Posted on 10/28/2006 12:53:49 PM PDT by tomnbeverly
Stay at home Republicans make no mistake your unenthusiastic view of this years GOP candidates has the potential to cause a measure of distress for the remainder of your natural life. Why ?
1. A Democrat wave that takes over Congress will be heralded by the MSM and the Liberals as a mandate to:
a. Withdraw from Iraq (regardless of cost in human lives or the future outcome). Vietnamization of Iraq will be completed but unlike the result of Vietnam which was the Cold War against Communist aggression, the results of failed Iraq will embolden an unstoppable Radical Muslim uprising. Whereas the Cold War had mutually assured destruction as a preventative to attack the new Terror war will result in multiple attacks on America with countless civilian deaths.
b. Investigate the Bush administration, witch hunt the entire administration with the end goal of an impeachment. Why? Well for among other things the vindication of Bill Clinton and the sealing of his legacy as that of the last great president in the U.S. Instead of Bush being a post 911 hero the MSM and liberals will ensure the Bush is blamed for every failure. In the minds of the MSM and liberals it is already so and they feel if he had not embarked on such folly as Iraq well then we would not be in the mess we are in today. I figure he is blamed for every attack on America and for any pitfall in our war on terror, for oh say the next 8 or 9 years.
c. Cancel the 700 mile border fence and stir a liberal outcry for amnesty. Watch for some kind of agreement between our Congress and Mexico's government. This will also be a way for the Liberals to get their message to the Illegal immigrants that will be the new Democrat voting block ensuring continued victories at the polls.
d. Sponsor a new amendment to the constitution one that instills homosexual marriage with the same rights as that of heterosexual marriage. To be heralded as a 21st century civil rights triumph.
e. Implement laws for a national health care system. One that will implement a class warfare that only the super rich will be able to get medical care outside of the this new government system and as such the super rich will get better health care then those middle class and poor that go to the government clinics.
f. Tax increases across the board resulting in large corporation lay off of many workers. Firings and lay offs will be used in order to recoup these new taxes from their payroll base resulting in stifled company growth. The end result of course will be to plunge our economy into sever depression. Those lucky enough to keep jobs will be taxed senseless to pay for the new wave of welfare class that will develop out of this depressed society.
g. Implement laws for the Fairness doctrine which of course will require liberal media coverage including talk radio and TV for any opposition point of view.
2. Everyone make no mistake about it your failure to act will result in generations paying the price. GET OUT AND VOTE REPUBLICAN.
Voting straight Republican ticket. I have no intention of giving it to the hate America Democrats. I owe it to my country and the military to keep the left from gaining power.
"Thank God Regan only had to deal with a Cold War"
And with Nukes pointing in our direction.
Iran seemed to sense a Warrior in Reagan. Why do you think they released those hostages 20 minutes after he took office. They feared him and rightly so.
After he bombed Kadafi in his tent, you didn't hear much out of Kadafi for a long, long time.
: sigh : Your complete lack of perspective is depressing.
Harris won the primary, true, but with a minority of the vote against three nobody challengers, because unfortunately, too many candidates who were stronger in the general election (and, I might add, either as conservative, or close to has conservative as Harris), believed that the irrational section of the base would vote for her anyway just because they liked her, not paying attention to the fact that she was an almost certain loser in the general. Tom Rooney, Allen Bense, Tom Galligher, and several others could and would have ran, and could have beaten Nelson, unlike Harris.
It turns out, that perception was wrong, she could have been beaten in the primary, most Republicans were not as irrational as the Harris Kool-Aid drinkers around here are, but don't just pretend that she had some hard fought primary and won. She won a pathetic 48% of the vote with 100% name ID and no serious opposition.
And Chris Shays comes from a district that gave Kerry 55% of the vote, and he's won in it for quite a while. Harris came from a district that gave about 60% of it's vote to Bush, and never won more then 55%.
Ah, but you see, you are a RINO SELLOUT and you are just buying MSM LIES.
People like Alan Keys would win crushing victories in every district in the country if it weren't for RINO SELLOUTS like you.
[/sarcasm]
Again, THE reason the Democrats took control of the Senate last time is "Republican" Jim Jefford was re-elected with Republican votes and then sided with Daschle. We sure accomplished alot by blindly supporting "Republicans" like Jeffords.
Hey, I swiped that too...hope you don't mind. I might get mad at someone sometime and have to use it. LOL (It won't be my Freeper Friends!)
Has it ever occurred to you that GOP infighting has been the norm since the party was born in 1854?
This is what conservatives do - we haggle over the issues and resolve our differences and try to elect the best possible candidate. Would you rather have us be like Dims, who vote in lock-step 100% without debate and who excludes moderate Dims?
Because he had to bend the arms of POS RINOs like Specter & Chafee who fought the tax cuts tooth and nail. We could have had a bigger tax cut had Specter not fought the administration on this, which makes Specter a complete hypocrite, because he's always advocated for a low flat-tax.
I WROTE:
[I'd take the border fence and put it in the category to /not/ vote for the Republicans. They're still lying and decieving us when it comes to this fence.]
1035 WROTE:
[Hogwash!]
Show me the money! You do understand that our gubbermint did /not/ fund the border fence, don't you?
You wanna know what real hogwash is? Real hogwash is trying to build a 700 mile long fence with ZERO money. Real hogwash is that Congress and the President all know that without money you can't build a fence, yet they have grand White House ceremonies where they tell us the fence will be built. Real hogwash is the politicians coming back to their districts telling people, "We did what America wanted. We're going to build a fence," and knowing that no fence will be built.
The border fence and the accompanying hollow rhetoric are deceitful, a bunch of lies, and most definitely hogwash.
1035rep, please show me the money!
"If Chafee's record is acceptable you might as well vote for Hillary since they're identical on the issues."
If she stuck an "R" behind her name, many would.
A bill signed by President Bush Oct. 4 allocated $1.2 billion to be spent during the fiscal year beginning Oct. 1 for Southwest border fencing and other barriers.
The money has already been appropriated to the fence .
I seriously doubt that. No way could that commie ever look like a Republican.
"I seriously doubt that. No way could that commie ever look like a Republican."
Olympia Snow
Lincoln-Chafee
Jim Jeffords (once upon a time)
And of course the current head of the judiciary commitee.
You'll have to dig deeper into Hell to find anything resembling Hillary.
1035rep WROTE:
[It is you that does not understand.]
Okay, I see that you're the type who reads the headlines, but never finishes the story.
[A bill signed by President Bush Oct. 4 allocated $1.2 billion to be spent during the fiscal year beginning Oct. 1 for Southwest border fencing and other barriers.]
All true! Now, let me play Paul Harvey and 'splain you "the rest of the story."
The cheapest estimate to build this 700 mile long fence is $8 billion. If every single penny of the $1.2B were spent to build a fence, you'd have enough to build about 100 miles. See, no fence?
But, the lie and deception get worse. See, after allocating the $1.2B, the Congress then said to the President, "BTW, you do /not/ have to use this money to build a fence." Do you understand? Congress did not require the President to build the fence, thus ensuring that it never will be built.
This type of escape clause is rare. Normally, when Congress approves funding for a project, that funding is appropriated to that project and that project only. Why? So that when a Republican Congress says, "Take this money and build an aircraft carrier," they don't want some liberal socialist Democrat president taking the money and using it to sign up 10,000 more people on the welfare rolls.
The ONLY thing Congress required of the Administration is that a member testify before Congress a month after this upcoming election about the feasability of building a fence.
1035rep, see if you can find the video of President Bush on the O'Reilly Factor this past week. Bush began talking about the fence and O'Reilly called him on the lack of funding. Our President did /not/ deny O'Reilly's claim. In fact, our President changed the subject very quickly.
There will be no fence.
I have the facts on my side. I read the bills that were signed by President Bush. I don't need headlines or the MSM for a translation. The fence is being funded.
[I have the facts on my side.]
Right! Of course you do. Tomorrow, you and President Bush can head down to the border and build a fence with no cash. Good luck!
[I read the bills that were signed by President Bush.]
Great! Can you show me the one about appropriating the funds to build this mythical fence? NOT the one that authorized the fence. I'm talking about the bill, now law, that pays for it.
[I don't need headlines or the MSM for a translation. The fence is being funded.]
Sigh. Well, I can lead you to the water...
Yes! But I would consider them to be of the same ilk as the Greens.
1.2 billion for fencing along the U.S.-Mexico border is in the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2007 signed by President Bush on Oct 4th 2006.
I am not sure where you got that from. What do you mean? I don't believe I said any such thing, nor did I imply it.
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.