[bc2]

Are you folks serious? And people wonder why there are daily threads discussing why libertarians and other constitutional conservatives are abandoning the GOP.

Is becoming the party that grows government the fastest, has the most debt, takes away the most liberty, your goal for the GOP? Is your only answer to move left, to adopt socialist policies and let socialists into the party? Is this how we are going to promote small government (and subsequently low taxes), Natural Rights, private property, and personal responsability?

Do you even care about smaller government, lower taxes, less government programs, less regulation, Natural Rights?

This is truly disgusting to read on FR. Is this a conservative forum or am I reading Bizzaro Free Republic?

God help us!

[OldFriend]

You have my deepest sympathies. Feel free to vote for Dean/Clark.

[narses]

Reagan couldn't shrink government. Bush has cut taxes. Y'all want to cry for the moon, cry. Bush kept his promises.

[NutCrackerBoy]

Do you even care about smaller government, lower taxes, less government programs, less regulation, Natural Rights?

Yes.

My offense was that I said I liked Joe Lieberman and that he is a DINO. I don't forget that he is from the enemy party.

BTW, Joe was pretty vocal during the 2000 debacle about not throwing out military ballots. Lip service? Well, Gore had to distance himself from throwing out military ballots to avoid appearing to be jerk. At the time, I was unwilling to give Lieberman the benefit of the doubt, but now I am.

[Lando Lincoln]

Hey bc2...before I rev up here, understand that I am not a Joe Lieberman fan. I do not support him for president.

It's true that ol' Joe is a democrat, but he is to the right of everyone in the field from that socialist collectivist party. And, compared to Hillary or Gore......well, there is no comparison. During the debacle of the 2000 election, he was drawn by powerful forces that were largely beyond his control. He did not support the disenfranchisement of the military vote. He continues to support a strong military, national defense, the war on terror and a strong Israel. All this, while toeing the party line.

My point in my previous post was to agree with Southack that in the event of Lieberman wanting to switch parties, he would be welcome. He has some measure of integrity. Comparing him to the Kennedy's, the Clinton's and the Gore's make that obvious.

Lando

[Southack]

"Are you folks serious? And people wonder why there are daily threads discussing why libertarians and other constitutional conservatives are abandoning the GOP."

Dealing with reality bothers you, somehow?

Lieberman remains in the Senate no matter what at this point.

You can let him remain a Democrat, where it will cost us more money, pork, and favors to overcome Democratic Party filibusters (your preferred option, I presume), or else you can offer him a plum like a Senate committee chairmanship and have him caucus with Republicans.

But either way, Lieberman remains in the Senate. It's just a question of what sort of power is used to buy his votes that remains...

Presuming, of course, that you **want** the Senate to approve Bush's privatization of Social Security, Bush's judicial nominees, school vouchers, and a comprehensive Energy Bill in the next legislative session.

---

Far too many idealists seem to be jumping onto Free Republic as of late, all pretending to a fault that we have Dictator Bush in office rather than a President, and all of whom seem to likewise be ignoring the power that the Democrats still retain as if we don't have to deal with them in the least.

That's juvenile fantasy land, kid.