Skip to comments.
Hillary Gives Up!
Vanity
| 2/22/08
| DWPittelli
Posted on 02/22/2008 5:46:14 PM PST by DWPittelli
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 261-273 next last
To: DWPittelli
Hillary will never “give up”. Let’s see what happens when Obama’s cocaine-buddy/gay lover takes his polygraph test.
To: billva
“Either way those who would sit the election out lose all right to call themselves the base of the party.
A real base wouldn’t act so spoiled.”
How do YOU propose we conservatives send the message to the RNC that we want true conservatives? When I was in California, the “base” voted for Awnuld, a man married into the Kennedys and not a whole lot different than McCain. That worked just great, didn’t it?
Much as I would hate to see a Dem in the White House, we might do well to write in the names of true conservatives that more closely share our point of view, suffer through the next Presidency, a then perhaps have the attention of the Party.
42
posted on
02/22/2008 6:46:36 PM PST
by
Blue Collar Christian
(If "there are no losers here," then there are no winners here. ><BCC>NRA)
To: LasVegasMac
Look up "Classical liberalism" in Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism
It begins:
Classical liberalism (also known as traditional liberalism[1] and laissez-faire liberalism,[2] or, in much of the world, simply called liberalism) is a doctrine stressing individual freedom and limited government. This includes the importance of human rationality, individual property rights, natural rights, the protection of civil liberties, constitutional limitations of government, free markets, and individual freedom from restraint as exemplified in the writings of Adam Smith, John Stuart Mill,[3] Montesquieu, Voltaire,[4] Thomas Paine and others. As such, it is seen as the fusion of economic liberalism with political liberalism.[2] The "normative core" of classical liberalism is the idea that laissez-faire economics will bring about a spontaneous order or invisible hand that benefits the society,[5] though it does not necessarily oppose the state's provision of a few basic public goods.[6] The qualification classical was applied in retrospect to distinguish early nineteenth-century liberalism from evolutions in liberal thought during the 19th and early 20th centuries, especially the "new liberalism" associated with Thomas Hill Green, Leonard Trelawny Hobhouse,[7] and Franklin D. Roosevelt,[8] which grants the state a more interventionist role in the economy, including a welfare state. Classical liberalism is not to be confused with the ideology that is commonly called "liberalism" today in the United States, as "classical liberalism" is actually closer to being a tendency of "conservatism" in the U.S.[9]
To: traditional1; cripplecreek
IF the Democrat wins the election, it's not because the Republican Conservative voters let the Party down, it's because the Party let the Conservative voters down, period. I'm with you guys!
44
posted on
02/22/2008 6:53:17 PM PST
by
alicewonders
(The Republican Party - gettin' stupider and stupider.)
To: arthurus
President or vice president doesnt really matter.The difference is only a matter of timing.
Anyone dumb enough to be POTUS with Clinton as their VP 'one heartbeat away from the Presidency' needs to do some research on the terms 'arkancide' and 'clinton body count'.
45
posted on
02/22/2008 6:55:57 PM PST
by
JayNorth
To: kitkat
"I hope you like socialized medicine."Your vote for the Mcainiac will do NOTHING to stop the Socialization of the Medical Insurance industry whatsoever, nor would his winning the election.
The number of weak-kneed RINO's in the Congress now will allow it to become the law of the land.
Conservatives who voted "Republican" for the RINO's all along are to blame; and continue to support RINO candidates that the Republican Party puts up for elections.
To: bruinbirdman
She should start an "Hillary Clinton Defense Fund", a sure winner for an infusion of ChiCom cash. Maybe she could get the New York Times to run a hit piece on her too.
47
posted on
02/22/2008 6:56:20 PM PST
by
alicewonders
(The Republican Party - gettin' stupider and stupider.)
To: billva
Get a grip; it's not "spoiled brats" who are telling the Republican Party "ENOUGH OF THIS"...it's those with principle.
Those who go along with the program, no matter what asshat is thrust in front of them as the Party's Candidate, simply rubber stamp the RNC's RINOism, and no change will ever come about, as they can always count on the non-principled votes.
To: sport
He is a fool if he picks Hillary as his VP. If he does he wont be around 3 months after he is sworn in.
The Clintons are so evil, calculating and arrogant, they will bide their time and 'off' the POTUS exactly the correct number of days into his term so Hillary can serve two full terms in addition to the partial term after his unfortunate demise. If the magic number is 400 days, look for a mysterious heart attack, car crash, plane crash, or suicide 401 days into the presidency.
