I'm more upset with Conservatives than I am with George W. Bush

[mwfsu84]

If I had told you on 9/11/2001 that we'd go four and half years and counting without another terrorist attack on US soil, would you have believed me?

If I had told you that US-led forces would secure Afghanistan in just a few months...something the Soviets couldn't accomplish in ten years...would you have thought I was crazy?

If I had told you that Saddam was gone, that Khadaffy had renounced terrorism, and that Iraq was on the verge of becoming the second democracy in the Middle East, would have thought I was on medication?

Sometimes in our disappointment of this administration, we often forget some of the positives. The economy is strong. More Americans are homeowners. With tax cuts, we're spending less time working for Uncle Sam.

And if you take those benefits for granted, just imagine how much different things would be under a President Al Gore.

So if the president's stance on immigration and spending upset you - and they do upset me - what are you going to do about it? Stay at home? Nothing could be worse for conservativism. Your non-support will usher in more immigrants, higher taxes, and weaker national security.

If the GOP loses Congress, George W. Bush will be removed from office. Nothing would embolden terrorists more. How can we be counted on to wage an effective war when we can't even decide who our enemy is?

George W. Bush isn't the enemy. But that's exactly the message conservatives will send to the world if they stay at home this November.

If you're upset with W. on immigration - write him, write a Republican Congressman, let him know how you feel. It was conservatives who got Bush to change his mind on Harriet Meirs.

I promise you, a Democratic Congress won't be nearly as responsive to your needs.

[Vicomte13]

"The Republican Party was NEVER a third party. Your second sentence belied your first:
[The Republican Party] REPLACED the Whig Party...
The Republican Party was one of the two major parties AS it came into existence."

Not exactly.

The Republican Party came into existence in 1854 precisely because the Northern, anti-slavery Whigs fragmented from the Southern pro-slavery Whigs. The Whig Party lingered on for a little bit, then disappeared.

If an effective new third party arises in America, it will probably be a neo-isolationist party which will roar out of the Midwest and capture a significant portion of the hard-core anti-illegal-immigration conservatives as well as low-skilled and unionized workers hard-pressed by cheap foreign labor in the US and abroad. There will probably be a substantial contingent of older, Vietnam-era veterans in it.

If it does develop, it will split off the white unionists from the Democrats, and many "America First" conservatives from the GOP.

[mafree]

You're right- I forgot that he wants to impeach Bush.

[ohioWfan]

Can you point me to your post, nopardons? This is a looooong thread. :)

[mystery-ak]

It works and I have already used it....hehehe

[MaineVoter2002]

We have been invaded by democrat shills (trolls) who are here to disrupt and demoralize

You think so? So, democrats have signed up in FR as early as 1998 with a plan to criticise the future President Bush for not being conservative enough and for not securing the borders and for not drilling ANWR and building new refineries?

I suppose all those polls you hear in the news showing Bush at 31% only reflect freepers as well, huh? CNN and Fox and all the polsters just decided to poll only the democrat invaded Freerepublic, right?

I suppose Laura Ingraham is also involved in this conspiracy theory you have. And Sean Hannity. And yes ofcourse, Michael Savage "King of the DU"

Have you been talking to the man on the streets? I have. I hear the same dissapointment from republicans I know that I hear in FR, USENET and in the news. Unlike 2002, the man on the street actually reflects these low polls

If any DU is here masking as republican, it would only make sense that the liberal invaders would be the ones here advocating that the conservatives ignore the open borders, ignore the amnesty to illegals that Kennedy and Bush want to give out, forget ANWR, forget the issues...etc.

If anybody here is a DU, I would say it's the one advocating that we not expect our leaders to be responsible for their actions.

[Souled_Out]

"he would have won if Perot has stayed out"

---

He would have won if the Republican Party had a candidate and agenda that would have made more people vote for them.

[Souled_Out]

"Republican President, both houses of Congress with a Republican majority"

---

You are right Republicans got the vote they wanted and proved to be Democrat Lite.

The key word in my statement is "retain" power. Every once in a while they can fool enough people to get voted into the majority (about every 40 years).

Then they continually screw over the people that voted them in, and once again they are the minority party for another 40 years.

[Chunga]

You are still deluded, the Republican Party gave you eight years of Bill Clinton.

How does it feel knowing that the winning margin of citizens chose a nut job over your candidate and your parties agenda?

Yeah, keep blaming your problems on everything except the fact that the Republican Party can not attract enough voters to retain power.

Why do you care? You're not a Republican and you don't want the Republicans to win, otherwise you'd vote for them! Instead you'll vote other-than-Republican and try to hand the election to the Democrats!

Conservatives don't do that. Conservatives want to defeat Democrats at all costs.

And how the hell do you know the Republican Party can't attract enough voters to retain power? You've stated that it's a fact...where's your proof?

What a phoney!

[RobbyS]

Even with a listless Bush with no agenda, the Republicans would have won if Perot had not pirated 19% of the popular vote. Let is not forget that Clinton got only 43% ov that vote.

[Chunga]

If any DU is here masking as republican, it would only make sense that the liberal invaders would be the ones here advocating that the conservatives ignore the open borders, ignore the amnesty to illegals that Kennedy and Bush want to give out, forget ANWR, forget the issues...etc.

Absurd. Agitators foment dissent by focusing on unpopular stances taken by a group's traditionally favored political party. Therefore, Democrat trolls here would not advocate ignoring open borders, they would advocate hyperobssessing on open borders...the same with amnesty, ANWR and any other issue with which large numbers of conservatives disagree.

