Rhino's vs Conservatives..

[Lumpy 1]

Sure... it's a given that neither side would vote for Obama..

Gads... what reasonable voter would?

The question is .. is it better to schmooze for the Independents (the Center) by being a puss and avoiding the social issues..etc.. or win their hearts by showing bold American pride and strong values...(Reagan-- ish)..?




...can you guess which side I'm on...

 

[Lumpy 1]

This threads feeling lonely...

 

[alan1]

It's time for conservatives to be true conservatives, not pandering, wishy-washy, mealy-mouthed, liberal-light candidates.

I may not agree with Ron Paul, but at least he tells you the truth of his position and not what he thinks people want to hear. All candidates should be so honest.

 

[Lumpy 1]

It's time for conservatives to be true conservatives, not pandering, wishy-washy, mealy-mouthed, liberal-light candidates.

I may not agree with Ron Paul, but at least he tells you the truth of his position and not what he thinks people want to hear. All candidates should be so honest.

Dang.. I could have been smart and said this....

 

[techieny]

It's time for conservatives to be true conservatives, not pandering, wishy-washy, mealy-mouthed, liberal-light candidates.

I may not agree with Ron Paul, but at least he tells you the truth of his position and not what he thinks people want to hear. All candidates should be so honest.

I totally agree. I like Newt, and hope he can can more traction considering the baggage attached to him!

 

[Meister]

Sure... it's a given that neither side would vote for Obama..

Gads... what reasonable voter would?

The question is .. is it better to schmooze for the Independents (the Center) by being a puss and avoiding the social issues..etc.. or win their hearts by showing bold American pride and strong values...(Reagan-- ish)..?




...can you guess which side I'm on...

The independents have seen what this administration is all about, and they're running from it. I am willing to bet they'll go along with a "conservative" to get back to square one. Not sure about the election after that though.

 

[ClosedCaption]

It's time for conservatives to be true conservatives, not pandering, wishy-washy, mealy-mouthed, liberal-light candidates.

I may not agree with Ron Paul, but at least he tells you the truth of his position and not what he thinks people want to hear. All candidates should be so honest.

Every con says the first part but they realize that no one fits ever! It's an impossible standard. Its like not picking superman because you want someone with more powers.

 

[yidnar]

It's time for conservatives to be true conservatives, not pandering, wishy-washy, mealy-mouthed, liberal-light candidates.

I may not agree with Ron Paul, but at least he tells you the truth of his position and not what he thinks people want to hear. All candidates should be so honest.

I totally agree. I like Newt, and hope he can can more traction considering the baggage attached to him!

America needs Newt !!!

 

[alan1]

It's time for conservatives to be true conservatives, not pandering, wishy-washy, mealy-mouthed, liberal-light candidates.

I may not agree with Ron Paul, but at least he tells you the truth of his position and not what he thinks people want to hear. All candidates should be so honest.

Every con says the first part but they realize that no one fits ever! It's an impossible standard. Its like not picking superman because you want someone with more powers.

It's not just cons, the libs are just as guilty of pandering, maybe more so.

 

[Lumpy 1]

I can't decide if the liberal Obama captured media wants to run against a true conservative or a rhino... they seem to hate speech & innuendo all Republican candidates equally...

 

[Wry Catcher]

What is a "true conservative"?

 

[freedombecki]

This threads feeling lonely...

I've had threads like that, Lumpy. Rep coming your way.

 

[alan1]

What is a "true conservative"?

People that understand and agree with my current signature line.

"The purpose of the Constitution is to limit federal powers, not to expand them."

 

[Wry Catcher]

What is a "true conservative"?

People that understand and agree with my current signature line.

"The purpose of the Constitution is to limit federal powers, not to expand them."

Thank you, a clear and concise response.

I'd next ask what powers the federal government has adopted which a true conservative would cause to be repealed and what the consequences of such an action might be?

(I still wonder what Lumpy believes a "true conservative" believes)

 

[freedombecki]

What is a "true conservative"?

That's food for thought, Wry Catcher. I had the privilege of living in the Equality State for 35 years of my adult life. They were ultra conservative.

Town hall meetings were weird affairs. Three people would get up and jump all over the counsel persons about them voting anything that cost more than five cents. The counsel persons would smile and thank them for their words of improvement.

When I first saw this ritual, I thought, "How rude." But in 35 years, I saw tax after tax go away, and at the end of the day, there were no new taxes ever. I heard about someone encouraging the one cent sales tax to build a new wing on the library, and after that was paid for, they never did repeal that tax. However, every time a new tax was introduced for this that or the other, the first volley started with "That's a bad idea. They still haven't gotten rid of the 1 cent tax they promised to get rid of just as soon as the library addition was paid off." The year after that library tax was passed, all of the council persons were replaced with new candidates.