49
posted on
02/22/2008 7:02:33 PM PST
by
JayNorth
To: traditional1; cripplecreek
Is there a write-in we can all agree on? Personally, I am strongly leaning towards Rick Santorum. If a write-in candidate received a significant portion of the overall vote, perhaps the GOP would wake up and smell the coffee.
50
posted on
02/22/2008 7:02:40 PM PST
by
Hoodat
(Bull Moose Party Member)
To: DWPittelli
51
posted on
02/22/2008 7:03:08 PM PST
by
alrea
To: dbacks
I didn’t hear the entire debate but I did hear the end and she *was* buttering up Obama. The ONLY reason she would do this is to get the VP spot on his ticket. What a nightmare ticket that would be. Good Grief!
52
posted on
02/22/2008 7:04:19 PM PST
by
Ditter
To: DWPittelli
Hillary is now more interested in getting her $5 million back than she is in maximizing her chances of winning. She is no longer fighting for the nomination. As soon as I heard how she talked about "her" money she loaned to the campaign---remember, this is a woman who itemized donations of used underwear on her tax returns---I knew the day was coming when she would become more frantic about recouping her dough than continuing to run.
That day is here.
53
posted on
02/22/2008 7:05:39 PM PST
by
fightinJAG
(Rush was right when he used to say: "You NEVER win by losing.")
To: alicewonders
Soon, very soon, the Clintons will BBQ Obama with the Larry limo sex tape. Hillary was so nice last night so that Obama (and we) won’t know where the shocking revelation came from.
54
posted on
02/22/2008 7:07:12 PM PST
by
cornbreadmuffin
(I WANT NEWT FOR PRESIDENT....I WANT NEWT FOR PRESIDENT....I WANT NEWT)
To: traditional1
How in the world did the RNC “tell us” who we could and could not have as a candidate?
Do you have to get permission to run for president?
Did someone force people to vote for John McCain? Was anyone precluded from voting for whoever they wanted to?
55
posted on
02/22/2008 7:07:47 PM PST
by
fightinJAG
(Rush was right when he used to say: "You NEVER win by losing.")
To: DWPittelli
Am I supposed to be impressed by your title or what.........
I looked up your Wicki link.....big fart....
"Classical liberalism (also known as traditional liberalism[1] and laissez-faire liberalism,[2] or, in much of the world, simply called liberalism) is a doctrine stressing individual freedom and limited government. This includes the importance of human rationality, individual property rights, natural rights, the protection of civil liberties, constitutional limitations of government, free markets, and individual freedom from restraint as exemplified in the writings of Adam Smith,...
For the most part, that is the conservative core.
Why the fancy, self-endowed title...?
56
posted on
02/22/2008 7:09:29 PM PST
by
LasVegasMac
(Islam: Bringing the world death and destruction for 1400 years!)
To: DWPittelli
Thanks for posting this article.
“Hillary is now more interested in getting her $5 million back than she is in maximizing her chances of winning.”
Yeah. Loaned her own campaign $5 mill.
She wants it back. With interest.
57
posted on
02/22/2008 7:10:11 PM PST
by
UCANSEE2
(Just saying what 'they' won't.)
To: dbacks
I also thought the Witch was trying to position herself for the VP slot.
If she were to win the nomination, she would have no choice but to select Obama as her VP. Otherwise,too many disappointed voters would just stay home.
Obama, OTOH, would have to do a lot of gut-checks to select her as VP. But it could easily happen. He would just say, sure, we had disagreements, but I’ll lead and she’ll follow and blah blah blah. The big problem is that Michelle seems to loathe her more than Obama does and that’s an obstacle.
I kind of wish Obama would select Hildy as his VP, because she provokes a lot of anti-Hildy votes. I have heard more than one Rat say that if Obama is not the nominee, they are voting for McCain.
58
posted on
02/22/2008 7:10:47 PM PST
by
fightinJAG
(Rush was right when he used to say: "You NEVER win by losing.")
To: cripplecreek
I think Obama’s lack of a record is an asset to McCain.
59
posted on
02/22/2008 7:12:22 PM PST
by
fightinJAG
(Rush was right when he used to say: "You NEVER win by losing.")
To: DWPittelli
What’s wrong with being a Conservative?
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 261-273 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson