Posted on 05/06/2006 9:51:50 AM PDT by Sonora
Yes...your instincts are right about Pat...
And there is a Buchanan fan club on this site...but, I don't post on those sites..I don't intentinally go to a site to pick a fight..
Their are some that will argue about his anti-Semitism...but, there are a LOT more that recognize him for what he is, an anti-Semitic protectionist..
Oh brother
Many of those in favor of open borders call those who don't want the borders open "Buchananites" as a form of derision, claiming he tells us what to think. It's such a shame when they find out I don't even like the man (instinctually) or read anything he writes (for that reason). : )
What did W ever do for us? How is this for starters:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1066122/posts
You, my FRiend, have a one track mind. :P
Any person or group which espouses anti-Semitism as a function of its operations is not a group to which I would ever belong.
Those political party groupies are going to win a lot of friends with that sick attitude.
It might have been more telling had a third option been introduced...
[ ] I will vote third party
"The majority of voters do think that."
To be fair, the majority of voters believe a lot of dumb things. Like the idea that there is a guy in wearing a suit and power tie who sits at a big desk and decides what the price of gasoline is going to be each day, or that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
It just really isn't a good argument to rely on "what the voters think." :o)
I won't argue that my analogies might need a little work!!! However it is definitely a rebuilding year - out with the old, in with the new.
You are explaining the Republicans well. Most of these on FR don't have a clue as to what a Rockefeller Republican is all about. They think a Rockefeller Republican is a RINO which is totally wrong.
I also remember when Reagan pulled the conservative democrats in to the Republican party. The contract with America was also conservative.
I also remember how Rush Limbaugh toted Bob Dole's water. It was pathetic.
*shrug* You're the one who wants to vote for one, you tell us. :P
(just kidding!)
No one capable of rational thought should. The problem is the morons who say - well lets just go with it anyway until something better comes up. If someone does not take bold steps to make it better, it will not get better.
The Republicans will keep moving to the left so long as the conservatives keep acting like battered wives in blind stupid support of them.
It's a very good argument what voters think especially in a thread titled Current Poll - 13% of members will turn it over to the rats????, don't you think?
The issue of this thread is what voters think obviously
I doubt if many of those 13% actually want Dems to win. They're just beyond disgusted at the spiness and gutless pandering to globalization and the destruction of sovereigty displayed by the suits in DC.
Yup, I agree. Two terms under a liberal republican president Giuliani, mccain or Spector will make a George W Bush type administration the thing of the past two presidencial terms from now. The future will see this George Bush as a hardcore "Barry Goldwater" republican after two terms of a liberal republican WH. The GOP will have been redefined and Hillary will be where center will be. Sorry, going this route hurts not helps conservatism.
That is but one reason why I get so upset by the freepers that say it would be better to vote in the Dems...
If they had seen the speech on the Senate floor by Fritz Hollings, before he retired, about how the whole WOT, and on Iraq was because of the JOOOOOOOOOS...and just blamed the Jews for everything bad that has happened to the US, including 9/11..
It was disgusting...but, the Senate rules are such that they are allowed to say anything they want, with impunity.
However, if more of the MSM would tell the truth about what is said there every day...trust me...the voters would be shocked.
I know that I, and other freepers that watch C-span everyday get totally outraged at least once a week...and not only at the dems.
It's fine to discuss what the voters think, but we oughtn't use it as a basis on which to make a policy decision.
After all, we aren't a bunch of lemmings or Bill Clinton, right? Conservatives make decisions based on history and data with the aims of preserving the Constitutional Republic envisioned by the Founding Fathers as well as promoting national prosperity.
As we find all to often, "what the voters think" conflicts with our goals, which is usually the result of us losing the propaganda war. Mind you, it isn't as bad as it was back during the bad old days of the liberal media monopoly, but it's still a problem.
The fact that 13% of our members think that President Clinton II is a good idea only serves to illustrate that point further. To anyone with seeing eyes and a thinking mind, having a President Hillary and a Democrat Congress would neither serve to protect the Constitution, nor would it be good for our economic, milititary, civic, or moral national health.
I'm sorry, but I just can't fathom how handing the levers of power over to the bad guys will help us at all. Instead of throwing away all of our gains in the last decade in a fit of pique, why not instead work within the party and try to change things?
I suspect the majority of that 13% are either too lazy to try or not bold enough to succeed, and are using this as an excuse for what they view as unaviodable impending doom.
At least that way, they won't have to feel bad about being the generation that let so much progress go down the drain.
But that is how other-than-Dems think, too. (And I don't understand why Jewish voters identify with the Dems, anyways. Dems are least likely to support Israel.)
"Survive" isn't what I'm talking about. I'm talking about THRIVING.
On September 11, the entire nation, if only for a week or two, thanked God in heaven Al Gore was not the President--they knew there was a President in charge who was strong.
The country was headed to recession in the last two years of Clinton's presidency--there was no oversight of corporate corruption, there was no work towards giving America a tax break, and there was no serious effort to curb terrorism. Clinton was obsessed with a pathetic effort to kiss the @rse of Arafat to get a legacy.
Now the 'rats have come out with a "plan" for the last two years of Bush's presidency: investigate, probe, blah blah blah.
If you think America will thrive with that, then sit out the election. Just be prepared for all the stuff I mentioned in post 419.
Suffice to say, I'm not wrong: I'm dead on right.
And I pray I never have to say "I told you so".
I'm a volunteer worker in my precinct in Florida, and I've given to "Club for Growth" and a couple of out of state races this year (Michael Steele and Lynn Swann). I refuse to cede the election to 'rats and RINOs.
RONALD REAGAN WOULD NOT LEAVE THE REPUBLICANS--HE STAYED WITH THEM EVEN WHEN HE LOST TO THE RINO GERALD FORD.
Ronald Reagan is a much better example to follow than the hand-wringers and others who think if the party isn't perfect then they want to "walk out" on it to "teach them a lesson." Reagan didn't do that, and I won't either.
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.