Posted on 01/20/2016 11:54:10 PM PST by WTFOVR
Thank you.
There’s more?! Yes, it truly is red/blue pill time and I cannot believe I/we are living through this nightmare! Where have all the decent leaders gone? Rhetorical of course....
Wrong. If you don’t have bedrock conservative values, then you will be pulled to the left in D.C. Because that is where the tide flows in D.C. as in most big urban areas. And you can’t fight “for Americans” if you don’t know what you’re fighting for.
Why would I vote for a candidate who agrees with me LESS than another candidate, and whom I trust less than the other candidate even on the points I agree with him on?
That smacks of anti-Americanism. I’ll grant you that America isn’t as great as it once was, but a hellhole? Really?
It’s not even close to ‘anti-American’ and I reject that entirely.
Yes, if you venture out much or have a business, have children, have investments, the reality of how sick this nation is cannot be denied. I doubt you need nor want me to list all the ways we are suffering. I certainly hope you see that reality.
I didn’t say I ‘like’ it, I am stating that the reality is what it is. One can only recover when they face the truth.
Thank you for not answering my question ...
And do not presume upon what metaphysical doctrines and principles I hold. You know me not. I said nothing about either, but rather cautioned against rigid adherence to political ideology. Your caustic reaction, and that of your cohorts, is rather telling ...
You each appear mostly possessed by anger ... which tells me I struck a chord which you are not wont to examine to deeply.
Judging from their voting records, the caliber of “dogma” possessed by those in Congress - whom you and others likely chose to be your champions of conservative “principles” - I must reply you have not a leg to stand on. Your so-called conservatives have proven themselves moral cowards and epic failures in carrying out their sworn oaths of office.
A Purist? lol
I am really having a hard time getting my arms around that so I can absorb it.
Conservatism is a philosophy, not a religion or even a political dogma.
It cannot be purist by definition because to be conservative is also to have a open mind and the ability to think critically.
As we grow as a society, things change. Conservatism was at one time a isolationist group as a whole, for tariffs and against free trade, believing that this was the best way to protect America and maintain jobs. But we now see tariffs as a tool that should be used intelligently and only if necessary. We believe in free but fair trade and are no longer isolationist.
This is just one of many reasons why conservatism is not a dogma and cannot be purist.
It's a philosophy based largely on history and as much consideration is given to what went right as to what went wrong in the past. It cannot by definition be a purist movement. Your screed is therefore based on a flawed premise that it often talked about by our left wing opposition.
I never thought I would see this sort of thing here on FR to the degree I see it since the Trump announcement for president.
Something is just not right when I have to fend off this sort of garbage.
There’s nothing self righteous about it. Marriage is not dealing with liberals unless you really made a dumb move and married one.
Running a company and running a country arent remotely in the same ballpark. Every time a company is filled with liberals, that company has problems. Look what happened to Apple recently. Their projections arent so great.
A boss and a President are somewhat comparable. But a Boss makes the calls and does not have an entire legislative branch there to veto.
A legislative branch, I would add, that is the creation of lesser evil stupidity.
So tell me. What did dealmaking with liberals result in for Mitch and Jonbon?
What did it result in for GWB?
What did it result in for GHWB?
What did it result in for Ronaldus?
I’ll tell you what because you obviously forgot. It all resulted in less liberty. Less cash for the taxpayer’s family, Less babies to populate the country, less good men and women now dead in Iraq, Lybia and the Stans. Less of everything good, right and just and more of everything bad, wrong and evil.
And just because it’s Trump matters not. He’s one man. And he isn’t playing with dealmakers. He would be playing with 500 people determined to screw him and us.
Sure we compromise. We decide every day what color socks to wear, which car to take to work and what day to mow the lawn. Do you ‘compromise when your 14 year old daughter tells you she is sleeping at her boyfriend’s house? No? Why not? Don’t be a self righteous tyrant! Do you compromise when your buddy takes your boat out to pick up chicks on the weekend you planned to take the family to the lake? Why not? Don’t be so self righteous!
Or do you grasp the simple concept that compromising larger issues is ALWAYS a bad idea and causes problems?
Go ahead. SHOW ME where America EVER benefits in these high level giveaways to liberals. You sure as hell can’t point to one in the last 7 years.