You're nowhere near the mark so I can't even say "nice try."

[nopardons]

Oooopppppppppps, it was to a different thread; never mind. :-(

[MaineVoter2002]

Absurd. Agitators foment dissent by focusing on unpopular stances taken by a group's traditionally favored political party. Therefore, Democrat trolls here would not advocate ignoring open borders, they would advocate hyperobssessing on open borders...the same with amnesty, ANWR and any other issue with which large numbers of conservatives disagree.

In order for you to be right on what you just said Rush Limbaugh himself would have to be a democrat agitator along with Sean Hannity, Ann Colter and the majority of the American people.

Nobody will buy that for a second. I'll give you an E for effort.

[Vicomte13]

"Therefore, Democrat trolls here would not advocate ignoring open borders, they would advocate hyperobssessing on open borders...the same with amnesty, ANWR and any other issue with which large numbers of conservatives disagree."

Yes, I suppose clever Democrat trolls might do something like that.

But there are all of the other plain vanilla conservatives here who don't HYPEROBSESS on the Border, but who are demanding that the Republican Party close it, and are expressing their anger at the Republicans for ignoring them. Those folks aren't Democratic agitators. They're conservatives saying what they really think, out in the open.

And if we want the Republican Party to hold onto Congress and not get shot all to hell in November, the pressure needs to be on the Republican holdouts in Congress who won't go along with a fence now, not on the mass of conservatives angry about the border. Senators, like Specter, have shown themselves perfectly capable of changing their positions in order to save their skins. Many of them are not very principled. They flip and they flop, depending on where the greatest pain is. A few million conservatives angry about the Border, by contrast, just are not likely to flip or flop, and not likely to change their mind because someone says that they're Democrats if they don't.

It's time to end this bickering and save the Party: vote for the fence now and kick the amnesty can down the road until after the election. This saves the party. Nothing else will work, so let's stanch the bleeding and do the politically right thing here.

[SuziQ]

And look where the Democrats are today.

Yep, they're not in power, because they have the WRONG ideas. But they got perilously CLOSE to power in 2004, because they were UNITED, even with their wrong ideas.

If we keep getting our knickers in a twist and don't support the Republicans this year and in 2008, it won't matter how good OUR ideas are because we won't be in the majority to implement any of them.

[Chunga]

In order for you to be right on what you just said Rush Limbaugh himself would have to be a democrat agitator along with Sean Hannity, Ann Colter and the majority of the American people.

Nobody will buy that for a second. I'll give you an E for effort.

Look, it's obvious that you have trouble with reading comprehension so I'll save us both a lot of time and say "have a nice day."

[TAdams8591]

"I'm more upset with Conservatives than I am with George W. Bush?"

I'm quite frankly, upset with everyone.

[maine-iac7]

That's one of the most interesting things about this debate, maine. The people screaming the loudest about illegals and hating Bush the most for his weak stance on it, are now advocating letting Dems take control, who have a completely OPEN border and reward the illegals with goodies policy. Do they not see the problem with what they are doing? And if not, how is that possible??

It's the Pied Piper Syndrome: sheeple, who have the self-illusion that they are independent thinkers, are lulled into following the rhetoric in MSM and newspapers. They still, even if subconsciously, think if it's on/in the news, it must be so,

Whoever stays home and doesn't vote or who votes third party (Good grief, they gave the WH to Clinton by voting for Perot. Do they ever learn?) ARE voting for the democrats whether they admit it to themselves or not...

On this issue - they're ready to vote against the pubs - and give it to the dims - who, as you say, are for a completely open border and all the other goodies........

You gotta wonder: Are they truly voting to 'teach the pubs a lesson" (as they think) or they really libRats in pubbie clothing deliberately stirring the pot? Either way, they need neck braces - to keep up those stiff necks

(I wonder how many of those Perot voters even got it that Perot was in the dimRAts hands to run just for the purpose of splitting the vote.....he certainly got lots of nice Government contracts. I would not be at all surprised if they don't already have someone lined to jump in as a red herring come 08. Worked for them once...)

[Vicomte13]

"Whoever stays home and doesn't vote or who votes third party (Good grief, they gave the WH to Clinton by voting for Perot. Do they ever learn?) ARE voting for the democrats whether they admit it to themselves or not..."

Untrue.
Or rather, it's as true as saying that the Republican President and Congress are working for the Democrats already, because they are taking decisions on the border that is driving away Republican voters. So, to paraphrase you:
"Whoever in Congress or the White House doesn't vote for a border fence or insists on amnesty (Good grief! They gave the White House to Clinton by voting to raise taxes after pledging not to! Do they ever learn?) ARE voting for the Democrats already, whether they admit it or not..."

[onyx]

Be sure to wave at your friends at a cheap imitation forum.

You're quite their hero, vic.

[mjaneangels@aolcom]

"Now, we're stooping to intimidation? I don't think that's wise."

I suggested keeping a list of who said what and you refer to that as intimidation? All I am suggesting is keeping quotes with who said what. You call that intimidation and most people call it good notes. No wonder it is so hard to find articles in the MSM that put quotes and names together.

Do you not believe that a person should stand by their word?

I have seen a few here that will say that x is ok with them one day and as soon as someone else shows them that x is the case, they start complaining about x is not good enough, or leave and go to another thread and complain about how x is not happening at all.