For all Freepers who plan to stay home on election day to teach the GOP a lesson

Yahoo News ^ | Jan 9 2008 | Me

[Justice]

ENJOY

[DoughtyOne]

Could be. I didn’t notice. Was it tuck-n-roll? Heh heh heh...

[ari-freedom]

“the surge is not working...there’s been no political progress. let’s pull out”

look. Reagan was for amnesty. That idea (IRCA) actually passed unlike bush’s plan which didn’t go anywhere. Reagan didn’t veto spending and tax increases. He accepted deficits. Reagan appointed Sandra day o’connor. You’d rather have a democrat instead?

There’s no such thing as a perfect conservative in office. That’s reality. Liberals understand incrementalism. Conservatives don’t and that is why liberals are more successful.

I think we’ve made a lot of progress. We have such high standards as a result of our progress that we don’t appreciate what we have and willing to throw it all away just to send a “message”

[StatenIsland]

Though my tag line says it all about me, I would prefer a straight Conservative, too.

But Fred looks like the longest of long shots, as does Hunter. Victims of the nominating process, I fear, where the buzz is generated in Iowa and New Hampshire, and where the media does it’s coronating.

Newt never entered the race - and to boot, he cracked up a bit before fading from the talk shows.

Bottom line though, say what you like about the RINO that will probably win this nomination, he won’t be doing NEAR the damage a Hillararama could do.

Even a RINO paying the slightest lip service to the Right would give us a fighting chance to fight another day. One of the Dems? Turn out the lights, the party’s over....

[Justice]

[Justice]

[DoughtyOne]

I don’t relish the thought of seeing a party humiliated, that I have supported for thirty-eight years. It really goes against the grain.

You know what, I have wondered for years how there could still be a registered democrat seeing what that party supports these days. And then it hit me. How can I say that, if I’m going to remain registered as a Republican and vote for people who implement those same policies on my side?

I couldn’t live with myself if I didn’t tell the party to take a hike.

That medication addition to Medi-Care was such a lame idea. Bush was Lyndon Banes Johnson on the day he signed that thing. And we’ll be paying for that long after our grand-kids bite the dust.

Folks just don’t get it. We, the republican party, are moving this nation to the left. What is so damned hard to understand about that?

[Justice]

Come to Mama

[singfreedom]

Good Grief, and sorry, folks, that is the Congressional Elections of ‘06!

[DoughtyOne]

BTW, I agree. Using the old (R) ploy isn’t going to work this time. And I think the donations to the RP are beginning to die off. I saw some figures a while back, and they didn’t look good.

I really hate like hell thinking in terms like this, but if the RP can’t get the job done, then it’s time it die off and we get a real conservative party.

If a liberal Republican gets the nomination, nothing would suit me more than seeing that person get about 50 million less votes than the party got in 2004.

We are the heart and soul of the RP. Okay, perhaps we aren’t. If we aren’t, they don’t need us anyway.

[dandelion]

I will be there to vote for my President, whomever that may be - but I will not let the lunatics who are left decide for me. No one shall ever say that by my omission, we lost the Republic...

[Justice]

Sorry, I can't help myself. These pictures are unbelievable.

[NoLibZone]

They have been punishing the GOP since Reagan granted amnesty.

Get over it.

[Rastus]

That about sums up what I’ve been thinking ever since this field of candidates formed.

[HEY4QDEMS]

You’re a freak. You shouldn’t be allowed to vote.

So you're suggesting that he/she stay home??

Ironic, considering the title of your thread.

[Mr Ramsbotham]

My right eye is feeling pretty offensive about now.

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

Q: What is the difference between the Democrats and the Republicans?

A: The Republicans use Vaseline! 8-D

[familyop]

"Yup...and the WOT is one of those in a major way.

The image of Hillary as Commander in Chief standing and speaking before our armed forces as "Hail to the Chief" is played in her honor...EGADS.

I would crawl over broken glass and vote for ANY GOP candidate to avoid such a horror."

But Hillary's policy would likely involve buying more time for Iran to build and proliferate nukes--same policy that's likely to come from any of the candidates prevailing so far in both parties. Such policy will buy time for our enemies, allowing them to continue their buildups and to determine when and where the next war starts. Then Hillary would have to prove how much of a man she is, you know.

...which could lead to an American draft such as never seen before (millions)...and nuclear exchanges!

