Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

As Disappointed As You Might Be With The GOP, What Is The Alternative?

Posted on 09/26/2005 5:34:31 PM PDT by mwfsu84

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 261-263 next last
To: rdb3

Very well said.


121 posted on 09/26/2005 8:26:09 PM PDT by mountainfolk (God bless President George Bush)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: Tuxedo

There's an irony here.

The Democrats won't blame this administration for spending too much. They'll blame taxpayers for paying too little. Make no mistake, in 1992 candidate Bill Clinton promised to offer a middle class tax cut and stick it to the rich. He stuck it to everyone. You can count on more of the same from Hillary or whoever else they've got in the wings.

Tax cuts CAN reduce the deficit, but only if spending is cut accordingly.


122 posted on 09/26/2005 8:30:26 PM PDT by mwfsu84
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: mwfsu84; All
Timely post!

From Mark Steyn in his September 25, 2005 Chicago Sun-Times article "Politicians not giving us much of a choice":

American politics seems to have dwindled down to a choice between a big government party and a big permanently-out-of-government party."

More Here

123 posted on 09/26/2005 8:33:05 PM PDT by OnRightOnLeftCoast (Political Correctness lowers your IQ)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jackieaxe
I write Charlie Bass all the time. Last week he voted to extend Hate Crimes Legislation, today, he voted to extent Head Start. Writing does no good. In fact Charlie has stopped writing me back.

It may have something to do with what you are writing. Find enough people to agree with you and tell him you're backing another candidate. Bet he writes you, then.

124 posted on 09/26/2005 8:34:44 PM PDT by edpc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: mwfsu84

Disappointed? I hope no political party would flatter themselves so. I am sometimes disappointed with friends, co-workers or the usual suspects, but the political divide doesn't deserve the credibility given to it by so many.


125 posted on 09/26/2005 9:20:36 PM PDT by Liberty Valance (The stars at night, are big and bright, deep in the heart of Texas!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: trubluolyguy

Constitution Party

All 37 of them.


126 posted on 09/26/2005 9:24:49 PM PDT by Valin (The right to do something does not mean that doing it is right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: nopardons; Common Tator
Bravo? Huh?

CT's post is backwards.

The Republican Party elite decides who's going to be the candidate. The Democrats to their credit let the rank and file decide. And that to their detriment will cost them 2008.

The GOP elite made us swallow Ford, Reagan they didn't get their way, read my lips Bush, Dumb Dole and W. Lucky for us W is sticking to his promises to the base.

127 posted on 09/26/2005 9:34:00 PM PDT by duckln
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: mdittmar

"To those who repeat the same old "wasted vote" mantra,no vote is wasted,if you vote."

If you want limited, constitutional government, voting Republican is a wasted vote. I'm done with them. It's crystal clear that they are not made from the same lump of clay I am, and they don't want to be and, in truth, they do not represent me and they clearly hold my values in contempt. They're taking this country to hell in a handbasket just as surely as the Democrat Party is. CFR finally opened my eyes to what they REALLY think about us. To the rest of you Republican apologists, what on earth do you have to see before you'll wake up? Honestly. CFR totally trashes the principle of free speech and makes it a privilage granted by the feds based on whatever changes they now wish to make in the established law. They're working hard to give us hate-crime law that will make it a crime to object to homosexuality. The Patriot act is a disaster for anyone who loves the principles of freedom. How many knives are you willing to carry around in your back? How many times are you going to look the other way while they betray you once again? 10, 20, 50, 1000? Wake the hell up people. The Republican party is playing you for fools, and you're acting the part.

If they want to screw me over, they'll do it without my vote.

When enough of you finally get tired of it and finally wise up, take a look at the Constitution party. The alternative it to keep voting Republican and keep taking it.


128 posted on 09/26/2005 9:51:46 PM PDT by vigilo (Everything I needed to know about George Bush and the Republican Party I learned from CFR.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man
That's what happened when Clinton got into office. Reagan handed Bush41 a solid economy, historically low tax rates, reduced non-defense related discretionary spending and reduced spending on social welfare and entitlement programs

That is a bald faced LIE!!!!

Federal expenditures doubled under Reagan. Reagan never vetoed any of the huge spending increases during his 8 years in office.