Your premise is correct - but, to be bluntly honest, we do need to be careful on this point, b/c history is replete with lessons of those who swung the pendulum too far in reaction to economic and judicial tyranny ... case in point Wehrmacht Germany. Yes, I know - some will imply I am making a comparison between two particular individuals; but, no ... Rather I am pointing out a social axiom proven by history. I admit that this is my greatest fear under the present set of sociopolitical and cultural circumstances ... IOW - Be careful what you wish for. Life is full of contradictions (sigh).
What am I supposedly angry about? And why does your post sound like a lunatic’s rant?
You either stand for something, or you stand for nothing.
We have been fighting every election to eliminate linguini spined compromisers.. We currently have a house and senate full of them, despite every effort we have made.
What made Obama so dangerous was that he did not compromise his positions on anything. He does not make deals, he tells the republicans what he wants and then attacks them in speeches and the willing sycophant press until they do his bidding. if there is any compromises, they are insignificant.
So how do you counter that?
You do it by replacing him with a man who will act on our behalf in the same way that Obama acts for his Marxist supporters. You replace him with a man who's end game is to return the US to a constitutional republic, and not continue to degrade it. The man who can do this needs a conservatively principled understanding and mindset.
If we fail here, to do this. We may well have sealed the fate of the US.
This is the man I intend to vote for.
How could things be any worse?
Elect Trump and we will find out
You’re hopeless - you now want to equate moral compromise with political compromise?
And marriage IS a two way street, whose facets go beyond whether your spouse holds opposite political views ... But for the sake of argument, why would any thinking man place himself in such an awkward position, unless he was thinking with the wrong “head”?
Obviously moral and philosophical comparability matters in a marriage - particularly for the sake of the children created by that union. So, I suspect you are putting up a straw-man argument here. The bottom line is that while it is true one must compromise on many things in life, I neither directly stated nor implied that morals were up for such treatment.
Oh, BTW - do you think Ronald Reagan made no compromises? As I recall, Reagan enacted amnesty to illegals in exchange for a promise of securing the border - too bad that Tip O’Neil was such a blatantly dishonest pig ... but Reagan trusted him. So was Ronaldus Maximus a dummy?
And how may employees does Donald Trump oversee in some capacity? How many subordinates does he direct? How many customers must he consider in his myriad of decisions. Oh, you think that these individuals have not personalities? You believe they are without intelligence and contribution? They are all just mindless drones taking orders from “the boss”? I find it both revealing and amazing the shallow opinion you hold towards the lives of other people.
And, BTW, just who elected those 500 individuals to office?
You go too far in your presumptions as to what I imply by compromise. Just as your rigid adherence to ideology puts you right up there with Obama. The fact is that one may compromise on some things without surrendering principle or moral integrity. But, I suppose, that is a concept that you and others are either incapable of comprehending or else too blindly obstinate to admit.
That what political experts say. You can disagree all you want because you don’t like the results.
It is equitable. What do you think the basis is for the Nanny Statists!
Politics and morality are inextricably linked.
That is where the political dogma is on the left. They see their politics as a moral imperative or religion. It's why they refuse to accept or even consider any other way of thinking.
Sound familiar? it is to me...I'm lookin at it every day..of late.
You are missing the point of what I stated. I do not advocate compromise on morals - and I did not state or imply that anybody should, be they in the field of politics or something else. You seem to believe that compromise on anything means compromise on everything. The more of these post I read, the more I am convinced that more than a few individuals are being purposely disingenuous in their responses.
Not at all. It's just that this particular horse has been beaten 7 ways to Sunday.
What do you think of the date of the publication?
I don't know, what do you want to hear? That older birther bs is of some more esteemed value than new birther bs?
It is only an open forum for a give and exchange of ideas. You just like to dish it out.
Not at all - I would love a real debate on the issues. This is just tiring.
"On native soil" is a bs argument, and always has been... It matters not a whit that he was born on foreign ground.
IMHO, your best argument is the 'Two American Parents" shtick, which is admittedly back-fed through naturalization ~ but it is a losing argument, which will never make it through court. Precedent is already set, and 50 states have already vetted the candidate, and declared him eligible, or he would not be on the ballot. In reality, no one has standing to challenge that...
The only real shot you have is to destroy the citizenship of the mother - her citizenship somehow being inaccurately portrayed to the states - which isn't going to happen, but that's why the sudden flurry trying to somehow prove her a Canadian citizen.
So despite all your wailing and weeping, and all the dirt thrown in the air, Ted Cruz is a Native Son.
And for the fun of it, what is it that you hope to gain between you and I? Do you think that disqualifying Cruz will leave me no choice but to vote for Trump?
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.