What's a little toothache when you can delete hillary?
Posted on 06/18/2006 5:28:38 PM PDT by Mia T
You had read beyond the Paddy Chayefsky quote in post 100. ;) Jim Robinson spells it out.
'[T]hey're using the same divide and conquer techniques. They infiltrate our political parties and organizations. They plant disinformation bombs and sow the seeds of political discontent. They are masters in the use of propaganda and rabble rousing.
Recognize the enemy for what he is and do not allow them to use divisive issues to destroy our conservative movement.
We are winning. We must not be sidetracked by an issue that will be solved in due time as we elect more conservative members to our government and continue replacing liberal activist judges with constitutionalists.
The goal is the same as it's always been. We must hold the line and advance our cause. Never willingly give ground to the liberal/socialists! Never retreat! Never surrender!
The Beast must be destroyed!'
"The game has not changed, we face the same enemy, same challenges. The Beast never dies!"
May 10, 2006 | Jim Robinson
... And as the essay above documents, the clintons divided us twice with spoiler Perot, who was in it not for the presidency but for the dough.
In too many ways the goals of both parties are almost alike. Thay talk differently but the results are the same, socialist globalism.
What's a little toothache when you can delete hillary?
1. How exactly the Dems are waging this so-called 'divide and conquer' scheme.
2. This strategy of incrementally gaining a true conservative majority.
It has not been fruitful in my lifetime, nor that of the generation before me, nor before them.
The 'Rinos' (for lack of a better term) know this and play off of it like water on a duck's behind.
Perfect example: Bush's recent endeavor to proceed with a Constitutional amendment for male-female marriage.
He made his great pronouncement one day and approx a week later the senate voted. I would think something as important as attempting to amend our Constitution might entail the POTUS getting out and trying to convince the people on the matter, via 'town hall' settings, radio and TV addresses, etc etc.
If Bush thinks he fooled anyone that 'one' was himself, because the Christian Right was insulted, (to say the least), and justifiably so.
I'll be blunt.
If the G.O.P. nominates a presidential candidate in '08 that is pro-gay/pro-abort/anti-2nd Amend you all get used to the term President Clinton again.
DO NOT take the most prolific voting bloc in this country for granted.
thanx, brian. :)
Tooth Fairy says:"You just simmer down and relax, Mia.
Vote for the conservative and then watch the Eagles and Reaganites bring victory to us!"
<< In too many ways the goals of both parties are almost alike. Thay talk differently but the results are the same, socialist globalism. >>
The essential difference being that the left is a manifestation of evil and is psychopathologically obsessed with the destruction of both our Nation and our Civilization, while the Republicans, lunatic-left-wing-fringe dwelling RINOs excluded, are, for the most part, well intentioned.
But are also, for the most part, thicker than two planks!
And thus as likely to impede the spiralling into socialist globalism as it is to advance it.
Your post is really hanging it out there, but it is compelling to say the least. That said, I think if Hillary had the power and pull to craft such a scenario, she would already be president for life.
Gimme a break. This is the most revisionist, Clintonian interpretation of the Constitution I have ever seen.
Not to defend Hillary but being a previous First Lady has no bearing on running for President.
Please people, stop with the liberal interpretation of the Constitution. It's bad enough that left-wing judges and Dims do it.
I'm not saying I agree, I was just pointing out why the author said it would be unconstitutional.
Interpretation is everything.
For the terrorist, surely, the Koran is both how-to and call to arms. (It has always seemed to me, therefore, that providing the Koran for the enemy combatant takes pc to beyond lethal extremes.)
Didn't hillary and the husband already do it twice? ;)
I'm not referring to her 'service' as First Lady (so to speak). I am referring to the "twofer," i.e., the co-presidency.
Well, the author's wrong, because this has been debunked ever since rumors of Hillary running for POTUS began.
NANO-PRESIDENT
the danger of the unrelenting smallness of bill + hillary clinton
by Mia T, 7.31.05
To be for sure someone has already argued the "gender clause" in court? (And lost I would assume.)
The RINO is simply a subset of the real problem: the professional pol. Anyone who makes politics HIS CAREER--yes, even your idealistic conservative--quickly gets corrupted by the system, i.e, he has to get reelected and so he sells his soul.
Deals are made that you never even see. The measure of success is the end product. Don't be fooled by the entreaties and head fakes.
Go lightly, Mia, and just be sure that you don't sell your soul in spiting the "beast".
The professional pol is a huge problem for our whole scheme of things,
The RINO is the problem for the GOP. The RINO is a liberal who resides within our party. The vote for many, if not most of the same things the Dems do.
Every time we have a problem getting something passed into law, you find the usual suspects -- Specter, Chaffee, Snowe, et al.
Remove THEM at any cost and then we can fight the left more effectively.
Rudy is to be commended for the job that he did in NYC beforem, during, and after 9/11. But he is still an immoral/amoral baby killing, gun grabbing liberal.
Why do you want to make socialism acceptable within GOP ranks?
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.