Posted on 04/07/2006 3:10:22 AM PDT by goldstategop
The problem with that logic is that the status quo is unacceptable. If our failure to compromise at all means that no bill gets passed, that's a homerun for the liberals. They want us to refuse to compromise because it preserves a status quo that benefits them.
"True leaders never compromise" is a ridiculous mantra. Go back to 2001. Dubya wanted a $1.5T tax cut, but the Dems and RINO's didn't want anything over $1.1T. So he compromised and settled for the $1.3T. But according to you, he should have "refused to compromise", even if that meant no tax cut at all. Evidently, in your book, no tax cut is better than a $1.3T tax cut.
If you don't think there is a difference between the two parties, then you must not think there is a difference between their approaches to national defense and it won't matter to you if Carl Levin, Richard Durbin, Ted Kennedy and the like are overseeing our military, intelligence, and national security law enforcement.
I think it's not necessarily that the republicans are going for the illegal vote, but that every time the population of the US ratchets up another notch, our representation is watered down a little more. It may be BECAUSE of the illegals that they consider each voter to be of such little consequence that they can successfully ignore the popular will. More people means less representation for us, more power for Congress.
If the USA goes belly up it won't be the end of the world. Maybe it would be for the best. The government can't be stopped now, it's too big. It needs to collapse just like the Soviet Union did, and then maybe we can rebuild from the ashes. At the least maybe we can put together a few truly sovereign conservative States out of the wreckage.
"Go back to 2001. Dubya wanted a $1.5T tax cut, but the Dems and RINO's didn't want anything over $1.1T..."
Let's see if I got this right. Dubya is a Republican. RINOs are Republicans. Democrats are Democrats. I believe that's correct.
Now, back to a strong leader concept. Without fail, the Democrats walk in "lock step" on any matter their leader requests it. Any time they are in power they get their way 100%...no compromise.
Dubya and his Republicans could not stick together even if you made them jump into a pool of super glue. What's the difference? Weak leader who compromises and never uses a veto?
Ditto
RINO's who are not conservatives and will not vote that way. If there were 55 conservative votes in the Senate, you'd have a point. There aren't.
Weak leader who compromises and never uses a veto?
So let me get this straight. Bush should have been a "strong leader", by refusing to compromise on the $1.5T. And he should have vetoed the $1.3M because it wasn't $1.5M. By the Senate passing a $1.3T tax cut, the Dems and RINO's can legitimately claim they passed a large tax cut bill. Then they point to Bush's veto as depriving the American people of that tax cut.
So not only do we not get a tax cut, but we've strengthened those who fought for the smallest cut possible. Wonderful.
I posted this earlier today, but I'll try again. George Bush signed McCain-Feingold [in violation of the 1st Amendment]; he pushed for and signed the Prescription Drug bill,which will bankrupt the country; he's done nothing about illegal immigration; and he's allowed the size of reach of government to grow.
We thought we elected a conservative.
What is the real difference between the above and what any Democrat would have done in the last 6 years?
Will someone tell me why our elected representatives are swayed more by the actions and opinions of those who did not and cannot vote them into office than the desires of those they "represent" and the laws they have sworn to uphold and defend, "so help you God"?
I'm absolutely sick of our party's spineless self-subjugation to the screeching enemies of our nation, both citizen and non-citizen alike.
The goal has to be to get the best deal we can as long as it is better than the status quo. Even if its not the perfect deal.
The tax cuts would count if I didn't believe we're merely awaiting a huge tax increase down the road when the bills come due. The key, I think, is to downsize government so that the reason for any tax increases are lacking.
I do give the president provisional credit for Justices Roberts and Alito; I think the jury is still out until we have a major case, but at least I'm hopeful on this issue.
Aggressive pursuit of the war? Again, I say two in the turban for Abdul and Co., but no nation-building. If Iraqis, Afghans etc. want a democracy let them fight for it. We did.
There are definitely parallels.
There are definitely parallels.
Didn't most of the Republicans in the House vote for border security only? They are all up for reelection this year. Only a few Republican Senators are, but I seem to read that Republicans are for amnesty. Doesn't the House count at all?
There's no way I'll ever vote Republican again no matter what (even if it means Hillary gets elected. I'm no longer under the delusion that I'd be better off with a nominal Republican than with Hillary).
Uh, if you're not happy with RINO Republicans, then oppose them in the primary and vote for more conservatives ones. Why would you penalize truly conservative Republican voices in Congress by never voting for any other Republican?
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.