GOP Party Census Insults Conservatives

10 May 2006 | wgflyer

[wgflyer]

To All,

I just received a Republican Party Census Document in the mail. Reading through the questions and the selectable answers I begin to understand that the GOP is in a similar dilema to that of the Dems. They seem to be trying to figure out strategy based upon polls rather than trying to actually stand for something...

[raybbr]

LOL! It's about the donations, not the money. The fact is, the RNC is doing very well with donations which means that most conservatives apparently aren't as dissatisfied as a few.

Donations are.... money, right? Or, are some of you sending canned goods?

If the Federal Govt. were a corporation with GW as its CEO, the Congress as its Board of Directors and the various agencies and departments its subsidiaries, how would you rate its overall performance?

[Coop]

It wasn't me that started anything. You know it, I know it, and apparently the mods know it. (I guess they're smarter than you think they are.)

You "concerned conservatives" start in on a thread, and then immediately whine to Big Brother if someone uses your exact style and similar language against you.

You're not fooling me. Have a good time making donations to Irey and Steele!

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

Having been one of those volunteers that opens those response letters, I'll let you in on a secret - Nobody reads those surveys - they just take your money out and throw the survey away.

Don't believe me? Call any of them - RNC, RSCC, etc. and ask them for the results of the last three surveys.

Best response? Send them those Gringo Bucks. When enough of those start falling out of the envelope instead of real checks they will take notice.

Do you know where I can get some of these Gringo bucks. It would be fun to send them one of them the next time a survey comes my way (I haven't returned the surveys so far).

As far as the throwing away of surveys goes, do you know if they do the same thing with signed petitions?

[CWOJackson]

"Donations are.... money, right?"

They're far more then that, they are tangible evidence of support.

You know, such as how President Bush helped U.S. Rep. Clay Shaw, R-Fort Lauderdale, rake in more than $800,000 Monday at a fund-raiser.

[stevio]

While I agree with you on those points, one cannot deny the 500lb gorilla in the room, ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION! Which in a few years will easily wipe out all of those things you previously mentioned by socialist voting criminals.

[oldbill]

See posting earlier in this thread. Copy the Image and print them out on your printer.
There are a couple of web sites that have good images, but their URL escapes me for now.

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

So you approve of the 1986 Amnesty plan (IRCA)? How refreshing! :-)

As far as I know, later on in his life, Reagan regretted doing that.

[Coop]

The "gorilla in the room" is a phrase usually used when there's an issue nobody is talking about. Illegal immigration is about as far away from that as one can get. And that's a good thing. I'm glad illegal immigration is on the front burner, and I'm glad the GOP is catching grief. Maybe we'll see some more concrete action toward fixing the problem.

But the rhetoric that accompanies this important issue, especially from a select number of border trolls that flock from thread to thread for Bush bashing, is just ridiculous. And I treat it with the seriousness which it deserves. :-D

[jpl]

I don't have a problem at all with the party doing polling.

I have a big problem with the fact that on some issues they don't care what we want, and that we have no real representation.

[avacado]

--- "I can't imagine anyone thinking that is a fair or equitable system."

That's absolutely the most fair and equitable system out there -- because most of the costs of government services are fixed, not variable. If one guy earns $25,000 and another one earns $250,000 and they both drive their cars 15,000 miles per year on the highway system (you can extend this rationale to any other government function), then there's no reason why the one earning $250,000 should pay 10x more in taxes for the same "utilization" of public infrastructure.---

Guess what! In your example, if those cars cost $20,000 for each person and the Fair Tax was 15%, then the rich guy paid 1.2% of his gross income in taxes on that car while the poor guy paid 12% of his gross income in taxes on that car.

You call that FAIR???? The poor guy pays 10X the percent of his gross pay than the rich guy on taxes for the SAME car!

A consumption tax is a HORRIBLE idea!

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

Thanks.

[P-40]

So what purpose do they serve besides money and mailing lists?

I guess the paper can be recycled. Make some nice Vicente for President posters or something.

