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!!

[blackie]

The RATS Are In Disarray ~ Eradicate The Rodents!

Fire Democrats ~ Hire Republicans!

[blackie]

Bookmarked!

[goodnesswins]

"Well, I guess if I were backed into a corner I would have to say about 35%."

OK ....let's assume you are correct (I'd guess lower)....but....what percent of that 35% would vote for YOUR candidate?

[carton253]

Get in an inept socialist weenie who is soft on terrorism, and you practically roll out the red carpet for a Goldwater Republican to walk into the White House unopposed.

Wow! You're a gambling man, I'll give you that.

[RnMomof7]

Sure, why not? If there are no social services for people to mooch on, I don't see why this would be a problem.

Currently 80,000 "undocumented "workers in our prisons..who pays for that ? Who will pay for the education of their children ? Their uncovered medical bills (if not government programs , then with higher hospital rates to US citizens ..and higher medical insurance rates)

tis nothing for nothing

Then of course the downward pressure on wages that will mean less tax revenues .....I think we just need to give Mexico back Texas , California, Arizona and New Mexico..is would be a general benefit to the rest of us.

[George W. Bush]

GWB: Is there a discernable libertarian base in the GOP? You know, like Crackheads For Bush, Abortionists For Bush, Illegal Aliens For Bush (okay, I might have to give you that one if you really want it).

Ophiucus: lol - see what I mean

What? Now you're even going to object to a little humor, relevant to hot-button political issues of the day, on a theme common both to FR threads and to rightwing media in general?

Even if I throw soft pitches, you guys scream like little girls and act like you're under armed assault.

It is considered good forum etiquette to flag somebody if you're quoting them and commenting on them.

[George W. Bush]

*wicked grin* Constitutional rebuttal - the President doesn't represent anybody. He is the executive of the government of the Union and as such, is elected by the States, not the people.

Not a small or an irrelevant point.

Instead of bitching about Bush on spending, why can't FR go after the GOP congress? Most of the complaining about Bush is about what we're afraid he's going to influence the Congress to do.

Let's point our guns at the real target: the big-spending GOP congress. And it would be more peaceful here. Not to mention it would return us to a constitutional focus, the hallmark of FR's greatest activist victories.

Properly understood, we don't even need to fight over Bush if we can get to Congress before Rove does.

[carton253]

No matter who wins in November, we'll get further government expansion.

You are right. No matter who wins... whether it be Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, Constitutionalist, or Communist, we are going to get government expansion. To hold the opinion that any politician can turn back a 66 year old tidal wave is fooling himself.

As I've read the threads over the past week, I have heard much disagreement between "conservatives" and "conservatives" over the re-election of the President. Many "conservatives" are not going to vote for the President because of out of control spending. They believe that they can sent a message to the President, to the GOP... if the President loses in November, they will have sent a message all right...

I don't think just voting third party is going to accomplish anything because you are trying to solve the problem from the fruit down. It's like cutting the grass and cutting off the top of dandelions and believing you have solved your weed problem. You have not... the root is intact and the dandelion will grow back.

If you can't convince the people that they need to give up their entitlements for the economical health and security of the county... no politician, who espouses that they do so will be elected.

That's why Howard Metzenbaum, (Ohio) only had to run one type of ad against any conservative running in Ohio. "That mean ole conservative is going to take away your social security." Worked like a dream every time. So what we have now in Ohio are two very centrist Republicans. The only kind that could be elected.

There has to be a fundamental shift away from the "give-me" state that was created since The Depression and back to fiscal responsibility. It's like turning a big ship of state. It's not going to happen over night. It won't happen if "conservatives" stay home from the polls.. And it certainly won't happen if conservatives believe that the only work that needs to be done is a protest vote.

No... there is much needed education of the society that has to be conducted from the ground up. If we aren't willing to start there... then we are kidding ourselves.

Not to elect Bush is to elect Kerry. Yes... a message would have been sent... but not to the right "party." Those who remain in power will see that the entitlement train must be kept running or they are voted out. Right... Left... do not decide elections. The center decides election.

Personal interest versus national interest... there is really only one winner in that type of contest. The people have proven over and over that it is personal interest. And election results confirm this year in and year out.

So, instead of cutting off our noses to spite our face... we need to vote for the President and work not just for conservative candidates, but work harder to teach the American people that they can't keep voting themselves money out of the pubic treasury... to do so will be the ruin of the nation.

[George W. Bush]

I assumed it required bandwidth to pull pics down even when hosted somewhere else. Learn something every day...

It requires your own bandwidth and that of the site hosting the pic. Not FR's bandwidth.

[jmstein7]

No, I'm certainly no newbie. Actually, I'm a member of the Free Republic Network Executive Team.

Newbie!? Sheesh!

[firewalk]

Thanks for the pings
& bttt

[RnMomof7]

Bush is trying to buy off the Liberals with $200 Billion Education Bills and $400 Billion Medicare Bills and fight a World Crusade against Islam all at the same time. There ain't no easy way to slice it -- this is FISCAL INSANITY.

