
I'm hardly a social liberal, but I guess you need to label me that way to make your own weak arguments/lack of a plan (I've asked several times what you considered to be a winning plan and you have always declined to outline it) sound "sensible" to you.
Delusional is suddenly pretending that anyone said anything about “a quick fix to the socially liberal cesspool we have become”, especially since you are the one promoting more of it by adopting social liberalism, and I am calling to continue the fight for conservatism.
When you guys take the approach that we can join the left on social issues and somehow that helps us make American voters suddenly start voting for conservatism, that is insanely ignorant, the result of social liberalism creates people who vote for more government, more social programs, more, more more.
Do you know who the big voting block for small government conservatism is? Evangelicals and social conservatives, only they vote for traditional America and think of the greater good of our nation and freedom.
People who have your view towards social issues, are overwhelmingly voters for the left, your fight against social conservatism only creates more of the shallow, what’s in it for me, today, voters and GOPe politicians.
Fiscally conservative and socially moderate is a platform at war with itself.
city
county
state
federal
UN
We need conservative representatives at each level of government, not liberals, and not libertarians.
There is huge overlap, for instance gay marriage or abortion in city and county government, and union negotiations, accommodations or whatever, and of course at the state level, and of course at the federal level, for instance abortion in federal and military hospitals, gay marriage in the military and federal employment and in immigration.
Of course we need conservatives choosing who we send to the UN, and with what positions, as well.
Conservatism needs to have a conservative party platform, conservative politics, conservative candidates and voting conservative, not libertarian or liberal.
You must be purposely ignoring much of my text and just concentrating on (and misreading) the rest to keep calling me a far-left anything. We want the same thing, but we have different ideas of how to attack it and at what level to attack it, along with what we might have to abide by until we shore up parts of the battlefield.
You say we need conservative candidates who are picked by conservatives. How do we make it happen? If we don't get what we want on the ticket, do we just cede the election to the far Left?
I really would like some who can cut down what they think I'm saying to give me some positive feedback on what the plan should be to halt the march of the Dems and to start making some substantive progress along the way. I believe that if we start getting some who actually abide by the Constitution, we will start making some progress because the States will resume the rights they enjoy and the DOJ will not be headed by a far Left wingnut that tries to squash everything the States do to slow/stop abortions, homosexual "marriage", etc.
We will see a few true Conservatives rising up along the way, but we won't get enough of a flood to do anything quick - what do we do in the interim if we don't want to continue to give ground away for lack of full-spectrum conservatives? I don't see where ceding those elections gains us anything. Do you all have some secret plan that makes it so anyone who states their opinion can be trashed out-of-hand? If so, stop keeping it a secret and give us nut cases something to rally round.
Trebb I’m not misreading you, not on this thread, and not on your politics that you reveal on almost every thread, which are anti-conservative and liberal.
Your first post 86 is the typical Trebb post, promoting to allow the GOP to become pro-abortion, Trebb your anti-Reagan, anti-Jim Robinson, anti-freerepublic, anti-conservative politics are in your posting history isn’t hidden from us, the entire history of it is available for us to read.
On this thread, as usual, it is to promote the idea of voting liberal, even for pro-abortion candidates who oppose the pro-life position of the party.
What’s funny is to notice which threads attract a single post from you (Palin for example), versus which subjects attract days, or weeks of devotion and persuasive attempts from you, this one is a thread you love and devote your liberal efforts to, in this case, to fight the GOP pro-life position by promoting voting, for unnamed pro-abortion candidates.
You don’t know who they are, we don’t know who they are, but you are sure working hard to make sure that they work their way up the ranks of the GOP.
How rinos lose elections, including to Jimmy Carter’s second term on the edge of a depression.
The governor who gave America gay marriage, who had been running on homosexualizing the military and Boy Scouts since 1994, who was the most passionate, and sincere, pro-abortion republican that any of us have ever seen, and who ran against the GOP pro-life platform and being pro-abortion, he even ran pro-abortion ads in Ohio, Wisconsin, and Virginia.
Romney was the first nominee in history to win hugely among the independents, yet lose the race, and he did it in an election that couldn’t lose.
—Romney first to win independents big, lose election
—”Whoever wins independent voters in Ohio, wins Ohio,” Beeson said on “Fox News Sunday,” two days before the election.
He was, of course, wrong. Romney won self-identified Independents in Ohio by a overwhelming 10 points, according to exit polls, but lost the state to President Barack Obama by 2 points.
A similar trend was seen across much of the country — Romney won among Independents by 5 points, 50-45, but lost to Obama, 51-48.
—INFOGRAPHIC: Obama Lost Independent Vote In Almost Every Swing State
The president only won the independent vote in one battleground state: North Carolina.
Things looked very different for Obama in 2008, when independent voters came out in huge numbers to support him.
Just before Election Day, the Wall Street Journal reported those polling numbers had hardly changed, with Romney overwhelmingly leading among independent voters across the country. Republican pollster Bill McInteruff told the Journal the Democrats were “really flirting with trouble if you’re losing independents by this margin.”
