Posted on 05/06/2006 9:51:50 AM PDT by Sonora
Current poll:
"A time for choosing: It appears that a significant number of our members are so disgusted with the GOP's failure to secure our borders against illegal aliens that they are willing to risk all by voting them out of office, even if it means Pelosi, Reid, Hillary, et al, are allowed to take charge. Is this the best course of action or should we be working harder than ever to hold the line and actually try to make a difference by getting more constitutionally-minded conservatives elected? Are you willing to give it all up or are you more determined than ever to keep the Marxists out of power?" _____
So far, 13% of members and 18%+ of participants in this poll say - turn it over to the rats. What's with that? I cannot believe that 13% of those posting here are so stupid or angry with what is happening that they would turn to the rats for the way back to perfect. Now, 13% will result in a winning vote, in a lot of cases.
Anyway, I guess that there is no compromising for some people - just dig a hole and live there while the rats are in charge. I'm so disappointed.
I did. I cannot find a single case where the SC invalidated an Executive Order that reversed a prior Executive Order. Please provide reference.
I will never vote for a dim again as long as I live and that is an oath.(save one, Zell Miller)
Please allow me to utter a hearty DITTOS to your post #9. With pubbies continuing in power we at least have a hope of getting them to try and fix something and there have been significant gains. The future surely isn't good if we sit on our butts and let democraps take control again ... and THIS TIME when they get back into power they will never relinquish it even if they have to tax this nation into abject servitude in order to dole out eveything to their voting zombies. It may come to having a pubby controlled House and Senate and voting a rat into the White House, to create a stalemate the pubbies will comprehend, but to vote the democrat criminal enterprise into control of the House and Senate is sure suicide in 2006 ... and 'voting the Constitutional Party' isn't an option in 2006 but it certainly should be considered for 2008 if the pubbies don't do better than the court jester Frist & co have done up to now.
That's only done to marginalize. People do the same thing when they're against guns....they point to white male red necks, as if those are representative of the type of people who want gun enforcement laws repealed.
Look up the EO he issued that ordered Union Dues not be used for campaign activities without the consent of the dues payer. That's one.
Ohhh how I do agree with that. They seem to run out of argument and start slinging mud. I've seen that done too many times to count.
This Executive Order was not a reversal of a Clinton Executive Order.
It is very common for Executive Orders to be overturned by the court. However, the discussion is about Bush not over-turning many of the ill-advised Clinton Executive Orders. There is not a single instance of the SC ruling an Executive Order unconstitutional because it reversed a prior executive order. There is a very good reason for this - it's constitutional for the President to do this!
I'll vote Republican because they are the lesser evil.. but I don't expect politicians of any stripe to ever give up power. And by thinking we can solve all problems by voting, I think people empower the politicians.
Let me give you an example.. minimum wage laws and working conditions. Instead of voting for a candidate who would increaes the minimum wage.. people formed unions and simply demanded it.. And got it.
In the 1950's power in America wasn't just in the hands of the politicians. It was also in the united labor unions, in the major churches, in the chamber of commerce, etc.. The government is a legitimate and needed center of power for a society.. but when it becomes the only center of power the society is headed towards failure.
And you conveniently ignored the point of my post. Reagan lost to a RINO in '76 and had every reason, the way he was treated, to be angry at "the establishment". He didn't.
He knew the Republican party could be turned around from the inside, and while he didn't like what was happening, he stayed with it and worked for change.
If you want to act like a petulant teenager and pout, feel free. I'll stick with principles and work constructively, because I prefer Reagan's method to yours.
No actually the way we elect POTUS now is about as far removed from the framers intentions as it can possibly be. They never intended for one or two parties to OWN that office as they do now. Article 2 section 1 allows for the majority of the vote holders by the electors to be POTUS. If no majority is reached then the TOP 5 candidates receiving votes are then voted on and an elimination from there. That would in effect end the two party choke hold on the office of POTUS. BTW this would be done in front of everyone.
You needn't be sorry, you aren't offending me. If I saw you holding a loaded gun to your head I would try to talk you out of pulling the trigger, but I wouldn't be offended.
But I would remind you of what should be an obvious fact, committing suicide is a very poor way of getting over a temper tantrum.
Hell he overturned 11 on his first day and then put everything but the Antiquities Act proclamations (those only congress can repeal) on hold and they never left the congressional archives. They died on their own. You are entitled to your opinion but not your own set of facts.
Reagan's 11th Commandment was to never speak ill of a fellow Republican. Today that law is broken repeatedly, and I myself am guilty. But when we keep the fight "within the family", it is a bit more acceptable. When we decide to "go against the family"--a little Corleone there--we have disaster.
So we had four years of Jimmy Carter, the man who started the surrender to Islamic fundamentalism with his weak-kneed policy in Iran.
Reagan didn't care for the East Coast hoity-toity Republican establishment...but he stayed with the party nevertheless.
Reagan's example is the one to follow, not Pat Buchanan's or Ross Perot's. Work for change within the party, yes--but do NOT abandon it. Abandonment gives power to the party that is worse than even the country club Republican party--the party of Henry Wallace, FDR's socialist VEEP, the party of Howard Dean, the party of Hitlery, the party of the Breck Girl, the party of John "Global Test" Kerry.
That is unacceptable.
First and foremost - today's Republican party in no way reflects Reagan's ideology. Second - I'm working hard to change the Republican party.
There is good in our discussion - it is obvious that both of us see a great need to change the Republican party - to bring it back to being a conservative party. That is 75% of the battle; the remaining 25% is the how. We will continue to disagree on that point.
You should take note though, even with the childish wording of the poll, a significant number of conservatives are choosing to boot the Republicans from office. I suspect if this were a legitimate poll the numbers would be much higher. Even taking the 15% at face value - this spells disaster for the Republicans in the upcoming election. There are very few districts where a congressional candidate can lose 15% of their base and still win.
The example I gave you about the pro gun enforcement people, imho, really makes them look like fools. I think only a very few people really find that credible, especially given the fact that many doctors, lawyers, politicians, and policemen hunt, etc.
Hell's bells even Reagan didn't reflect his ideology. Bush is more Reagan than he was.
I never claimed that he didn't overturn some! You and I both know he could have over-turned many more.
Great. If you follow Reagan's example you won't abandon it in the election, and you won't encourage others to do the same.
If you want to use Reagan as a figurehead and ignore what he did, you'll do what Pat Buchanan did.
So, we let the Dims hold the House and Senate for 2 to 4 years. Explain to me just how we take them back? It isn't easy to beat any incumbent. We may never take back either chamber in our lifetime. I am not willing to risk that.
He overturned or never let them out of the Congressional archives. Not one of Clinton's EOs are in effect today.
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.