Quote: Cedric wrote in post #15

---

Quote: Frank Cannon wrote in post #11

---

Cite these "Purists" that are causing damage

---

Here's a Starter List.
At various times: Mark Levin, Pat Buchanan, Breibart, WND, FR, Beck, Daily Caller and 600 local right-wing talk show hosts.

---

Quote: Frank Cannon wrote in post #16

---

Quote: Cedric wrote in post #15

---

Quote: Frank Cannon wrote in post #11

---

Cite these "Purists" that are causing damage

---

Here's a Starter List.
At various times: Mark Levin, Pat Buchanan, Breibart, WND, FR, Beck, Daily Caller and 600 local right-wing talk show hosts.

---

Who of those listed are elected officials? Oh yeah. None. They have absolutely no power to do squat on Capitol Hill.

---

Quote: Rufus T Firefly wrote in post #13

---

Quote: Weird Tolkienish Figure wrote in post #3

---

It is. It absolutely is. That's why all these idiots who pine for the "perfect conservative" are so stupid. "No RINOS" etc.

Take what we can get.

---

I've "pined" for a perfect conservative for years (but I've voted republican, mostly). So I guess I'm in your "stupid" category.

Let me ask - George W. Bush was not the perfect conservative by a long shot, was he? But most of us "piners" (especially after 8 years of the 'toon) voted for him.

Let's see, what did Mr. Bush give us. The largest gov't expansion since LBJ? (and only surpassed by the current Marxist in chief).

And lets not forget Mr. Chief Justice John Roberts.

Us "piners' have been told since Nixon WE MUST VOTE GOP IF ONLY BECAUSE THEY WILL APPOINT ORIGINALISTS TO SCOTUS. We've believed that.

Chief Justice John Roberts. Obamacare.

How's that working out again?

Oh yeah, I forgot. We're taking what we can get.

---

Quote: steph wrote in post #18

---

No but he won the primary fair and square! When the conservatives ever figure out that splitting the conservative votes during the primaries is defeating their goal of having a conservative in the general then perhaps there would be a different outcome. It would behoove the conservatives to figure out who to back early on in the primaries and highly encourage those without a snowball's chance to think of the best interest of the people and not their narcissistic egos *cough*MicheleBachmann*cough, *cough*HermanCain*cough*, et al.

Do you honestly think that Al Jazeera Gore would have been a better choice? He went batshit crazy over his environmentalism. The same goes for 2004. There was no choice. John F'n Kerry has already shown he would have sold us out as soon as he could after a week on the job as SoS.

Maybe the leaders we do have in office aren't perfect. They are elected to represent all of their constituents, not just those who voted for them. That is the difference between politicking and governing.

---

Zitat

---

So whether we head toward the cliff a 100 mph (Romney) or at 200 mph (Obama), it really doesn't matter, does it?

---

I voted for the 100 mph version just to buy a little more time.

Quote: FP123 wrote in post #21

---

Zitat

---

So whether we head toward the cliff a 100 mph (Romney) or at 200 mph (Obama), it really doesn't matter, does it?

---

I voted for the 100 mph version just to buy a little more time.

---

That is what many I know did, including many who had refused the 'hold your nose' version of voting.

Only, to be more precise, I'd call Romney the 199 mph version at best.

It's great to spout ideology. However, reality slaps ideology in the face every election. The bottom line is that on election day someone will be elected to office. I may not be 100 percent behind the choices but I'm realistic enough to understand that the lesser of two evils is better than the most evil. We are seeing that with the evil marxist 0bama, which is the topic of this thread. The GOP controlled House has put some resistance to full on communist take over by this administration. Hell, some on this "conservative site" have stated they did not vote and would vote for Hillary if the choice is between her and Jeb. Hillary is a Saul Alinsky radical as much as 0bama yet the purist conservative thinks it's better to teach the GOPe a lesson by allowing avowed radical progressives the opportunity to win.

Should it be that way? No, but it is. It is up to conservatives to get their shit together and start reaching out to people, not keep purifying the party. It is still a numbers game. There will never be a perfect candidate. I will not pretend otherwise.

I'm getting kind of sick and tired of being told by those who didn't vote that I'm a moderate or not conservative enough. I at least did my civic duty.

You want to win the war, then do what the damn progressives have done. Set a goal, then work it. The problem with the hard right is they want their way immediately and it always backfires on them. The progressives didn't get here overnight. They had a long term plan and worked at getting their agenda through and accepted incrementally over decades.

Hell, the zer0 administration is already focused on taking back the House in 2014 so that he can continue fundamentally transforming the US into a communist rathole.

How about this, steph?

I think people who don't do their civic duty and vote are unAmerican.

And people who brag about it on conservative boards are not only not superior to people like you and me............they're just plain nuts.

btw, BRAVA to your post.

At least SOME of us still understand that Communism is a bad thing.

I don't think they are unamerican but I am getting tired of being told that those of us who vote and take our civic duty seriously are not really true conservatives. Who decided their idea of conservatism is the right one?

Quote: steph wrote in post #25

---

I don't think they are unamerican but I am getting tired of being told that those of us who vote and take our civic duty seriously are not really true conservatives. Who decided their idea of conservatism is the right one?

---

Quote: Palinista wrote in post #26

---

Quote: steph wrote in post #25

---

I don't think they are unamerican but I am getting tired of being told that those of us who vote and take our civic duty seriously are not really true conservatives. Who decided their idea of conservatism is the right one?

---

The problem is the way that people characterize the definitions of words to influence others.

---

Quote: steph wrote in post #25

---

I don't think they are unamerican but I am getting tired of being told that those of us who vote and take our civic duty seriously are not really true conservatives. Who decided their idea of conservatism is the right one?

---

Quote: Frank Cannon wrote in post #11

---

Quote: Weird Tolkienish Figure wrote in post #8

---

Quote: Frank Cannon wrote in post #6

---

Quote: steph wrote in post #2

---

His divide and conquer the GOP and conservatives strategy seems to be working too.

---

Only because the GOP is letting it work.

---

Not just the GOP, but there a lot of "conservative purists" who are doing damage too.

---

Cite these "Purists" that are causing damage. Right now, I only see the GOPe leadership allowing damage to be done. Boner is capitulating or sitting on his hands at every turn. Your pal Karl Rove is starting an open war with grass roots activists and Reagan Conservatives. McConnell may be dead for all I know he is so ineffective. Your derogetory
"Purist" remark refers to people who still believe the GOP should stand for pro business, low taxes and low regulations. Everything that your moderate pals hate.

---