Posted on 06/21/2004 5:41:56 PM PDT by freedom44
And I could do without your drag queen like wardrobe of wearing and proclaiming you have a boot behind your neck 24 hours a day as Ashcroft tries to get the islamofacists who want to kill you.
"And a Kerry presidency will just warm the cockles of your heart,I bet. :-)"
Not at all, but congress does tend to spend less with a democrat holding the presidency. I hate Kerry more than Bush, but I wouldn't vote for either of them for president.
I guess you support having daschle as Majority leader in the Senate then.
Oh BTW, Toomey has given his support to Specter, after his primary loss. Are you going to diss Toomey now.
And a democrat as president has a tendency to sell military secrets to the chicoms and do nothing about the spread of islamofascism(i.e clinton).
I surmise you have the warm and fuzzies about those actions by clinton and the demos.
You're pretty arrogant to assume that YOU are the principled one and everyone who votes for Bush is unprincipled.
Usually, when the self-annointed "principled" conservatives are stripped of their "ideological" cloak, they turn out to be nothing but racists, malcontents, losers, potheads, or insecure little mommas' boys.
I'm not implying that you fit any of these categories, I'm just informing you of what most Freepers already know.
The question is do you want Bush or Kerry? This election is too important to play with.
Bush was more conservtive as governor than president. I think a 2nd term will be different. But he has to get elected first.
Whatever. I guess janet reno and jamie gorelick are your gals.
The major third party candidates on the right, mean very little. Whether its Browne with the Libertarian Party, Philips with the Constitution Party; Hagelin at the Natural Law Party or whoever it might be this time around at the Reform Party, they are of little consequence. Last time around, all major third party candidates garnered roughly 4 million votes out of some 106 million total votes, or 3.7%. And that was with Nadar. Take Nadar out of the mix and the big four had just over one million votes total, or 1.1%. Overall impact? Minimal.
The dig in the heels purists/"real" Conservatives either do NOT live in reality,or they really,really,REALLY are masochists,who would far rather have Dems run everything,than get anything at all,from the GOP,that they claim to want.But life and politics ARE made up of compromises and only children have trouble understanding that.
Hmm, that's weird, I don't think any of us are saying it's ok to hate people who are illegal immigrants. Are you sure you're not putting words in people's mouths?
I think all I've been saying is that it's not ok that the illegal immigrants are allowed to break the law, just like it's not ok for other people to break the law. It doesn't mean that I don't love my fellow man -- it's just not good for my society if some classes of people are allowed to indiscriminately break the law.
"Third Party voting only works in the primaries. This is how it works. Say that the Democrats get 35% of the vote, the Communists get 2% of the vote, the Socialist Worker's Party gets 3% of the vote, the Greens get 6% of the vote, and the Libertarians get 2% of the vote."
Huh? Have you ever voted in the primaries? That isn't how primaries work in America. In America each party votes for it's choice of candidate WITHIN IT'S OWN PARTY, during the primary.
Third party candidates are not welcome on the ballots of either the Republican Primary or Democrat Primary. Perhaps you don't actually live in America?
Ah, but as Uncle Joe Stalin claimed: "Sure, there are contradictions in the Worker's Paradise oppressing workers. But that oppression is a good thing, for it will enhance and exacerbate the contradictions, and the contradictions will force the wonderful Dialectical-Materialist Leap of the worker's revolution, and we will finally arrive at the glorious stateless society! Freedom is slavery! Oppression is freedom!"
Whatever. I guess your idea of protecting your kids from Islamofacists is putting FBI agents in front of computers evaluating porn eight hours a day. Or is it, in the weeks following 9/11, devoting agents to investigating whore houses in New Orleans. Do you feel safer, Dane?
I have to admit, though, he sure saved us from the bedridden dopers in Santa Cruz smoking a joint for pain. You must sleep better at night for that.
"And in answer to your question, I am not Karl Rove, but I've worked with him in several campaigns. You're fortunate not to be discoursing with him. Karl Rove does not suffer fools lightly; in fact he doesn't suffer them at all"
What is that supposed to mean? I'm 'fortunate' not to be 'discoursing' with him? what would he do, cry and run behind his curtains like he did when the liberals went to protest him? LOL the guy has no credibility as a conservative or a Christian. I believe in Christian principles and smaller Constitutional govt and make no apologies for it. I couldn't care less what some obscure elitist advisor thinks.
It has no bearing on my beliefs or principles whatsoever. But that's good if you're buddies with him or am impressed/mesmerized/whatever by him. more power to ya! ;-) Read Ron Pauls speech 'Neo-Conned' for more info on Rove and his ilk.
As far as your notations of numbersusa etc and their founder,.. I actually have not done any extensive reading at any of those sites, nor do i send their faxes.. but i do know of them because many people in the immigration reform movement use those sites and refer to them. These people are supportrs of Tancredo, McClintock, etc. Not liberal in any way.
What is on those sites has not 'convinced' me of anything. But on your point of liberals infiltrating so-called conservative causes, though.. you make a good point. I spoke to George Putnam when he had that woman 'Ling Ling' on his program. She pretends to be against immigration, but in reality she started talking about POPULATION CONTROL and she even criticized the Pope and sneered that "these people (immigrants with lots of kids who don't practice birth control) should go live at the Vatican". Basically she was taking the stance that mirrored the left and its population control/UN agenda. So yes, i am aware of this and have debated it with many people involved in this issue here. So I do see your point and i called her on it personally, over the air. again, it is a matter of principle and not 'following' a website or a man.
The Democratic winner of the primary election sees how many ideologues and True Believer losers there are in the fringed Parties, and tailors his or her message accordingly in order to court these self-marginalized voters.
You got a word wrong in that. It should be "The 'Republican' Party -- helping to elect Democrats since 2000"
Real Smart, Jarhead...Real Smart. Chesty Puller would really be proud of you! NOT!
I have to admit, though, he sure saved us from the bedridden dopers in Santa Cruz smoking a joint for pain. You must sleep better at night for that
You have a burr up your butt about Ashcroft becuase he doesn't tow your ACLU line.
Good for Ashcroft I say.
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.