VANITY: The best way to keep America a sovereign free nation is to keep the Democrats out of power!

Free Republic

[Jim Robinson]

Will Bush solve the illegal immigration problem? Probably not. But neither will Kerry, Edwards, Dean, Clark or Hillary. Chances are, they'd make it worse. Probably far worse.

Will Bush solve the government spending problem? Probably not. But neither will Kerry, Edwards, Dean, Clark or Hillary. Chances are, they'd make it worse. Probably far worse.

Will Bush solve the campaign finance problem? Probably not. But neither will Kerry, Edwards, Dean, Clark or Hillary. Chances are, they'd make it worse. Probably far worse.

Will Bush solve the drug war problem? Probably not. But neither will Kerry, Edwards, Dean, Clark or Hillary. Chances are, they'd make it worse. Probably far worse.

Will Bush solve the nation's education problems? Probably not. But neither will Kerry, Edwards, Dean, Clark or Hillary. Chances are, they'd make it worse. Probably far worse.

Will Bush solve the so-called healthcare problems? Probably not. But neither will Kerry, Edwards, Dean, Clark or Hillary. Chances are, they'd make it worse. Probably far worse.

Will Bush solve the so-called environmental problems? Probably not. But neither will Kerry, Edwards, Dean, Clark or Hillary. Chances are, they'd make it worse. Probably far worse.

Will Bush solve the social security problems? Probably not. But neither will Kerry, Edwards, Dean, Clark or Hillary. Chances are, they'd make it worse. Probably far worse.

Will Bush solve the medicare problems? Probably not. But neither will Kerry, Edwards, Dean, Clark or Hillary. Chances are, they'd make it worse. Probably far worse.

Will Bush defend America from those bent on destroying her? You'd better bet your sweet bippy he will.

Will any of the Democrats defend America? Hell no they won't. They'd rather turn us over to the U.N. They'd surrender to the French Foreign Legion if given the chance.

Will Bush appoint conservative judges? Yup!

Will Kerry, Edwards, Clark, Hillary, et al, appoint conservative judges? Yeah, right. And hell will freeze over tomorrow.

Will Bush continue reducing taxes? Yup.

Will Kerry, Edwards, Clark, Hillary, et al, raise your taxes as soon as they possibly can if given the opportunity and continue raising them until hell freezes over? Yup.

Will Bush defend the right to life? Check

Will Bush defend marriage between a man a woman? Check

Will Bush defend the right to keep and bear arms? Check

Will Bush say no to Kyoto? Check.

Will Bush say no to a world court? Check.

Will Bush say no to the U.N.? Check.

Will Kerry, Edwards, Clark, Hillary, et al, remove our national sovereignty and subjugate America to world government? Just as quickly as they possibly can if given the opportunity.

Will any other person be elected to the Presidency in 2004 other than Bush (God willing) or a Democrat? Obviously not.

Doesn't make a lick of sense to me to allow the America hating, freedom hating Democrats back into power now that we've kicked them out.

Say yes to sovereignty for America and continued freedom for all Americans.

Say no to the RATS!!

[Mo1]

But when all the tears are cried and the grieving hearts calm a little, it's time to look at various effects objectively.

You don't get it Laz .. it's not about the tears .. it's about the lives .. it's about the future ..

We as a country are being attack from all sides .. and if we don't win these wars .. there won't be a Constitution or a Bill of Rights to even worry about

And Yes .. like back in WWII .. we are fighting for this Countries future .. and all some around here want to do is flipping throw it away

Go Figure

[Jim Robinson]

Well, I believe they're getting ready to put the brakes on. The Republican congress is starting to make some noises.

[ohioWfan]

OK........so silly wasn't quite the right word.

You were imposing your own opinions as conclusions as to the motives behind the decisions he makes......therefore, it was an invalid assessment.

Specifically........

CFR......I'll give you that one. I have NO idea why he signed it, other than that he thought it wouldn't get past the USSC. Bad decision, IMO.

As to the spending, I firmly believe that he believes in everything he has spent money on........education, Medicare, etc....because he campaigned on those issues. If you were surprised by them, you weren't paying attention.

As to the permanent weapons ban....it hasn't happened, so it's purely speculative as to what he will do, and any conclusions would be premature.

Now, that's all the time I have.....it's late in Ohio.

Oh, yeah......were you the one who said you could afford not to vote for him because you lived in Georgia? Was that you?

So, then, you believe that whether or not you vote on 'principle' depends on what STATE you live in??

Interesting principles you have there........

[Mo1]

Doing this I've learned that the longest tense is the present tense. What is today seems so much larger than it rarely is. Some events, some issues are bigger than the here and the now, but, by far, most are not. What happens next November means far, far more than the NEA, or whatever pisses us off tomorrow.

