Any More Questions?

http://www.terpsboy.com/ ^ | 10-23-03 | Rodger Schultz

[Rodger Schultz]

It's Just Not Safe to Vote Democratic.

"The single most important matter to me, and one that should be to the whole United States, is terrorism, security of the country, security of the homeland, standing up to those who want to destroy us, and he's doing that better than Gore would have, and I don't know anyone who would do it as well at this moment in the Democratic party." - Former New York City Mayor, and Democrat,Ed Koch

Democrats - "Go to hell America."

"Once upon a time, the most successful Democratic leader of them all, FDR, looked south and said, 'I see one-third of a nation ill-housed, ill clad, ill nourished.' Today our national Democratic leaders look south and say, 'I see one-third of a nation and it can go to hell.' "  United States Sen. Zell Miller, Democrat, GA.

Democrat leadership is non existant

Democrats "fumbled the seminal moment of our lives - the terrorist attacks of 9/11 .. [amd] "have failed to approach the problem with the urgency or comprehensiveness that it demands."  [President]  "Bush exemplified leadership at a time when America was desperate for a leader."  Former Clinton federal housing secretary, Andrew Cuomo (D NY),

[Graybeard58]

"What's the one phrase no democrat presidential candidate has uttered"


...I've wondered that myself. They are all dancing to the same tune. If even one of them had the ba11s to say, "I support our policy in the war against terrorism" he would gain a measure of respect. He still would not get my vote but I would respect him for it.
...Zell Miller a firm supporter of Pres. Bush anti terrorism policy and supporter of Iraq policy, retiring. I think it's probably from disgust with his dem party.

[Badray]

" Give me another party that is taking terrorism and national security as a serious issue -- even if you or I don't necessarily agree with the details of how they go about it..."

This would be funny if you weren't serious. We still have open borders, but you and I (unless you are a Muslim male between the ages of 17 and 44) are treated like terrorists when we go to the airport.

The USA PATRIOT Act is being attacked from both the left and the right, yet this administration and John Ashcroft will not even admit the possibility that the law is fraught with dangers to our civil liberties. Even if this administration is as pure as the driven snow, they will not be in power forever.

Evil is evil, regardless of degree. I will not vote for an evil "R" just because he is less evil than the "D". The "R" has more potential for damage because he is perceived my many as as a friend and he is already inside the camp. Just look at Jeffords, Chaffee, Snowe, and Specter. Specter doesn't do the right thing unless he has a conservative opponent in an election year and even then he can't be trusted. He is still opposing vouchers for DC children and the nominees for the Federal bench that Bush has put forth.

I think that Bush is doing pretty good with the overseas portion of the WoT, but domestically he is far from exemplary. When will he veto something? When will he cut some spending? When will he stop signing such unconstitutional gargage like CFR? When will he stop pledging to sign bills like the AWB?

[Celtjew Libertarian]

It's a thought, though I'm somewhat more socially libertarian. I'd like to see the Dems reduced to 3rd party status, though. If they nominate Dean, it could happen.

[Celtjew Libertarian]

I agree with you that there are problems with the Patriot act, CFR, and other aspects of Bush's domestic policy. However, all this makes no difference if our country isn't secure from terrorism.

I oppose attempts to block the exercise of our rights, whether by Democrats or Republicans. However, unless we are actively defending ourselves against terrorism, we're not going to be able keep them in the first place.

I'll look into the Constitution Party, as I said above. However, the only major party candidates that seem to take terrorism seriously are Bush and Lieberman. And I have more problems with Lieberman, when it comes to our rights, than I do with most Republicans.

[FreedomPoster]

There's a thread on the topic of transnational progressivism here on Free Republic somewhere. I'm pretty sure it's bookmarked on the desktop upstairs. That is an important concept that deserves more attention and thought.

[Bob J]

Click Here for the RadioFR website!

Tonight on Radio FreeRepublic

Unspun with AnnaZ
October 23rd, 2003 -- 10pmE/7pmP

"At least when right-wingers rant, there's a point!"

Click HERE to listen LIVE while you FReep!

Would you like to receive a note when RadioFR is on the air? Send an email to radiofreerepublic-subscribe@radioactive.kicks-ass.net!

Click HERE to chat in the RadioFR chat room!

[dpa5923]

If hillary changes her party affiliation to republican and runs against Zell Miller vote for the R?

No thank you. I vote for the candidate that is most closely reflects my views.

[Consort]

Which of the two would you vote for?

[dpa5923]

You don't know Zell Miller. If you did, you wouldn't have asked. I would proudly cast a vote for that man. He is the democrat that sided with Republicans during their recent success in the Senate concerning organization of committee chairmanships. Read a little about him, you will understand. He is more conservative than many so-called republicans but he has a D after his name.

It's not the party but the principle I vote for. I will never be one of those old fools that says "Well I've always voted (fill in party here)."

Let me tell you a little story. Before my father in law passed on, we had numerous political discussions. Everything, from public schools to welfare, to government spending, to abortion, to gun control to gay rights, he stood firmly in the conservative camp. He ended every discussion with the infamous "Well, I've always been a Democrat." I loved my father-in-law, but he was a fool. Don't be one too.

[Lancey Howard]

Whoa, haven't seen your screen name for a while.
Good post!
Bump.

[ladyinred]

The links you provided are probably the best and most important I have ever clicked on. I would hope everyone else would take full advantage of the link, and then the link provided on that page to an article by John Fonte. It confirmed and brought together my most horrible fears, and more or less explains everything.

Thank you so much for providing the answers to all of my questions by posting this link!

[Consort]

I would proudly cast a vote for that man.

Then Miller would continue to be a good man and you would become part of the problem.

If, for example, a pro-life Democrat runs against a pro-choice Republican for the Senate, your views would dictate that you vote for the Democrat, but your common sense will tell you that if the Democrat wins, his/her party would never allow any of his/her pro-life proposals to be enacted....no way. And, if his/her election gives control to the Democrats, nothing that agrees with your view will be enacted. It's a major double loss.

[GOPJ]

McAuliffe won the Clintons hearts - that is, if they have hearts...

Yes, these are not the best of time for the Democrats. Has Terry McAuliffe won anything?

[GOPJ]

Can Democrats get money now ( or later) from the Sauds? Million dollar speeches etc?

What's the one phrase no democrat presidential candidate has uttered ?

"I vow to continue the War On Terror" Why ?

[Badray]

" However, all this makes no difference if our country isn't secure from terrorism."

I see it the exact opposite. I'd rather be free than safe. The worst that the terrorists can do is kill me. My government can, and wants to, enslave me. They will have to kill me.

At a time when Americans should be armed and preparing to defend themselves, the politicians are still trying to continue to disarm us and Bush says that he will sign the bill. That's a serious response to terrorism? I think that it is a slap in the face.

[Celtjew Libertarian]

I see it the exact opposite. I'd rather be free than safe. The worst that the terrorists can do is kill me. My government can, and wants to, enslave me. They will have to kill me.

As I see it, the free exercise of our rights is dependent on a certain level of safety. Freedom of the press is irrelevant (to choose an example), if the society is too chaotic for the output of a press to be distributed.

I'll speak out against those bills that are in opposition to our rights, but I don't see any serious option to Bush next year. It shouldn't be that way. Whether we should defend our country shouldn't be a matter of debate, but the left wing had taken over enough of the Democratic Party to make that the situation.

Maybe, if the Dems are smacked down hard this time, the 2008 election will be between two candidates who'll be serious about defending the country. Then I can choose the one who most supports our rights.

Until then, I will defend our rights with my writing and defend our nation with my vote.

[Badray]

"As I see it, the free exercise of our rights is dependent on a certain level of safety. Freedom of the press is irrelevant (to choose an example), if the society is too chaotic for the output of a press to be distributed."

I would agree, but I would prefer the chaos of a fight for liberty to the order of slavery or an overreaching, overbearing, oppressive government.

It's pretty sad when the democrat lineup is so bad that we look to a GOP President who signed all those bills, expanded government, increased the size and scope of government, and promises to do worse.

God, how I would love to be able to choose between two God fearing, liberty loving candidates who respect the Constitution and their oath to uphold it.

[Celtjew Libertarian]

I would agree, but I would prefer the chaos of a fight for liberty to the order of slavery or an overreaching, overbearing, oppressive government.

Me too. But I don't consider this administration to be slavery, nor overbearing or oppressive. Overreaching, yeah, but I doubt there has been or will ever be a government that's otherwise. The temptations of power are too great.

If they try to cancel the elections or something on that magnitude, then get back to me on this one. 8>)

[dpa5923]

If I, and the majority of Americans that desire limitations on abortions, voted for candidates that supported our view, legislation that restricts abortion would come up on the hill and be passed. But if I vote for candidates that will fight to prevent that legislation coming to the floor, it doesn't matter what party they belong to.

The political parties are not stagnate. They adapt and change over time. The democratic party of today is nothing like the democratic party of the 50's, or the 40's or the 30's.

But people, like you, told themselves that they would oppose republicans for whatever reason. That reason has long died, but you know, "I've always voted for democrats." will be the rallying cry.

Perhaps in 20 years the Republican Party views and policies will shift and it will no longer support conservative positions or limited government. I will vote for a conservative candidate. It appears you will vote for a republican even if her name is Hillary or Teddy or Jesse.

Why? "Because I've always voted Republican."

I have a friend who is black and agrees with almost every conservative position. But every election he votes democrat, cause he always has. Doesn’t matter what the issue is, doesn’t matter what the candidate believes, doesn’t matter what’s better for the city, state or nation, a democrat gets a vote. He’s a lot like you.

Don’t get me wrong. I have voted in every election I have been legally able to since I was 18. I have never voted for a democrat. The Republican Party best reflects my views and provides the better candidates by far; still I have only voted in Missouri and Texas. But I do not vote blindly. I research the candidates and the issues before I punch my card and vote for conservative candidate or issue not the one with the R next to it because it has an R next to it.

By the way, you never answered my question. Would you vote for Hillary if she espoused her current views but had an R next to her name instead of the conservative Zell Miller?

[Consort]

If I, and the majority of Americans that desire limitations on abortions, voted for candidates that supported our view, legislation that restricts abortion would come up on the hill and be passed.

No kidding...but it looks like most people voted for Gore in the last general election.

The political parties are not stagnate. They adapt and change over time.

And the Democrat Party is getting more socialistic all the time.

Why? "Because I've always voted Republican."

Stereotypical...but for the time being, vote for the GOP. You can vote Democrat some other time if they become the better party...but don't hold you breath.

But every election he votes democrat,...

And you would vote for Zell along with him. Not good at all.

The Republican Party best reflects my views and provides the better candidates by far...

That is correct at this time, even if a Hillary look-alike comes along once in a while and somehow manages to make it through the primaries...all parties have their rotten eggs. What is best for America?....the Democrats in control with Zell Miller and a bunch or socialists?......or the GOP in control with Hillary and a bunch of Conservatives? I'll go with the party of conservatives and I'll vote accordingly. The very slim GOP margin in the Senate allowed passage of the Partial Birth Abortion Ban the other day, otherwise it would never had been considered. So, Hillary would be just another RINO among other RINOs (and less influential) but, for now, RINOs help make us a majority in Congress. Seeing what has become of the Democrat Party, I would not vote for a Democrat, Conservative or otherwise.