THE DEMOCRAT PARTY IS BEYOND CORRUPT, IT'S ALSO EVIL WARNS JIM ROBINSON IN SCATHING ATTACK OF TRUTH

freerepublic ^ | 9/21/2002 | Jim Robinson

[TLBSHOW]

The Democrat Party is beyond corrupt, It's also evil.

And what is this evil that triumphs when good men do nothing? What are we really talking about here and is it worth fighting for? Is it worth turning our heads and allowing evil to continue on while we do nothing? (and I count voting for a third party candidate when knowing that he has absolutely no chance of defeating the Democrat, and worse, actually planning and hoping to knock out the Republican candidate who otherwise might have defeated the Democrat, as doing nothing).

Corruption is accepting campaign cash from the Chinese in exchange for military hardware. Corruption is accepting campaign cash as bribes from Indonesian power brokers, from Buddhist Monks, from corrupt corporate moguls. Corruption is defined by the myriad criminal acts and practices of the Clintons and the Gores and their corrupt Democrat minions.

Corruption is the land grabs, the power grabs, the gun grabs, the bribery, the shady deals, the high crimes and treason. Corruption is the theft of campaign dollars through forced labor union deductions. Corruption is the systematic indoctrination of several generations of our youth with socialist dogma via government school systems. Corruption is the removal of God from public life and substituting in the evil homosexual/feminist agenda and the destruction of moral society. Corruption is lying to the public about global warming and the selling of the Kyoto treaty. Corruption is giving up our national sovereignty to the United Nations. Corruption is the abuses of office, obstruction of justice, lying, perjury and subornation of perjury.

The Democrat Party is thoroughly corrupt. There is no question about that, but it's way beyond corrupt. It's also evil.

Waco was evil. The killing of innocent men, women, children and babies is evil. Torturing them for weeks on end, gassing them, and then burning them alive is pure evil. This was perpetrated by a corrupt and evil Democrat Administration and covered-up by corrupt and evil Democrat Congressmen and Senators, many of whom you are saying should be allowed to remain in office even today.

And as bad as that is, it pales in comparison to the Democrat government sanctioned and funded wholesale slaughter of the most innocent life of all, the murder of innocent human life in the womb. This is evil. Pure evil. And this evilness is openly perpetrated by a thoroughly corrupt and evil Democrat Party. The same corrupt and evil Democrat Congress and Judiciary whom you are now saying deserve to remain in office.

IMHO, allowing these Democrats to remain in power is aiding and abetting the corruption and treason, and is acting as an accessory before and after the fact to the murderers of innocent human life. Is doing nothing and allowing this evil to triumph evil itself?

I love my country. I love the Constitution. I love life. I love God. I know that the Democrats hate my country, hate the Constitution, hate God and hate human life. I see that the only Party capable of blocking and defeating the evil Democrats is the Republican Party. I see that many races are so close that as little as a one percent siphon of conservative votes to a third party could be the difference between success and failure. I see allowing a Democrat to remain in power when it could have been prevented as a triumph of evil.

JIM ROBINSON

[WhiteGuy]

How many of clifton's total were confirmed by a gop controled senate?

[Budge]

I used to compare you with Doug Thompson (Capitol Hill Blue), somebody who wanted the corruption out of our system of government no matter which party they were affiliated with.

There is only one way to get the corruption out of our government, and that is to take baby steps!

We already know that democRATS are dyed-in-the-wool socialists, totally against the Constitution. We know this not by what they say, but what they do! Our first chore is to give Republicans control of both houses and the presidency. Then we can begin to rid ourselves of the McCains, etc.!

We, the people can never do that if the democRATS regain control!

I said it before, I'll say it again...third party candidates will have NO support until they win local offices!

[WhiteGuy]

For sake of argument,

Let's say all the third party voters hold their noses and vote for the candidate with the "r".

The gop then wins back the senate and retains the house.