[stevio]

Well my fear and the GOP's hope is that it goes to the back burner, as the American sheeple tend to wary and go back to their busy lives of working and paying taxes.

[Loud Mime]

adding to your earlier post....

It's a poll designed to get your emotions flowing so you will contribute some money to their campaign....

[P-40]

A Fair Tax takes a higher percentage of people's money who make less than than those who make more.

No, the percentage does not change. The "relative worth" of the dollar is a specious argument at best, but totally mitigated by the removal of basic foodstuffs from tax.

[beeler]

Lower taxes? Yeah, I'll take what I can get, but how many in the GOP have even acknowledged the existence of the Fair Tax? Bush sure as hell hasn't.

Less abortion? Yeah, right. Please cite some evidence. It may be a little less, but even Bush's so called "conservative" court appointments are as beholden to the unconstitutional Roe v. Wade as ever.

Stronger military? The Army is lowering standards in order to keep up recruitment. Our military is forced to fight with one hand tied behind their back in Iraq. They're forced to engage in "nation building" rather than defeating the enemy. That's in direct contradiction of what Bush promised.

Decimated terrorist infrastructure? Is that why we have caught terrorists on the battlefield in Iraq and Afghanistan who were once held in Gitmo or Abu-Graib but had been released by the administration in an effort to coddle the terrorists and their supporters? Is that why there are still daily bombings in Iraq? Is that why Bin Laden and Al-Zarqawi are still at large? Is that why Bush & Co. insists on trying terrorists as criminals with Constitutional rights rather than try them in a military tribunal?

Conservatives on SCOTUS? Have you forgotten Harriet Miers? It's people like the "border bunnies" who turned that fiasco around. Also, Roberts and Alito have yet to prove themselves. If Bush wanted to be absolutely sure of the court's Constitutional leanings he could have easily chosen to appoint a Janice Rogers Brown and the GOP in the senate could have pulled the Constitutional option.

The GOP is either incredibly weak and incompetent or purposefully ignoring the issues they were elected on. The more you RINO Bushbots attempt to alienate us the more you're screwing up the chances of your precious Republican party. And face it. You need us to win. Hopefully another Clinton presidency will eventually wake you people up, but I doubt it.

[P-40]

Maybe we'll see some more concrete action toward fixing the problem.

That is doubtful...but miracles do happen. The border states are taking most of the hit, and are very much aware of that, but other states are waking up to the problem in their jurisdictions finally.

[Coop]

Have you forgotten Harriet Miers?

Nope. 1) She is a conservative. 2) She's not on the Supreme Court. And because Dubya hasn't embraced your pet issue of the Fair Tax, this somehow means my taxes aren't lower? That's quite humorous.

Yes, our military is stronger, better funded and more respected than during the previous administration. There's no argument here.

Yes, the global terrorist infrastructure has been decimated under President Bush's leadership. That doesn't mean the threat is gone. There's no argument here.

Evidence of fewer abortions? Here you go.

[Coop]

Sorry to disappoint you "concerned conservatives," but I'm not a Republican. Just drives a stake through your heart that you actually have to argue the issues, doesn't it? :-D

Although I'll give you credit for at least trying to argue issues, which is more than most of your kind do. They're too busy running to the moderators because I mimick their words. ROTFL!

[Alberta's Child]

Does the guy who earns $250,000 per year pay ten times more money for a gallon of milk at the grocery store than the guy who earns $25,000? Does he pay highway tolls commensurate with his income? Does he pay $3.90 for the same first-class stamp that costs the other guy $0.39?

Of course not -- because when you look at the issue objectively instead of simply accepting the silly notion that people who earn more money are somehow obligated to shoulder a higher burden of keeping government running, you understand that even something as simple as assessing taxes as a percentage of one's income makes no sense at all.

I'm perfectly comfortable with the idea of the Alternative Minimum Tax -- but only if it applies at all parts of the income spectrum. Every taxpayer in the U.S. should be forced to pay a minimum tax of some sort -- say, $2000 per year -- regardless of income. If nothing else, it will make everyone understand clearly that government costs a lot of money.