THANK YOU!!

Good Post

[stylin_geek]

I'm going to try and put my thoughts down in a somewhat coherent fashion, but it has been a long day, and my brain is not tracking to well.

In listening to a couple of Conservative radio show hosts talk about President Bush and spending, along with the deficits, it struck me that President Bush might be playing both a long term and short term game.

The short term is that with spending a lot of money on programs Democrats favor, and putting us into a deficit situation, there is no more money to be spent on expanding such programs. This means the Democrats cannot push through any increases in spending, without raising taxes, should they take the White House this next election. And, Democrats well know, that if they try and raise taxes, they will only be in the White House one term. This makes for a very unpleasant situation, and one that I see no way for them to get out of.

This leaves the Democrats with absolutely no room to maneuver at all.

However, should President Bush be re-elected, along with picking up some seats in the Senate, there is the very real chance that some programs can be cut, and spending reigned in. No matter what, as distasteful as these programs are, there is no more money to be spent on expanding them any further.

It should be interesting, to say the least.

[Marie Antoinette]

Bump for later

[cyncooper]

And tonight's dem debate verified that put one of them in charge and they would revert to form.

How did Kerry put it?---"Renew the Community of Nations".

And he said the military is not needed to fight terrorism.

[deport]

When they get their ass handed to them on a platter, then they will suddenly get introspective

---

Well I really don't expect them to get it handed to them on a platter by the current crop of Democrats that are running no matter which one finally becomes the nominee.... And there isn't a 3rd party out there with the funds, state organization, candidate recognition, party acceptance, candidates to sweep enough Representative/Senate seats, State legislatures, etc to even brag that they have any symblance of a chance to win..... Getting elected is the name of the game if you going to play for the real power....

Only two parties hold that possiblility at this time.... and neither one is going to have their butt handed to them on a platter this time around.... You may wish for the RP to be torn apart so the democrats can come back... maybe some day they will but at this moment, no way, imo. I guess we'll see come Nov. 2, 2004....

[cyborg]

Klintoon had no effect whatsoever. We can take him for another four years. /sarcasm

[Nanodik]

Fair point, but they got their ass handed to them on a platter in '92, and how did they respond in the next election? Bob Dole.

Point taken. Personally, I have written the RP off which is why I am a libertarian. All I know is that something has to be done to get the RP back to being the party of Goldwater and if they keep getting elected by being socialist, that will never happen.

[Mo1]

As opposed to, say, Pearl Harbor in WWII?

We didn't have 24 hour news service back in WWII

You cannot campare the two

[MJY1288]

Here is the deal.... The far left has gone further to the left, the far right has gone further to the right, they have now met at the other end of the spectrum and have became one in the same. They both are driven by hate and there is very little difference between them. Harry Browne is a stain at best and a traitor at worst, I don't know much about the Constitution Party candidate and really don't care to find out, I've seen all I need to from their shills around here to know that the CP is not for me.

[cyncooper]

Pearl Harbor was a military target as opposed to a civilian center of commerce. And of course, don't forget the weapon of choice on 9/11. Our own planes containing our own citizens.

Your "objectivity" is screwed up, to put it bluntly.

[ConservativeMan55]

BUMP!

[Mo1]

And he said the military is not needed to fight terrorism.

OMG .. he said that?

[cyborg]

One wonder why Bush hasn't moved a finger with respect to Zimbabwe. I am suspicious of this AIDS deal as well. Where has HE been? Dictators and cash giveaways don't mix.

[goodnesswins]

Just curious, I asked this earlier somewhere in this thread.....how many REAL Conservatives do you think live in the US....Registered Voting Types....percent of population.....????

[MEG33]

I don't take seriously the posts of someone who generally wants to throw a tantrum and teach the Republicans a lesson.

The reasoning as far as the Presidency is concerned is so far out,that it does not really deserve the usual debate.

It's usually futile to try to stop a tantrum.You just go about you business and hope they don't hurt themselves or you in the process.

All politics is local.

[Jim Robinson]

I think there's a bit of difference between no smoking and no shooting. And, by they way, I think that says a lot for the need of eliminating Democrat power and liberal activist judges. As it's been said many times before, when the Democrats can't get it legislated, they simply do it through their liberal courts. When are you going to get fed up with the liberal activist judiciary and what do you suggest be done about it?

[Nanodik]

You may wish for the RP to be torn apart so the democrats can come back

No, I hope the RP will be broken so that it can return to the party of Goldwater when it is finally fixed. I have $10 riding on the fact that Bush will get reelected, a bet I made about 6 months ago. Up till the last few weeks, I thought I had that $10 as good as in my wallet, but now I am starting to think Bush may actually loose.