Skip to comments.
If not Bush, then who?
12-28-2003
| agitate
Posted on 12/28/2003 11:26:16 AM PST by 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?
TOPICS: Culture/Society; Government; Politics/Elections; Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: 2004; bush
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 221-240, 241-260, 261-280 ... 481-496 next last
To: Luis Gonzalez
I've been beat up in this forum for suggesting that the SCOTUS does not lead anyone in any particular way, but simply acknowledges the direction we've already taken as a society.I see, so they were just caving into popular demand when they decided to begin imposing foreign law on us.
241
posted on
12/28/2003 9:37:00 PM PST
by
inquest
(The only problem with partisanship is that it leads to bipartisanship)
To: inquest; Common Tator
Nothing changed.Tator's point was that yes, we have Rush, et al, and we have FR and other good sites. The squishy middle does not listen to Rush nor do they bother to read the sites.
I stated earlier, sometimes a what appears to be a setback is actually a resounding victory.Think Battle of the Coral Sea.So it is with some of W's apparent lefty tilts.
242
posted on
12/28/2003 9:37:23 PM PST
by
gatorbait
(Yesterday, today and tomorrow......The United States Army)
To: inquest
I'd be happy if the Democrats adopted the platform of the Constitution Party.
To dream the impossible dream...... Don Quixote one of your heroes?
243
posted on
12/28/2003 9:38:24 PM PST
by
gatorbait
(Yesterday, today and tomorrow......The United States Army)
To: gatorbait
Thank you kind Sir. (striking a pose)
To: inquest
Excellent solvo.
To: gatorbait
I know it's impossible. I was responding to nopardons's idiotic remark that because the Democrats adopted the Bull Moose platform, the Bull Moosers were failures.
246
posted on
12/28/2003 9:42:09 PM PST
by
inquest
(The only problem with partisanship is that it leads to bipartisanship)
To: inquest
Look, when you make such an outlandish statement, such as you don't care WHICH of the major political parties picks up YOUR ball and runs with it, on a Conservative forum, and then claim that 1)I didn't refute you 2)correct you 3)made irrelevant point, etc. it's way past time that you get someone to read and explain the threads and posts to you.
And as far as " logic " goes...go but some;you haven't a shred of any.
247
posted on
12/28/2003 9:43:31 PM PST
by
nopardons
(OOK, W2HEN YOU MAKE AS OUTLAQNDISH A STATEMENT, AS YOU DID, ABOUT NOT CARINFG)
To: inquest
I'd be happy if the Democrats adopted the platform of the Constitution Party.
To: Kevin Curry
hey, Kevin, you're getting there. Another post I can totally relate to. Thanks!
249
posted on
12/28/2003 9:45:23 PM PST
by
dcwusmc
("The most dangerous man, to any government, is the man who is able to think things out for himself.)
To: inquest
the Bull Moosers were failures
In the end, they did fail.That particular election led to the election of Woodrow Wilson, whom I have come to regard as one one the 5 worst Presidents ever.
I believe firmly that the Bull moosers truly believed in their cause , right into March ,1913.I also believe that,thought certain of their platform was enacted ,or at least given lip service, in the main, they remain a failed party.
250
posted on
12/28/2003 9:45:34 PM PST
by
gatorbait
(Yesterday, today and tomorrow......The United States Army)
To: MissAmericanPie
the pleasure is mine, ma'am (taking a bow :-) )
251
posted on
12/28/2003 9:46:15 PM PST
by
gatorbait
(Yesterday, today and tomorrow......The United States Army)
To: Agitate
I agree with you, Agitate. I also believe that in a second term, Bush will be 'freer' to do some of the things that we would like to see done.
252
posted on
12/28/2003 9:46:33 PM PST
by
potlatch
(Whenever I feel 'blue', I start breathing again.)
To: woodyinscc
You're welcome. LOL
No,it REALLY wasn't worth it, but I figured, oh what the hey. :-)
To: nopardons
There's nothing outlandish about not caring about the name of the party that adopts my platform. It's what's inside the bottle that counts, not the label on the outside. If you can't see that, you're simply hopeless.
254
posted on
12/28/2003 9:46:43 PM PST
by
inquest
(The only problem with partisanship is that it leads to bipartisanship)
To: woodyinscc
Which unpardonablyobtuse interpreted to mean that I thought it was likely that they would. Choose well the company you hang out with.
255
posted on
12/28/2003 9:49:09 PM PST
by
inquest
(The only problem with partisanship is that it leads to bipartisanship)
To: inquest
But they WERE! Teddy was a GOPer first, he split the GOP vote and a Dem became president,all because of his ego.
And if you < B> RFEALLY wsant to read " idiotic " posts...read your own.;^)
To: gatorbait
That's all well and good, but what I was referring to was their agenda. They managed to get their agenda implemented by dangling it in front of the major parties. As third parties have historically been able to do once they acquire sufficient momentum.
257
posted on
12/28/2003 9:51:51 PM PST
by
inquest
(The only problem with partisanship is that it leads to bipartisanship)
To: nopardons
So you're into bait-and-switch too. Understandable. You need all the help you can get.
258
posted on
12/28/2003 9:53:28 PM PST
by
inquest
(The only problem with partisanship is that it leads to bipartisanship)
To: inquest
Oh, I see, snake oil And treason is fine and dandy, just as long as you imagine that you're getting 100% of what you think you want. Okay, I see it all clearly now. You'd vote for the candidates run by the American Communist Party, if and when they said that they were would take the CP's platform.
You see, you'd have NO guarantee at all, none, but you'd gladly buy, as whole cloth, whatever some party hands you, just as long as you imagine you'll be getting what you want.Names are meaningless, past history is meaningless,and if you don't get 100% of what you want RIGHT NOW, you're gonna stamp your feet, take your ball and go home to pout and sulk.
To: inquest
260
posted on
12/28/2003 10:01:00 PM PST
by
dcwusmc
("The most dangerous man, to any government, is the man who is able to think things out for himself.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 221-240, 241-260, 261-280 ... 481-496 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson