Posted on 02/01/2006 5:02:29 PM PST by SC33
Thanks for posting that link...it proves the point! :-)
AMEN!
Not to brag or anything, but I'm pretty sure that I've met 70 or 80 of the poll participants here at FR!
Why should I criticize Dubya and Republicans? I can rely on you and the rats to do that. If only fear motivated Bush voters, How do you explain the large increase in voters from 2000 to 2004 , while reconciling the drop in voters from 1992 to 1996, even though voters had 4 years to sample Clinton and the rats. No fear among Republicans when Clinton was re-elected?
Republicans have elected majorities in both houses of Congress every year since 1994. We now have elected and re-elected Dubya and gained majorities of state governors, majority control of a majority of state legislatures, and a majority of state legislators. We put 2 conservatives on the SCOTUS without much trouble. We will continue to win without your help in 08.
Dittos. Good find Dane.
And kudos on YOUR post, as well. :-)
Hearty congratulations on growing up, coming over to join the right ( in all senses of that word. LOL )side, the naming of your child, and having an excellent memory. :-)
This is the same rotten feud that characterizes most of what passes for discourse around here. Always Republicans versus Conservatives. A lot of the same people appear on every one of these threads too.
I couldn't support Harriett Miers, nor can I vote for my local Rino's, McCain and Kolbe, but I have always voted for President Bush and his father. I'm a Reagan man too and try to give Republicans the benefit of the doubt, unless they so stink up the porridge like the aforementioned pair of losers or somebody like Gerald Ford. If the party nominates them, and they aren't awful, I tend to support our candidates.
The Republicans around here could use a little thicker skins and stop acting like liberals with knee jerk emotional hysteria every time some honest criticism comes up. The conservatives have their own little fits and they should quit crying "wolf" and threatening to take their ball and go home every time someone strays on one issue. We'd have a lot more united party.
We're all we got, people. Warts and all. We are the movement.
I did not call Gore a scumbag. I said "Scumbag". Capital "S" -- Scumbag. There is only one Scumbag and that is Clinton. There are many scumbags, but there is only one Scumbag--Clinton.
My statement was In 2000, the only reason why Bush won was that Scumbag was so repulsive that conservatives rallied to defeat Gore, not to back Bush.
Even though Scumbag was finishing his eight years, the odor of his filth was still waffling in the air in Nov of 2000, and there was a high percentage of those who voted Republican because they associated Gore with Scumbag--rightfully so, since Gore refused to distance himself from Scumbag's 15 felonies and all the other corruption.
Re your "You are also off base about the governing comment. R's have cut taxes, a lot."
The "Rs" have governed like RATs fiscally. Hypothetical: ........ If conservatives were to strip away the party title and did not know what party was in power but only saw the reports of fiscal spending, new programs, global welfare etc, every last conservative would say that the RATs were in power.
This is not arguable. Don't attempt to argue the point. Fiscally, the Republicans have governed like RATs. Any attempt to even argue that point would reflect very poorly on your analytical and objectivity skills.
You also made a grave, very grave error in reasoning. You said the "Rs have cut taxes." In case you are not old enough to have witnessed much history (we do have young members here), let me point out two American government fundamental axioms...
1] tax cuts are temporary
2] spending increases are permanent
Once spending is raised, they always use that new base as the "baseline" to mark the starting point for next budget's increase. This is what makes Bush's ludicrous spending increases so horrific. It is impossible to then lower spending from that baseline (in "mandatory" spending) and next to impossible in discretionary spending. Any tax cut that does not include corresponding spending restraint is fleeting at best, and at worse, possibly more damaging to taxpayers as future tax increases could be worse than the tax rates BEFORE the tax cut. With the RATs likely to gain power, I am SURE that will happen.
You misinterpreted the Gore comment, and then you used incorrect reasoning re taxes.
There are days, when this all seems like deja-vu.
Fortunately for me, I'm on the right team this time. Didn't take long. 6 months out of college. I call it a paycheck/Rush alignment. One look at your first paycheck and you start thinking—Hey! I agree with him. What?
; ).
I am a Republican activist that also donates $$ to the party. I am voting libertarian this year and I will not give any moeny to the party of Big Govt & Open Borders for all !!!
That's because you are intelligent and once you got out into the real world, you were able to see exactly what's what! :-)
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.