Here is one of the threads on the rino PACs that you guys are starting to more aggressively fight conservatism and the Reagan wing.
Perhaps you can share your views on moving left, there.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3138978/posts
I'm thinking that you misinterpret much of what I say and I can't figure out exactly why it is so.
I say that we allow the Left, who is rabidly pro-abortion to gain ground when we automatically discount someone who isn't just as rabidly anti-abortion and you read that I'm promoting pro-abortion swings in the Party. I say that we throw away the chance to unseat a far-left pro-baby-killing POS and end up with someone, who may not be inclined to focus on squashing all abortions tomorrow, but who also isn't pushing for laws/legislation/EOs to increase ease of abortion.
I challenge you to find an anti-Reagan statement by me.
It would also be nice to find some where I am demonstrably anti Jim Robinson and Free republic - not agreeing with everything someone says doesn't constitute being "anti" that someone. That is a Left winger concept where everyone has to say that they agree with everything that their "masters" say or be considered to be off the plantation.
I prefer to consider myself more of a realist - I abhor abortion and what the homosexual agenda is doing to this nation. I would love to see it all stopped today. I'm realistic enough to understand that there is no magic pill and that even under the best of situations, it would take decades to seriously turn a lot of damage and effect repairs on our Constitutional Rights and Freedoms. Most of it will have to be done by clawing out each inch of progress with a few chances to make some small leaps. When we refuse to claw out a few inches because we disagree with the way a potential candidate seems to feel on one or two issues, then we hand the deck to the Left and they are very adept at stacking it - why do you think they have the gall to commit so many crimes against the People since Obama was elected and re-elected? I say it's because they know we will keep handing them the keys to the shitter so they can continue to send us downhill with impunity.
Our side deludes itself that we can have one or two crushing wins and that it will all turn around when Neo finally shows up on the scene. We don't even start to think of the difference between a Romney and an Obama so we allow a proven pro-homo, pro-baby killing, America-hating anti-christian, pro-Muslim back into the office and he continues to fill other slots with more just like him and we tell ourselves we dodged a bullet. I'm starting to believe that liberalism isn't the only mental disease in politics.
BTW - Much of my posting at least demonstrates what I consider to be part of a plan to turn things around, even if it's way too slow to help most of us alive today, but you have still not tried to explain your plan and how you think it would go. You keep telling me I want to pervert the Republican Party (how do you pollute a septic tank further?) but that seems to be all that a lot fo folks do - they tell everyone else that they are wrong, use false tidbits to "prove" that everyone else is wrong, then refuse to communicate any cogent plan of their own. My theory is that, barring the emergence of a Neo, they know that their hope, of suddenly getting a rash of true all-around conservative candidates that will all win and fix things, is not rational. They refuse to admit we will have to make the dreaded choice of discerning the difference between someone who loves abortion and someone who is tepid about abortion. They can't resolve it within themselves, so their "plan" is to tell others that their plan is no good, and never actually outline what they consider to be their own plan.
Here's a little test:
What's the difference between these two men: One opines on a personal level that homosexuals should be included in certain organizations, but adds the caveat that the organization should have the freedom to make the decision.
The other man actively pursues laws to insure that every organization business has to cater to homosexuals and even give them elevated privileges.
Many on FR claim there is no difference - I think they're nuts.
Like I said, you are just a broken record for abortion and the gay agenda.
You repeat yourself and your liberal political message over and over and over, stop opposing abortion, stop fighting the homosexual agenda, move left, vote left, move the GOP left.
Trebb, you are a liberal propagandist, you fight for liberalism, abortion, and the gay agenda, without let up.
OK then. You make claims and then don't follow up when asked to prove some and you continue to refuse to tell me what you think a winning game plan is. I originally thought I was talking to someone who had the capacity of real thinking, but I am now of the mind that you have some buzz-word "ideas" and that your actual contribution to the thought pool is to tell folks that they are wrong, but not to explain why you are right.
You are stuck in a loop. You can have the last word if you want - I can't go on with this hypocrisy. You call me a liberal propagandist and your methods and lines of "argument" are so typical liberal (charges w/o any sort of cogent explanation) that I can see I have been wasting my time trying to ensure you really understand what I am saying - you seem incapable of allowing yourself to actually think.
You are a liberal propagandist, your first post on this thread was a repeat of the politics you promote, it was a defense of a pro-abortion position for a Republican candidate.
My “winning game plan” is what you should have heard the entire time you have been on FR, conservatism, all three legs.
There are candidates who are conservative, and candidates like Paul and Romney, who tell us upfront that they don’t support our politics and differ from them in fundamental and important ways, that they oppose our politics, we have to choose the candidates who support our politics, not the left’s politics.
Your first post on this thread was a call to accept pro-abortion candidates, it doesn’t help us at all to ignore the party platform and choose people who are that incredibly liberal and that philosophically distant from conservatism, it is nothing but becoming part of the left.
Your message is always the same, liberalism, we don’t need to start voting for pro-abortion candidates.
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.