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: 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 #20

---

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.

---

It's interesting (and saddening) that the merits of conservatism apparently have to be "sold" on a putative conservative website. Oh well . . .

I'm not going to take time to defend conservatism. One either "is" or "isn't." Now someone can be a conservative AND a republican - but conservatism isn't a prerequisite. One can be a republican and a liberal. One can probably even be a republican and be apolitical (i.e. Karl Rove). Now, with that out of the way . . .

Perhaps I should take this opportunity to explain my political point of view. It's one that not many here will agree with, but it's uniquely mine.

When the Founders set up the USA, they assumed many things. They assumed the ultimate corrupt nature of Man. (they got that one right)

But they got a number of things wrong.

They assumed that corruption could be "managed" by a series of checks and balances. They (apparently) believed the watchdog to all this would be a free press (somehow incorruptable? hardly)

The Founders were educated men - and they must have assumed that classical education would always continue. They did not forsee the indoctrination that passes for public education.

Now don't get me wrong - the great men who fought our revolution and wrote our founding documents did an amazing thing in creating the US of A. And, it's a testament to their greatness that we've lasted over 200 years.

Perhaps it's the best mankind can do.

I'll close with this. Reagan was the most "conservative" POTUS elected since Coolidge. Unlike many in the present day GOP, he was a conservative at heart who could actually vocalize conservative principles. He could think "conservatism" on his feet.

I liked Reagan. A lot. I voted enthusiastically for him twice.

And yet . . .

Government GREW under Reagan.

Once Reagan was out of office, his "legacy" was lost. We needed to be "kindler" and "gentler", doncha see?

And government's exponential growth continued - mostly unabated.

So what's my political philosophy? It's simply this. We have an uneducated public with no sense of where we came from - much less where we are going.. We have corruption at ALL levels of government. We have a corrupt, basically state run press.

We. Are. Passed. The. Point. Where. Elections. Are. Going. To. Fix. Our. Problems.

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

---

Quote: Rufus T Firefly wrote in post #20

---

. . .
It's interesting (and saddening) that the merits of conservatism apparently have to be "sold" on a putative conservative website. Oh well . . .

I'm not going to take time to defend conservatism. One either "is" or "isn't." Now someone can be a conservative AND a republican - but conservatism isn't a prerequisite. One can be a republican and a liberal. One can probably even be a republican and be apolitical (i.e. Karl Rove). Now, with that out of the way . . .

Perhaps I should take this opportunity to explain my political point of view. It's one that not many here will agree with, but it's uniquely mine.

When the Founders set up the USA, they assumed many things. They assumed the ultimate corrupt nature of Man. (they got that one right)

But they got a number of things wrong.

They assumed that corruption could be "managed" by a series of checks and balances. They (apparently) believed the watchdog to all this would be a free press (somehow incorruptable? hardly)

The Founders were educated men - and they must have assumed that classical education would always continue. They did not forsee the indoctrination that passes for public education.

Now don't get me wrong - the great men who fought our revolution and wrote our founding documents did an amazing thing in creating the US of A. And, it's a testament to their greatness that we've lasted over 200 years.

Perhaps it's the best mankind can do.

I'll close with this. Reagan was the most "conservative" POTUS elected since Coolidge. Unlike many in the present day GOP, he was a conservative at heart who could actually vocalize conservative principles. He could think "conservatism" on his feet.

I liked Reagan. A lot. I voted enthusiastically for him twice.

And yet . . .

Government GREW under Reagan.

Once Reagan was out of office, his "legacy" was lost. We needed to be "kindler" and "gentler", doncha see?

And government's exponential growth continued - mostly unabated.

So what's my political philosophy? It's simply this. We have an uneducated public with no sense of where we came from - much less where we are going.. We have corruption at ALL levels of government. We have a corrupt, basically state run press.

We. Are. Passed. The. Point. Where. Elections. Are. Going. To. Fix. Our. Problems.