Of course it is..but like the Rats before him he is trying to beat them at their own game ...the only losers will be the people who's jobs are not outsourced yet

[society-by-contract]

Sovereignty rests in individuals, not the state.

[getmeouttaPalmBeachCounty_FL]

Amen!

I did miss this thread, so *thank you* for the Ping!

[RnMomof7]

I find it interesting that the Don Quixotes in Washington are doing to the American Republic what President Ronald Reagan did to the Soviet Union - get the people to devote an inordinate amount of money and effort towards things that don't maintain the economy. The USSR spent way too much on a military it wouldn't use, and now the inside-the-Beltway types are spending way too much on things that are actually contrary to sustaining a viberant domestic economy.

The world nurses at the bosom of the US Taxpayers..that is why they hate us and will cheer our downfall

[ohioWfan]

Newbie!? Sheesh!

Oh, but you don't know Kevin's credentials, jm.......

He's such good friends with the President that he's going to have lunch with him at the White House and tell the President his breath stinks....

He said so, himself..............really..... ;o)

[jmstein7]

LOL!

[George W. Bush]

Oh........and did you forget about the Dems in the Senate changing all the rules to keep the very conservative judges the President wants on the bench OFF the bench with lies and filibusters?

Didn't address this one.

What I see is Lott in charge of the Rules committeee. Put there by Frist. I'd speculate that it was with Rove's/Bush's blessing.

Shell game.

[hoosiermama]

LOL bump

[Sabertooth]

kitkat, I was struck by this exchange:

---

To: NittanyLion

***... hopefully this administration responds to conservative discontent by acting a bit more conservative.***

Give Bush four more years and he'll be the conservative you want. But first, let him win in 04.

83 posted on 01/29/2004 6:33:38 PM PST by kitkat (Purr, purr SNOOZE)

[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies | Report Abuse | LINK ]

---

To: kitkat

Give Bush four more years and he'll be the conservative you want. But first, let him win in 04.

On what basis do you make that claim? It's oft-repeated, but it seems to me this administration is simply not that interested in promoting conservative domestic policy. Why would that change after 2004? Rather, I suspect the mantra will become "we need to win in 2008", thus folks will excuse continued liberal policy on the part of this administration.

Conservatives need to hold the administration accountable where they've failed, and praise good policy. The blanket condemnations and blanket praise I see on many threads here do nothing to promote conservative policy.

88 posted on 01/29/2004 6:38:46 PM PST by NittanyLion

[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies | Report Abuse | LINK ]

---

To: NittanyLion

***On what basis do you make that claim? ***

I make the claim that Bush will be the conservative president you want if you give him four more years because it is obvious that no president goes up against the UN, the ICC, raises the pay of the military three times, gives us a tax break. etc. and takes the country into war against the terrorists if he isn't a conservative.

Now tell me, what about what I just said is against your principles?

133 posted on 01/29/2004 7:00:15 PM PST by kitkat (Purr, purr SNOOZE)

[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies | Report Abuse | LINK ]

---

To: kitkat

I make the claim that Bush will be the conservative president you want if you give him four more years because it is obvious that no president goes up against the UN, the ICC, raises the pay of the military three times, gives us a tax break. etc. and takes the country into war against the terrorists if he isn't a conservative. Now tell me, what about what I just said is against your principles?

I've got no problem with any of that. Of course you conveniently omitted all the liberal domestic policy enacted...CFR, Prescription Drug Bill, discretionary spending increases, amnesty for illegals, etc. Those are the things that are against my principles, and frankly I can't imagine why they'd change in a second term.

Can you?

144 posted on 01/29/2004 7:06:18 PM PST by NittanyLion

[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies | Report Abuse | LINK ]

---

To: NittanyLion

***...Of course you conveniently omitted all the liberal domestic policy enacted..***

Conveniently? Well, I'll admit it would be convenient for YOU if you could get me to say Bush is liberal. You do not have a chance in hell of baiting me into saying something I don't believe.

278 posted on 01/29/2004 7:39:55 PM PST by kitkat (Purr, purr SNOOZE)

[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies | Report Abuse | LINK ]

---

NittanyLion expressed a hope that the Bush Administration would respond "to conservative discontent by acting a bit more conservative."

You made a claim that President Bush would be more conservative in his second term than his first: "Give Bush four more years and he'll be the conservative you want."

In the ensuing exchange, you mentioned some items about which there was no conservative discontent, yet that discontent was key to NittanyLion's original point.

So, he followed up by asking you to adress "CFR, Prescription Drug Bill, discretionary spending increases, amnesty for illegals, etc.," which are some of the well-known items about which there is conservative discontent with President Bush. NL didn't see any reason to expect the Bush position to be more conservative in a second term than the first, and asked if you did.

This is a key question to test your claim that if President Bush is reelected, he would be the conservative we want. It's entirely fair to ask you this.

Yet you took the question as an attempt by NittanyLion to bait you into saying that "Bush is a liberal?"

I don't get it.

I don't believe you've correctly interpreted NL's motives here, and would also like to know your reply to his very reasonable questions about "CFR, Prescription Drug Bill, discretionary spending increases, amnesty for illegals, etc."