What will you do if taxes go up, government regulations increase, even more laws are passed that trample the bill of rights, and the u.n. is still in NYC?

Would you come back next time for more of the same?

Is it enough for you to just be on the winning side?

Where is your line in the sand?

[LS]

Jack you are absolutely right, TECHNICALLY. That is what the platform said. But due to the perceptions of the day by both North and South---that without expansion, slavery itself was doomed---everyone "knew" that "expansion"=abolition. If you read the speeches of both pro-slave and "free soil" people in the 1850s, there is no question whatsoever that "free soil" people like Lincoln (who was not an abolitionist) fully expected that the shift in Congress, combined with the outside forces, would end slavery in the South soon.

More important, though, any "free soil" president---and Lincoln was the first---would be able to override the pro-slave regimes in the South by appointing anti-slave federal judges, marshals, customs inspectos, and postmasters. This was critical, and everyone knew it. From 1836 on, only having a "northern man of southern principles" in the White House prevented war, and thus the Dems intended to keep the White House, which they did, except for two weak Whigs who had no intention on acting on slavery.

[AppyPappy]

Restore freedom in America: vote out the Republi-Crats!!!

C'mon Darth, You stole that bumper sticker from the Libertarians.

[AppyPappy]

Gotta disagree. I voted for some Libertarians once because the Dem wasn't that bad (although I didn't want to vote for him) and the Repub was a crook. I also voted and worked for a Democrat running for County Commissioner.

I'll vote for the most honest and conservative candidate regardless of party. The Lincoln Chaffees and Jeffords of the world can kiss my rosy red prosperity. We need more Jesse Helms!!

[Constitution Day]

C'mon Darth, You stole that bumper sticker from the Libertarians.

He can't answer you...

Darth Sidious signed up 1999-01-22.
This account has been banned.

[redrock]

I agree.

But since I consider those who co-operate with evil to be evil...then we must also vote out those Republicans who have been co-operating.

Which means most need to go.

redrock

[FatherTorque]

Libertarians are NOT Conservatives. They're CINOS. Some , here, have finally figured that out / had enough of them , have decided that they've had enough of the LP's positions, pack that party in, and come back to the ONLY Conservative party. Others, like you, just need more time to decide whether you are a REAL Conservative, or not.

The sad part is you probably believe this tripe you wrote. Republicans the ONLY conservative party? Bwahaha. Well they're more conservative than the Democrats I'll give you that much. Course that's not saying much.

[gratefulwharffratt]

And we're becoming worse than the Clintonistas ever were!! Those idiots worshipped Clinton as if he were God on earth. How the hell can we say we're any different than they when the Bush-bots fawn and swoon at the feet of King Dubya?

G.W. Ratt = BushBot #1

I hope that caused a Maalox moment for you, as we KNOW you are still lurking.

[TLBSHOW]

How do you define a conservative?

Yep, that is some question you have there.
Why are you even here at FR?

[ClancyJ]

I have two lines in the sand.

The primary one is against the democrats whose policies I believe are destroying the country, who have been taken over by socialistic minded politicians that work against America.

The second one is against the Libertarians and other radical conservatives that are so close-minded, so anti any government, so judgemental of any action by a Republican president that they sabotage the Republican efforts in any and all ways they can. They are pawns for the democrat party and as such are enemies behind our lines.

I have no respect for these so-called conservatives who plot and scheme to destroy any effort to promote a republican claiming they are not pure enough. Yet - we never hear them complain about the democrats.

I really wonder about a group that shoots their allies in the back rather than spending the bullets on the enemy advancing. How brave they are to follow the lead of Republicans and shoot from behind rather than face the real enemy. Makes you wonder about their real agenda doesn't it?


By the way for the sake of argument - What have you done to defeat the democrats?

[hchutch]

The thing is, though, the big item is Afghanistan and foreign policy. Since 9/11/2001, it has become the most important issue out there, bar none.

[NittanyLion]

How do you define a conservative? Yep, that is some question you have there. Why are you even here at FR?

All due respect, it's a fair question. If folks are going to advocate a common cause it's important we clearly define the cause itself. Some people will tell you "conservative" means small government. Others will tell you it means using government to influence morality. Both are probably somewhat correct; the average modern-day "conservative" falls somewhere in the middle.

[WhiteGuy]

Let me see if I understand you.

You are willing to vote for any republican under any circumstance, in an effort to simply defeat a democrat.

You consider those who believe in our constitution and it's specific outline of limited government, to be "radical conservatives" and put them in the same class as the democrats.

You believe that all who claim to be republicans are allies, and everyone else is your enemy.

I know many of these "radicals" who will vote for an honest representative who believes in smaller limited government, for personal liberty and the freedoms given to us all by god. These radicals will vote for this type of candidate if their name is followed by the letter "r" or not.

They believe that their vote is the only means of recording their approval or disapproval of a candidate.

By the way for the sake of argument - What have you done to defeat the democrats?

I vote FOR candidates who I believe will honor their oath to uphold the constitution. I am willing to financially support these candidates. I have yet to identify a democrat who meets this simple requirement. Therefore, I don't support or vote for democrats.

[Southflanknorthpawsis]

The second one is against the Libertarians and other radical conservatives that are so close-minded, so anti any government, so judgemental of any action by a Republican president that they sabotage the Republican efforts in any and all ways they can. They are pawns for the democrat party and as such are enemies behind our lines.

I have no respect for these so-called conservatives who plot and scheme to destroy any effort to promote a republican claiming they are not pure enough. Yet - we never hear them complain about the democrats.

I must say that these too paragraphs of yours sum it all up for me. It says it all and says it so well.

[tacticalogic]

All due respect, it's a fair question.

I thinks so. I also think it's a fair question to ask if social conservtivism automatically implies political conservativism. Is it possible to be a social conservative, but a political liberal - ie to pursue a socially conservative agenda by politically liberal means?

[WhiteGuy]

Then you haven't been paying attention ... at all. Please do so. Go look at the people, who have been BORKED / totally ignored. Then, look into each of them and get back to me. You may have to change your under things. :-)

You know, I think I will. My theory so far is that gwb is nominating candidates who he knows will not be confirmed, in an attempt to make the partisanship an election year issue.

I could be wrong of course, but I don't believe that the administration that gave us CFR and the "Patriot Act" would walk accross the street to fight for a constitutionalist judge.

Now, since YOU brought it up......

How do you know that I even wear "under-things" HA

[NittanyLion]

I thinks so. I also think it's a fair question to ask if social conservtivism automatically implies political conservativism. Is it possible to be a social conservative, but a political liberal - ie to pursue a socially conservative agenda by politically liberal means?

My personal opinion is that people will act responsibly if they understand they'll need to bear the consequences of their actions. The best way to do so is to remove government handouts from the equation. In that respect, less government will encourage more responsibility, and vice versa.

[VadeRetro]

Darth Sidious signed up 1999-01-22.
This account has been banned.

Not the only case.

JediGirl signed up 2001-04-19.
This account has been banned.

Denounced in this fashion:

How do you define "conservative"? I seriously would like to know since you are on record as pro-abortion, pro drug legalization and an outspoken animal rights adherent.

832 posted on 9/24/02 3:10 AM Eastern by Texasforever

Answered thus:

I define a conservative as somebody who wants to return to a constitutionally limited gov't. But lately, conservative has come to mean someone who wants the government to endorse their big money guzzling programs instead of those of the liberals.

I am against abortion after the first trimester. I am against prohibition. And I don't think that we should treat animals shoddily before humans consume them.

834 posted on 9/24/02 3:24 AM Eastern by JediGirl

And outta here. It's been a draw-'em-out-of-the-woodwork-and-ban-'em kind of thread.