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

---

Zitat

---

. . . Those who control information, entertainment, education, and social popularity -- the shadowy inventors of "politically correct" language, emotions, and reality which pull us with ten thousand different strings into perverse puppetry made to mimic true life -- are our equivalent of the Inner Party in Orwell's dystopia.

We cannot defeat them by elections; we can defeat them only by removing their power to dictate the films, music, art, manners, schools, charities, colleges, and causes

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/03/f...l#ixzz2MbNvPbce
. . .

---

Quote: Weird Tolkienish Figure wrote in post #33

---

...

I still want to change the course of government and will continue to vote to do so, naive as it may be. If for no other reason than to send a message.

---

Hear! Hear! Good one steph!

I have tried to splain this exact line of thinking to several of the reatards(with all due respect to the developmentaly challegened) at FR and other sites. I had a knock down drag out with the grifter himself over abortion. He was on his high horse about a candidate being 100% pro-life or go to hell. Politics is an eternal poker game. It has ebbs and flows for all involved. If you do not have a seat the table you are not in the game and cannot influence the outcome. Single issue voters are perpetually pissed off. Someone is not enough of this or that so I will not vote for them. No seat at the table. On abortion the president cannot do much to change it one way or the other. It is the law of the land. Sure they can influence it some(like 0 has done), but they cannot outlaw it or stop it. So if you take the long view (which the libs have done) and play money strategy you can influence the game, if you go bust in the first hand you are not at the table once again.

Now for the matter at hand.

Boehner is sitting at the poker table playing checkers.

Quote: FP123 wrote in post #35

---

Quote: Weird Tolkienish Figure wrote in post #33

---

...

I still want to change the course of government and will continue to vote to do so, naive as it may be. If for no other reason than to send a message.

---

The problem is, no one (in power) cares to receive your (or my) message. They're all happy to receive your check, but your message, not so much.

---

Quote: nerd wrote in post #29

---

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?

---

That was happening here big time yesterday.

---

Quote: Weird Tolkienish Figure wrote in post #30

---

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.

---

Purists would be anyone who thinks that politics is an "all or nothing game" on either side. Fact is that government in a democratic Republic such as ours is a question of compromise, give and take, etc.

I'm sorry you don't recognize this.

---

Quote: Weird Tolkienish Figure wrote in post #37

---

Quote: FP123 wrote in post #35

---

Quote: Weird Tolkienish Figure wrote in post #33

---

...

I still want to change the course of government and will continue to vote to do so, naive as it may be. If for no other reason than to send a message.

---

The problem is, no one (in power) cares to receive your (or my) message. They're all happy to receive your check, but your message, not so much.

---

Hey look, pins and gutters. You win some you lose some. We won big in 2010, not so much this year.

I guess I should quit huh? Give up the fight?

---

Quote: algernonpj wrote in post #39

---

First of all 'in theory' we have a constitutional republic.

Secondly many on both sides of the aisle have redefined compromise from 'give and take' to' dropping trou and bending over'.

---

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: Cedric wrote in post #40

---

Quote: The_Nevadan wrote in post #36

---

On abortion....It is the law of the land....

---

Which law are you referring to?

I don't remember seeing one passed.

---

Quote: The_Nevadan wrote in post #36

---

Hear! Hear! Good one steph!

I have tried to splain this exact line of thinking to several of the reatards(with all due respect to the developmentaly challegened) at FR and other sites. I had a knock down drag out with the grifter himself over abortion. He was on his high horse about a candidate being 100% pro-life or go to hell. Politics is an eternal poker game. It has ebbs and flows for all involved. If you do not have a seat the table you are not in the game and cannot influence the outcome. Single issue voters are perpetually pissed off. Someone is not enough of this or that so I will not vote for them. No seat at the table. On abortion the president cannot do much to change it one way or the other. It is the law of the land. Sure they can influence it some(like 0 has done), but they cannot outlaw it or stop it. So if you take the long view (which the libs have done) and play money strategy you can influence the game, if you go bust in the first hand you are not at the table once again.

Now for the matter at hand.

Boehner is sitting at the poker table playing checkers.

---