Posted on 07/26/2004 5:36:04 AM PDT by beaureguard
I have been saying that the DNC is a bigger danger to the Constitution than the terrorists could ever hope to be.
One group straps bombs around their waists.
Another group stuffs national security docs down their pants and destroys them.
Both have the same goal. Why is one group any less a threat to our country than the other?
The problem, here is that Boortz, as he so often is, is right on target. If Kerry manages to squeak into the WH in Nov., the Republic of the United States of America is truly doomed.
And, Boortz spelled it out so thoroughly, that even Democrats and government school graduates should be able to "get it".
Can't be said any better.
The RATS are the most dangerous. We are at a turning point in history. The RATS can stand up for America and the free world or they can drag America into the depths of evil with the terrorists. It's sad to admit, but our future and our children's future has come down to their choice.
bttt
Along with the Islamofascist, the fascist evil Dums would like nothing better than to have everyone of us and all free thinking people shut up. And they are foaming at the mouth thinking about using the Homeland Security Laws to do just that.
"Kerry's spending plans, if enacted, would essentially double the size of the federal government. Virtually every economist out there not working for the government credits Bush's tax cuts with our economic turnaround. Raising taxes is a good way to stop our economy in its tracks. "
Kerry voters may be more dangerous because they are in a position to hurt the country. They have no animus toward the USA and may actually believe they are doing the right thing, but it is the effect that matters.
Al Qaeda will never elect a President of the United States, so there is a limit to how much damage they can do.
As a group they're dysfunctional. Kerry's Administration would also be dysfunctional, and their decisions would be disastrous. Boortz is right, and the DNC can "shove it."
DOOMED! < /FedEx >
No. That's a bit over the top. We may be in more serious trouble with a F'n presidency, but it's just another big pile of work to be done, more mess to be cleaned up. We are Americans after all. We are cleaning up after Clinton....
bttt
I'm tellin y'all .... half this country wants to have a suicide pact with the rest of us and they plan to End It All.
Personally I'd rather just have a civil war now and get this shit straightened out the old fashioned way.
The liberal/leftist vs conservative debate is not about politics any more. It's about evil vs good. The vast middle of America are just dupes. They don't know whats going on. But the card carrying leftists, ie college professors, are criminals and need to be purged.
But the problem is not so much Kerry but the voting half of the republic who would put him in office. The Dems might win despite the fact that they've nominated the most liberal senator in congress. That means that many Americans are either too ignorant or too leftist. If things were right with this country, Kerry should never have been nominated much stand a chance of being elected. In a country where most adults realized the consequences of liberals being in office, Bush should win in the biggest landslide in history. And it's not like he hasn't had some real accomplishments in his four years. He's toppled two terrorist countries and revived the economy. Maybe those people who are arguing for two separate Americas were correct. The libs could live in the Leftist States of America while we could have the other half.
...people who intended to vote for The Poodle for president...See also, from:
Just a gigolo
Townhall.com ^ | January 29, 2004 | Ann Coulter
Posted on 01/28/2004 10:20:26 PM PST by .cnI redruM-- snip --
"...Kerry is like some character in a Balzac novel, an adventurer twirling the end of his mustache and preying on rich women. This low-born poseur with his threadbare pseudo-Brahmin family bought a political career with one rich woman's money, dumped her, and made off with another heiress to enable him to run for president.
If Democrats want to talk about middle-class tax cuts, couldn't they nominate someone who hasn't been a poodle to rich women for the past 33 years?" - Ann Coulter
-- snip --
To: potlatch; windchime; tioga; Conspiracy Guy; autoresponder; PhilDragoo; onyx; Liz78 posted on 02/07/2004 7:19:41 AM PST by MeekOneGOPCLICK HERE for the rest of that thread
bump and save for later
He elevated himself in my eyes when he turned O'Reilly into a spitting, blithering puddle of red-faced blather.
Your points are well made and I agree with all but your first sentence. Part of the problem (not all) IS Kerry, because Kerry is the leftist, anti-Bush hate-monger they will choose to "lead" America to its ruin. Remember, Terry McAuliffe front-loaded all of the Dem primaries to allow the chosen candidate more time to campaign against Bush. Only after he became the apparent nominee, did a lot of Dems begin to question their choice of candidate. Unfportunately, for them AND us, it's too late for their buyers remorse. We're ALL stuck with him.
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.