Spending under Reagan went from just over 500 Billion dollars a year to 1,200 Billion dollars a year.


129 posted on 09/26/2005 10:02:11 PM PDT by Common Tator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Common Tator
>>>>That is a bald faced LIE!!!!

Let's see. Just for the record. Common Tator told me a while back, that he doesn't read replies made to him and that means he never responds to anyone. Makes it hard to debate him on the issues. So I'll just post the facts.

All the figures I refer to are located at OMB.gov. Here's a link to Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2006, HISTORICAL TABLES.

From Section 3—Federal Government Outlays by Function Table 3.1—Outlays by Superfunction and Function: 1940–2010

According to OMB:
Clinton's last budget spent 64.1% on Human Resources, aka. socialwelfare & entitlement programs. Bush spent 65.5% in 2002, 65.6% in 2003, 64.8% 2004, 64.0% 2005, estimate 65.3% in 2006, estimate 66.1% 2007, estimate 66.9% in 2008 and estimate 67.2% in 2009 and 2010. With Bush`s track record those estimates will likely be higher.

When Reagan took office HR spending under Jimmah Carter was 53.4% of the budget. Over the next 8 years under Reagan, that spending was significantly reduced. In 1982= 52.1%, 1983=52.7%, 1984= 50.7%, 1985= 49.9%, 1986= 48.6%, 1987= 50.0%, 1988= 50.1%, 1989= 49.7%.

So you see Common Tator, you are wrong. No lies, just the facts.

130 posted on 09/26/2005 10:27:46 PM PDT by Reagan Man ("Mister President, members of Congress, complete the mission".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: Common Tator
More data for you to deny.


131 posted on 09/26/2005 10:32:56 PM PDT by Reagan Man ("Mister President, members of Congress, complete the mission".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: Common Tator
Two more for good measure.


132 posted on 09/26/2005 10:36:21 PM PDT by Reagan Man ("Mister President, members of Congress, complete the mission".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: duckln
The Republican Party elite decides who's going to be the candidate. The Democrats to their credit let the rank and file decide. And that to their detriment will cost them 2008.

What a load of crap. The elite as you call them have to find a way for their candidate to win the primary election. You'll remember Reagan ran against Ford in 1976 and GOT HIS BUTT WHIPPED by FORD. Ford had gone after the volunteer workers in the party and had them sewed up. Reagan was playing Hollywood media star and Ford's party volunteers whipped Reagan's butt at the polls.

But Reagan learned his lesson. He spent 1977, 78, and 79 out there winning the support of the grass roots Republicans. Reagan campaigned for candidates and worked for the people who make up the party. The elite, as you call them, then supported Reagan in 1980. Reagan like all candidates had to win the support of those that do the actual work of winning elections.

Reagan did finally figure out how to do it. Goldwater did the same thing between 1960 and 1964. Worked his butt off to take over the party. Party officials get elected by party members and Goldwater got people to the Republican party elections to get his followers in charge of the Republican party. They got him the nomination in 1964.

Nixon did the same thing between 1965 and 1968. But Reagan was clueless in 1976.

As to your statement that Democrat rank and file control who wins Democratic primaries.. that has to be the one statement that proves how little you know about politics. The Democrats have always had fantastic grass roots efforts. The Democratic party elite, other wise known as Union Officials, vote the dead and the alive. They buy a lot of the alive and pay polling place workers to vote the dead. The union workers pick voters up .. tell them whom to vote for, and take them to the polls. Then they pay them with booze and money.

All you are saying is you are totally ignorant of how our two party system works. The elites, as you call them, do a lot to win primaries and general elections in both parties.. By your nomenclature.. I MUST BE A REPUBLICAN ELITE.

How do we Republican Elites control who gets nominated? It is simple .. We devote 10 to 12 weekends working phone banks and door to door to get our candidate enough votes to win the nomination. We campaign our tails off in the general election, and we win lots of elections.

Here in Ohio everyone agrees that Blackwell is the conservative Candidate for Governor. A Year ago I wrote his campaign offering to be volunteer. What I got back was a request for money. Blackwell did not want grass roots workers... he wanted money. He didn't get any money from me.