If the people rise up against the people inundating the city, county, parish, state, or nation, that is true conservativism. Letting a less expensive tax rise brings up the "They haven't lowered the tax after the last raise that paid for the items so necessary, so they shouldn't get any more moeny..." argument, and things aren't quite as expensive. Of course, the grass around the courthouse might have to be replaced with concrete or rocks on waterproof sheeting to save money, and half-wattage street lights might have to replace existant ones, but taxes can stay low if you have a committed conservative base.

By himself, a real conservative is just a squeaky wheel. With a group, they can have a direct impact on people wanting more for the community than the community is willing to pay for.

 

[Charles_Main]

Sure... it's a given that neither side would vote for Obama..

Gads... what reasonable voter would?

The question is .. is it better to schmooze for the Independents (the Center) by being a puss and avoiding the social issues..etc.. or win their hearts by showing bold American pride and strong values...(Reagan-- ish)..?




...can you guess which side I'm on...

As a Fiscal Conservative, and Believer in Limiting Federal Government. I would happily accept someone who is more Liberal on Social Issues as long as they are going to cut spending, get our Fiscal House in Order, and reign in the Federal Government.

What I will not accept is a Social Conservative who is not also a Fiscal Conservative. Period.

 

[Wry Catcher]

What is a "true conservative"?

That's food for thought, Wry Catcher. I had the privilege of living in the Equality State for 35 years of my adult life. They were ultra conservative.

Town hall meetings were weird affairs. Three people would get up and jump all over the counsel persons about them voting anything that cost more than five cents. The counsel persons would smile and thank them for their words of improvement.

When I first saw this ritual, I thought, "How rude." But in 35 years, I saw tax after tax go away, and at the end of the day, there were no new taxes ever. I heard about someone encouraging the one cent sales tax to build a new wing on the library, and after that was paid for, they never did repeal that tax. However, every time a new tax was introduced for this that or the other, the first volley started with "That's a bad idea. They still haven't gotten rid of the 1 cent tax they promised to get rid of just as soon as the library addition was paid off." The year after that library tax was passed, all of the council persons were replaced with new candidates.

If the people rise up against the people inundating the city, county, parish, state, or nation, that is true conservativism. Letting a less expensive tax rise brings up the "They haven't lowered the tax after the last raise that paid for the items so necessary, so they shouldn't get any more moeny..." argument, and things aren't quite as expensive. Of course, the grass around the courthouse might have to be replaced with concrete or rocks on waterproof sheeting to save money, and half-wattage street lights might have to replace existant ones, but taxes can stay low if you have a committed conservative base.

By himself, a real conservative is just a squeaky wheel. With a group, they can have a direct impact on people wanting more for the community than the community is willing to pay for.

Thank you, too.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Sure... it's a given that neither side would vote for Obama..

Gads... what reasonable voter would?

The question is .. is it better to schmooze for the Independents (the Center) by being a puss and avoiding the social issues..etc.. or win their hearts by showing bold American pride and strong values...(Reagan-- ish)..?




...can you guess which side I'm on...

As a Fiscal Conservative, and Believer in Limiting Federal Government. I would happily accept someone who is more Liberal on Social Issues as long as they are going to cut spending, get our Fiscal House in Order, and reign in the Federal Government.

What I will not accept is a Social Conservative who is not also a Fiscal Conservative. Period.

So if I understand correctly, a "real conservative" is all about fiscal matters and limiting the power of the Federal Government; social conservatives are not "real conservatives". Is that your opinion?

 

[alan1]

What is a "true conservative"?

People that understand and agree with my current signature line.

"The purpose of the Constitution is to limit federal powers, not to expand them."

Thank you, a clear and concise response.

I'd next ask what powers the federal government has adopted which a true conservative would cause to be repealed and what the consequences of such an action might be?

(I still wonder what Lumpy believes a "true conservative" believes)

Lumpy didn't use the term "true conservative", I did.

As for your question, I don't have time to write a book right now. (Especially considering how slowly I type)

 

[Wry Catcher]

People that understand and agree with my current signature line.

"The purpose of the Constitution is to limit federal powers, not to expand them."

Thank you, a clear and concise response.

I'd next ask what powers the federal government has adopted which a true conservative would cause to be repealed and what the consequences of such an action might be?

(I still wonder what Lumpy believes a "true conservative" believes)

Lumpy didn't use the term "true conservative", I did.

As for your question, I don't have time to write a book right now. (Especially considering how slowly I type)

Correct, mea culpa. Lumpy used the adjective "Real". Are not "real conservatives" and "true conservatives" synonymous?

I don't expect a book. You were clear and concise in your first response, it seems you must have a concept, an executive summary would be appreciated.

Are you an "Originalist"?