Excuse me. I've one of those "warmongering" "neo-cons" and am getting rather...excited and aroused. I need to take a break here.

;-)

BTW, if you want to deprive me of my ultimate thrill (war of all wars), support Duncan Hunter. He's the candidate most likely to be able to prevent the next War and keep it from getting started. But if you'd rather, any of the enemy-appeasing/free-traitoring front-runners will be just fine for my near-future fantasies! ;-)

[DoughtyOne]

“the surge is not working...there’s been no political progress. let’s pull out”

I believe that I have stated on this thread that I do support Bush's policies in Iraq, Afghanistan and the region.  As for his actions on the home front, he gets an F minus.

look. Reagan was for amnesty.

I'm going to make a reasoned response here, even though the situation that precipitated the 1986 Immigration fix bears little resemblence to what we are dealing with today.

In 1986, Reagan was trying to deal with what was described as one million illegals that had accumulated in our nation over two or three decades.  Today we are dealing with anywhere from 20 to 40 million that have accumulated over 17 years.  Yes, I know that sounds like overkill, but I have actually seen one hispanic source claim there are fifty million illegals in our nation today.  I doubt that, but what we are dealing with today bears absolutely not resemblance to what Reagan faced.

Reagan signed on to a bill that was to provide amnesty to one million illegals.  As part of that bill, there were a number of new immigration laws that went into effect at the same time.  Border enforcement, stiff penalties to employers that were caught employing illegal aliens, it was a comprehensive package designed to put and end to illegal immigration once and for all.

Reagan signed on for one million.  Three and a half million signed up.  The new immigration guidelines were never inforced.

Reagan did not grant amnesty and then devise a new plan to legalize millions more people to come across our border every year under a massive worker program.  That's exactly what Bush's program would have done.

That idea (IRCA) actually passed unlike bush’s plan which didn’t go anywhere.

I believe I've covered the valid reasons why Bush's plan didn't fly.

Reagan didn’t veto spending and tax increases.

Under Ronald Reagan, the federal government's revenue doubled.  He did get a massive tax decrease, and that's why the revenues skyrocketed.  It is true he didn't veto the spending.  The democrat controlled Congress spent like there was no tomorrow.  Reagan may have felt compelled to allow spending for two reasons.  He took over an economy on the ropes.  Carter and his incompetent crew had run this nation into the ground.  Goverment spending is a quick way to get people to work.  It pumps money into the homes of millions of Americans and sparks monetary activity in local communities.  In addition to this, Reagan wanted to rebuild the military.  I believe he doubled the size of our Navy and modernized a lot of other military concerns.  In order to get his agenda approved, I'm sure he had to allow the dems to get their wish lists in too.  I don't like massive spending.  I don't like the way Congress spreads money around for favors in home districts.

Yes, I believe Reagan could have done better with spending.  The results were that our economy turned around broadly, relatively quickly.  And our Military was revitalized.

He accepted deficits. Reagan appointed Sandra day o’connor. You’d rather have a democrat instead?

I'm not going to spend my time listing all the good things that Reagan did, but I will say it was national and international in scope.  Reagan traveled the world spreading the good word of the United States.  When he took office there were something like ten to fifteen communist states that were no longer communist when he left.  He drove Russia out of Business.  He did not finance their military buildup so that our young men and women in the military would have to die fighting them.

I wish I could say the same for the 'conservative' we have in there now.

There’s no such thing as a perfect conservative in office. That’s reality. Liberals understand incrementalism. Conservatives don’t and that is why liberals are more successful.

Oh our side understands it alright.  If you think they're not incrementalists, you're missing the whole point.

I think we’ve made a lot of progress. We have such high standards as a result of our progress that we don’t appreciate what we have and willing to throw it all away just to send a “message”

Oh please.  We're sitting ducks.  We have 70,000 wahabbi muslims in our nation right now on student visas.  That's progress?

Oh I appreciate what we have.  And evidently I appreciate it a lot more than someone at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue does.

[familyop]

"Sorry, I can't help myself. These pictures are unbelievable."




...reminds me of a scene from "Invasion of the Body Snatchers." Her presidency will be a fitting lesson for anti-defense, libertine, effeminate, police-state jerks who start class wars within our own Party.

[DoughtyOne]

It’s certainly what I’ve been thinking watching folks defend the indefensible. Look, neither of us wants to see conservatism harmed. We are only asking the RP to get back on track. This isn’t an attack. It’s an intervention.