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!!

[DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet]

I do believe the fellow knew exactly what I meant...

I believe so, too.

[Grampa Dave]

Mr Robinson, you have listed most of the what ifs and questions and answered them with a real dose of reality.

Our reality changed on 9/11/01.

[Ophiucus]

I am in the process of arguing with someone that is on the exact opposite of that. Now, who is right? You that we should "let it all hang out" OR the other who says that politics must incorporate "absolute moral imperatives".

There is a difference between conservative values and conservative politics.

They can overlap but they don't have to. Moreover, they should never be forced to - the use of political power to enforce personal values is anathema to the idea of a small, non-invasive government, a cornerstone of conservatism.

[Kryptonite]

A victory for Bush is critical to the future of this country. Supreme Court justices serve for 30 years or more, and we're facing a bunch of upcoming vacancies.

This should be a no-brainer for any conservative.

We agree completely.

Thanks

[spodefly]

Define absolute "Moral imperitives" in relation to politics.

Unfortunately, I am unable to do so, although the Constitution is a good reference for such an attempt. But politics are about compromise, now more than ever.

It is just frustrating to see that conservative debate has become more about Republican administration of socialist programs than about a return to fundamental Constitutional principles. Sorry I took a slam at you in the last post. I am sleep and grumpy. Thanks for not taking it personally.

[Consort]

Did you mean there's something sacred about the current president?

......Maybe he....nah...just a coincidence.

[Texasforever]

Do you see now the dilemma Bush faces? There is NO decision he can make that will not make a significant portion of his so-called "base" angry to the point of non-support. If he took YOUR approach all of the social conservative "base" would scream and if he doesn't then you and your fellow libertarian brethren would scream just as loud. The ONLY thing Bush can do is what he feels is right and let the "base" scream. I like that in the guy.

[The_Eaglet]

The Constitution Party had ballot access in 41 states for its presidential candidate in 2000, and as far as I know they will have at least that this year. I have read that the state affiliate parties are working toward this goal.

Since it is more than 26 states an electoral college win is possible.

There are at least two Constitution Party candidates for U.S. Senate and one for U.S. House of which I'm aware. Of course, any president has the opportunity to work across party lines. If elected I am sure Peroutka would have a good working relationship with representatives such as Dr. Ron Paul an Tom Tancredo.

I am not a strategist for the Constitution Party, but since the party stands for values important to me such as the right to life, federal income tax elimination, border security, balanced trade, and downsizing the federal government. My plan is to support Peroutka on the merits of his positions by voting for him, spreading the word about his campaign, and donating if I could find cash to spare.

[jmstein7]

"Can the USA survive 4 years of divided govt with a Dem president?"

No -- terrorists weren't driving planes into buildings back in the day, but they are now.

Go back to DU.

[Kryptonite]

Cozying up to that Kevin Curry-exposin' bastage is a strange, yet intriguing, pursuit.

Forest Gump - "And that's all I got to say 'bout that."

[DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet]

If elected I am sure Peroutka would have a good working relationship with representatives such as Dr. Ron Paul an Tom Tancredo.

Did you really say "if elected"?

[kattracks]

AMEN!

[spodefly]

I am laughing too much at Arne's post ...

Wasn't a direct threat of physical violence against another poster what got him banned before?

[Torie]

Sad to say, but he needs to go back into the cooler. This cannot stand. If it does, than the two standard policy has gone a bridge too far. You wanted him back because 1) he made some worthy points, in and amongst all the bs, 2) you enjoyed him as a focus of debate, 3) you found him to be a useful foil, or 4) you dislike bannings in general.

[Sabertooth]

I get along fine with Kevin Curry.

I always know where he stands, and he's never held a grudge against me when we've disagreed.

[George W. Bush]

Maybe you could start a thread filled with such photos. What an exciting and novel idea. ; )

[Brad’s Gramma]

Kerry says threat of terrorism is exaggerated

Yes indeedie....these guys are REALLY who we want in the White House. /sarcasm!

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

this is FISCAL INSANITY ~~ Historically, 'guns & butter' has never really worked. You can only succeed with one of them.

Historically, I don't think "Deficit Spending" works at all, in any circumstance whatsoever, whether "Guns" or "Butter". The Keynesians are idiots. They always have been.

Any way you slice it, it's the temporary exchange of a short-term gain for a long-term drain. Acheiving 8% Economic Growth in One Year while printing 5% Government Bonds which you'll hafta pay off, an extra 5% a year, over the next 30 years. INSANITY!!

There's a reason that Red China is economically kicking our @ss, and it has less to do with "low-wage slave labor" than Protectionists (even a Saint like Pat Buchanan) are willing to admit:

Presbyterian Economist Gary North has run an Econometric Analysis of the Chinese Economy, and these are his conclusions -- with a few trivial Bribes for a few Local Commissars, the aggregate Tax and Regulatory Burden upon the Chinese Economy is Less than 30 percent.

In other words, Red China is no longer "Communist"... They have returned to the Imperial System of the 15th Century, in which Chinese Capitalists discovered California in 1421 AD, almost a century before Columbus. Political and Religious Dissent is Forbidden... but you can make as much Money as you want to.

By Contrast, the US Economy is now at least 52% Socialized -- 38% Taxed, 14% Regulated.

In an Environment such as this, you can raise Tariffs to the sky, you can complain all you want about Chinese Slave Labor (a completely-invalid Criticism; the USA incarcerates millions of non-violent Marijuana offenders, and then loans them out on "Work-Release" at sub-minimum wage to Domestic Employers)... and it won't do you a bit of good.

You can complain all you want about "Low Foreign Wages", but the USA cannot possibly compete when the Federal Government is Taxing and Regulating away 52 percent of the US National Economy... while the Red Chi-Coms in Peking are Taxing and Regulating away less than 30 percent of the Chinese National Economy.

With Odds like that, we are destined to lose. And it's nobody's fault but Our Own.

We are killing Ourselves.