On the other hand the so called RINO candidate had her staff contact me. I did not contact her campaign.. Her campaign got the names of the Bush volunteers who actually worked a lot on the Bush campaign. That is she got the names of the people who won Ohio and reelected George Bush President. That was not hard to do. Blackwell and Petro could have done the same. She had her campaign contact every one of us.

She asked all of us in each of the 88 counties to meet with her in our county. She came to us. She went to all 88 counties in Ohio to ask for local party officials support. NO other candidate did.

She spent about a quarter of an hour talking to me.. Asking my views... looking for areas of agreement and emphasizing them. She asked for my support.

Guess what ... SHE GOT IT!.. She did not ask for money.. She asked me to get her votes in the coming primary. She got at least 25 of the local Republican ELITE as you call them to work for her. Blackwell on the other hand couldn't be bothered with actually doing anything other than send form emails begging for money. Blackwell could not be bothered coming to meet with we ELITE.. He just sent form emails saying SEND MONEY!!!.

That is why Blackwell, like many ignorant conservatives is likely going to get his butt whipped come primary election.

You whine and cry about how the party elite select candidates. All you are saying is you don't care enough to do what the elite do.. What we do is work the precincts and phone banks to get out the vote for our candidates.

You're guys either don't run or ignore the people who could elect them.. If you want to know why your guys nearly always get beat... look in the mirror.

133 posted on 09/26/2005 10:45:20 PM PDT by Common Tator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: planekT
So, the problem must be that they are taking their marching orders from somebody besides us Conservative Republicans.

It's all about money, power and greed.

134 posted on 09/26/2005 10:46:52 PM PDT by afnamvet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: duckln
Yes, ducky, BRAVO for CT!

You have yet to be correct about anything, in all of the years I have read your posts to FR, I am not surprised at all, that you neither agree with CT's post nor comprehend it. You have virtually NO political savvy or understanding.

The "elite" as you call them, have always and ever "picked" the presidential candidates. The Dems gave up on that with Clinton. He may have won, but he didn't help the Dems any, in the long run. And if you don't think that the Den "elites" had a hand in picking Kerry, then you're even more far gone, than I ever thought you are.

135 posted on 09/26/2005 10:50:03 PM PDT by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: mwfsu84

If the country-club RINOs who run the show, don't wake up and close the border, it will all be moot anyway.


136 posted on 09/26/2005 10:51:17 PM PDT by Rytwyng
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Common Tator
The mythogpgay of Reagan, spouted here by some, is begging to twist my last nerve. Revisionist history is making FR look worse than our enemies claim FR is.

But just wait, in ten years, if FR is still alive and running, the same people who are THE worst Bushbashers, will have mythographized President Bush the younger and he WILL be a demigod of Conservatism to them.

137 posted on 09/26/2005 10:53:54 PM PDT by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: coconutt2000

Excellent Post!!!


138 posted on 09/26/2005 10:57:53 PM PDT by bethtopaz (Dem stars spend more and more time jumping thru smaller hoops of the kooky left fringe. M.Steyn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: sarasmom
Prepare, lock and load.

Advice well taken.

139 posted on 09/26/2005 11:00:30 PM PDT by afnamvet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man
When Reagan took office HR spending under Jimmah Carter was 53.4% of the budget. Over the next 8 years under Reagan, that spending was significantly reduced. In 1982= 52.1%, 1983=52.7%, 1984= 50.7%, 1985= 49.9%, 1986= 48.6%, 1987= 50.0%, 1988= 50.1%, 1989= 49.7%.

HR spending went up dramatically under Reagan.. It was that Defense spending went up even faster under Reagan reducing the percenage spent on HR but the HR dollars doubled under REAGAN.

Your figures are like my former wifes'. She excused increased spending on her clothes from 400 to 800 a month because she increased spending on jewelry from 400 to 2,000 a month. That was used to prove that her spending on clothes went from 50 percent of her budget to 16 percent of the budget... But she still doubled her spending on clothes.

One month while reducing her clothing expentitures to 20 percent of her budget she ran up $8,000 on my credit card.

Figures don't lie.. But Liars Figure


140 posted on 09/26/2005 11:14:07 PM PDT by Common Tator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 261-263 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson