If not Bush, then who?

12-28-2003 | agitate

[Agitate]

I've noticed several threads where people say they will not vote for Bush if he supports certain causes. Some include:

Memogate:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1045476/posts

Broad Amnesty in immigration:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1046165/posts

(Please don't see this as an attack on those threads or any comments in them, it's not.)

While I agree with the conservative position on both of these threads, I don't understand how a person could not vote for Bush even if he does some things that are inexplicable from a conservative point of view.

My belief is nothing could be worse than a democrat in office in 2004. I know that is the lesser of two evils vote, but it is true.

Even if Bush gave amnesty to immigrants to pander to hispanics, which would be disgusting, is that reason enough to allow a democrat a greater chance to get in office? Wouldn't the dems likely do worse?

[Tim Osman]

You'll note (or you WOULD have noted, if you'd bother to read my post) that I was referring to non-defense spending. I love America every bit as much as you, and have no problem with reasonable, constitutional measures being taken to protect my country.

However I must thank you for reminding me of a Bush excuse I left off my list:

This is a time of war!

[inPhase]

Yep. Thanks.

[Tim Osman]

the internet is the only and a clear cut chance to change things away the big S.

And don't think they don't know it, either! Have you been keeping track of the latest attempts to regulate the internet? Disgraceful!

I would expect that out of some of the UN slime, but not our own elected officials!

[FairOpinion]

Let he, who never makes a typo cast the first stone. :)

I knew what you meant.

I think Bush is realistic and is doing the very best anyone can do, within the constraints he has.

Bush was elected President, not dictator. Just imagine what would happen, if he gave an order to grab all illegals, including women and children of course, and throw them across the border kicking and screaming.

I think the most important thing regarding illegal immigration is the stop it at the borders, to keep more of them from coming in. Bush did strengthen border security, but that can't be done to 100% from one day to the next.

As for the illegals who have been in the US for years and years, it is kind of hard to kick them out, as I said above. So the next best realistic option is to give them a chance to apply for legal residence, and give us a chance to do criminal background checks, then give the non-criminals legal status, but NOT government handouts.

THEN get really tough with anyone who enters the country illegally.

As I said, this may not be the "ideal solution", but it's pretty much the only realistic one.

[inPhase]

HLD is a problem, a real invasion. Some non pc profiling would go a long way too.

[Defender2]

And If You want to Divide, Continue with your crying!!!! I will Vote For President Bush in 2004!!!! At least He has the GUTS to Face The Enemy with Right IS Might!!!! I will continue to fight our enemies while you cry in your whatever drink it is over money!!!! Defeat of our enemies is much more important to me than money, so go ahead and continue to cry over it!!!!

[inPhase]

What in the world are you up to that this is posted? Gee.
Miss your old posts by the fireside.
Still remember our trip to DC.

(re NE Patriots)

[inPhase]

We support you and you have a CINC to salute, I respect that.

But we cannot just sit quiet while socialism the other enemy gains ground.

Safe travel.

[Agitate]

Do you think that Bush will not "submit" to the UN? What is going on in Afghanastan or to what extent? Anyway I hope you are right.

In the name of God I hope he doesn't! The UN, the ICC and the EU are essentially anti-American entities who have a problem with us being a powerful nation. We will never get a fair shake with them.

The fact that Bush acted regardless of the UN for the good of our nation on Iraq is a good sign he won't submit. I hope he is never influenced by the Loony left demonstrations we have seen in London and San Francisco.

I must admit I am not up to speed on Afghanastan lately (so much information, so little time!).

I just hope Bush is the candidate who will not sell us out. I think we should stay in the UN if for nothing else but to veto France(spit), but the UN should never, EVER have say over our troops or our actions as a nation.

[inPhase]

No. I know that the routing is controlled precisely and that they want to tax the internet repeatedly. But what key words should I search?

[Defender2]

I hate Socialism/Communism/Terrorism just like you do But I am more concerned with the TOTAL Defeat of those who would destroy U.S.. I am Especially more concerned about that then Stinking Money. Glad you see my point. And I see yours. Very Best FReegards, Defender2 D2

[Agitate]

I do not care for alot that he has done but what he has done outweighs the bad.

The thought of a demonrat running this country again is a scarry thought and must be stopped especially if Hillary is in the running.

I agree, even though over all I really like GWB. May God forgive me for the thoughts I have when Hillary(spit) is mentioned! She must NEVER be allowed back in the white house.

[NewLand]

Interesting points, and I do agree in regards to our border security...we need to have a harsh and no exceptions policy. Illegal immigrant = next boat or train out of the USA. Caught in the act of entry = target practice. All non-US citizens of Arab or Persian origination = OUT OF USA...NOW! That's how I feel about that issue.

Having said all that, we have had 40 years of liberal activism that has permeated our courts, our local governments, our schools, our media, etc. It will not change overnight. Bush is, at least, attacking a few of the most imminent threats.

Liberalism will only be 'flushed' from our society by a massive growth in the willpower to do so...which can take time, or happen instantly by fascist control of our Executive branch...i.e. "Clinton II"...

[LexBaird]

Alright everyone, here's another spin on the thread's premise:

If, for some reason, Bush suddenly could not run in '04 (say sudden stroke or illness), who would be your choice then, and why?

[arasina]

I'm wichoo, Ag. I'm enjoying the tax cuts, feeling more secure because of the WOT, and happy that a president finally signed a ban on late-term abortions, among other things. I'm looking forward to finding full-time employment again with the economy on the upswing.

I understand that our president has to "be a politician" in order to reverse so many years of a socialistic trend in our country. What the leftists accomplished with incrementalism and scare tactics can't be defeated overnight.

I do hope this administration will hear the outcry of American citizens regarding illegal immigration and actually represent our point of view on that issue. That's one of my few complaints. However, I'm voting for George W. Bush in 2004. He is a good man who is honest, strong (but sensitive---I like that) and faithful to his duty as President of The United States.

[alnick]

and my brother who lives in AZ plus a retired Marine friend who is a deputy sheriff in AZ tell me that it's common knowledge that middle easterners abound in Mexico who have been offering LOTS of money to be escorted through the border to someplace beyond the checkpoints.

What have you, your brother or his friend done about that? Have any of you reported it to the authorities?

[Leatherneck_MT]

First of all let me thank you for putting it like this instead of just attacking the reasons and the person who posts them. It makes a huge difference in the way some of us respond. Now, on to my personal response.

The Republican Party needs a wake up call. They have drifted further and further to the left, AFTER they won the House, the Senate and the White House on Conservative Stands.

It galls me to no end that we voted for a man (and a Senate and Congress) who spouted the Conservative Mantra, but then as soon as they get into office they do a 180 on us and run towards the middle.

I personally won't vote for anyone regardless of party who lies to me. I feel that I have been lied to.

If the Republican Party wants my vote, then they have to stand for what I believe on a Majority of issues.

With

Medicare
Gun Control
Immigration
National Education
Etc. Etc..

They are totally opposite of what I was looking for in our electorate.

The ONLY thing that they are on my side on is National Defense.

I won't have my head pissed on by the Republican Party while they pat me on the cheek and say "Don't worry, it's only raining."

If you want my vote, then support the majority of my ideals. Otherwise I will sit this next one out.

My vote alone won't make a difference, but I have a TON of friends and relatives who all feel the same way. We as a GROUP will make one HELL of a difference.

Semper Fi

P.S. The Republican Party better get a clue, because I am talking to more and more people who are registered republicans (as I am) who are saying the same thing. Regretfully we may have to give up the white house, the congress and or the Senate in order to send the message that we are GOING to be heard, or the Republicans are GOING to be out of office.. Again.

[Tim Osman]

And If You want to Divide, Continue with your crying!!!!

I noticed you didn't actually answer anything I said, but continued your script. I read a little of your posting history, and you seem to use an identical script on many threads. Allow me to post some of them:

And If You want to Divide, Continue with your crying!!!!

WAAAAAAAAA!!!!!

Comments from yet another Divider Crybaby WAAAAAAAAA Loser!!!!

I hate to bust your bubble but you come across as a WAAAAAA!!!!! CRyBaby LOSER!!!!

WAAAAAA!!!!!! Yet another Divider, LOSER!!!!

WAAAAAAA!!!! You Also come across as a Divider, LOSER!!!!

I see you as coming across as WWWWwwwwAAAAaaaaAAAAaaaa!!!! WAAAAAA!!!!

Another WAAAA!!!! DIVIDER!!!! LOSER!!!!

Divider!!!! LOSER!!!!

WAAAAAA!!!! Loser!!!!


These are all actual Defender2 quotes, from different threads. Now who is being divisive?

Everyone who disagrees with you is not a loser, a whiner, a crybaby, or a divider. In fact, these posts indicate that you have a history of divisive behavior - when people try to have a rational discourse, along you come and disrupt them.

The people making these complaints you hate so much is doing it because they love liberty, and care about the country - like you. Can't you just respect them, or at least rationally debate, instead of the name-calling?

[inPhase]

I think we pay 20 % of thge UN budget, not sure if true. I read "nearly 70 percent of those polled calling for greater U.N. activity there" and I found:

U.N. resists pressure for Iraq involvement

Public opinion surveys of Americans show that 60 percent of respondents approve of President Bush's conduct of the Iraq operation. The surveys also show nearly 70 percent of those polled calling for greater U.N. activity there. Even the U.N.-wary Bush administration has joined in the calls for the world body to get more involved right away.

Yet, with these urgent summonses coming into its New York headquarters from all sides, the United Nations is resisting.
http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/special_packages/iraq/7585094.htm

United Nations budget tops $3 billion for the first time; more money for Iraq, Afghanistan


The U.N. operations in Afghanistan and Iraq will get more money next year as the world body's budget tops $3 billion for the first time, officials said Wednesday.

Secretary-General Kofi Annan had asked for an increase of 0.5 percent from the 2002-2003 budget, but he didn't get any increase and his request for 117 new posts was cut by almost half to 64 new jobs, budget director Warren Sach said.

But the new budget is the first since 1996-97 that is nominally higher because it takes into account inflation and currency fluctuations, Sach said.

U.N. spokesman Fred Eckhard said Annan is satisfied with the result.

"I don't think you ever get 100 percent in a negotiation, and I think from the secretariat's point of view we're pleased with the responsiveness of the member states to the secretary-general's reform initiatives," he said.

The General Assembly approved a budget of more than $3.1 billion for the two-year period by consensus late Tuesday night after long and difficult negotiations. "It was very much a cliffhanger towards the end," Sach told a news conference.

The final U.N. budget for 2002-2003 was $2.967 billion.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2003/12/24/international2029EST0728.DTL

[Leatherneck_MT]

Why don't you grow up and hold an adult conversation?

Or is that beyond your mental and emotional capacity.