Posted on 01/08/2008 11:25:26 PM PST by Justice
ENJOY
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
I have as much respect for a conservative who sits at home on election day and allows the Dims to win as I do a Dim voting for Hill. As a matter of fact, I’d have more respect for the Dim because at least he voted.
I’m not real happy with the entire Republican slate of candidates, but I will vote Republican, whoever wins. I won’t sit at home and just let my country be taken by these weasels.
But the majority of the Republican slate are best friends with these weasels, why vote for second rate weasels when you could vote for the real thing.
I have a lot more time to devote now that I’m retired, but I found time even when I was working. It is do-able.
I will do exactly as I please. If this party runs Rooty or Huck, I will be staying home.
The immigration issue will be dead and over. I will no longer care.
None of these people are conservatives, they WILL NOT get my vote.
BTTT
Thats really not fair. President Bush got us a substantial tax cut which resulted in a booming economy. Unemployment is at an all time low. He signed the ban on partail birth abortion. He has fought the war on terror tirelessly. He has supported our troops and they love him. He held the country together after 9/11. He is head and shoulders above any democrat.
voting for a RINO is the same as voting for Hillary. The RINO will do the SAME as Hill or Osambama.
You’re kidding, right.
You really believe that the Rep. choices are exactly the same as Hillary?
How many of the Rep nominees having been planning a socialist takeover of the US economy and a packing of Leftists in the courts since the 1960’s.
Hillary is a communist to the core. The country is on the verge of electing not only a pure Stalinist, but a woman. And we all know that the men in this country, especially those in public office, do NOT have the brass to oppose a woman on practically any issue.
Get real. Get a brain. Any of the Reps would be better than Hillary. And if they were to attempt pushing liberal legislation, at least we have half a chance of blocking it.
But maybe staying home will give a wake up call to the Republican Leadership to quit shoving RINOS down our throat (i.e Romney, Gulliani, Huckabee, McCain)
If it a'int Fred or Duncan, it'll be TBD 3rd party for me. Jimmy Carter did more for our party in 4 years than any other non-Reagan Republican. Maybe it's time to take some bad medicine.
I won’t vote for a pro-amnesty liberal democrat who wants to take my guns away, who has no morals or ethics, who wants to raise my taxes to fund universal healthcare, free abortion on demand and other ridiculous welfare programs, even if they do have an (R) after their name.
We joke about RINOs all the time ‘round here.
But I ain’t laughing.
tagline
“What makes you think a chief justice appointed by a pro abortion rino would look any different?”
Truth bump for all RINO’s.
I'll go.
I'll vote.
Conservative.
Wherever I find one.
If I don't find any, I'll write some in.
As for "allowing the Dims to win", it is a question of how many of them vote for their twisted idealogy.
If Republicans want to win, maybe they should find an idealogy distinct from the Democrats, stick with it, and nominate candidates who will credibly uphold that idealogy.
As for whether or not you "respect" that, I don't give a rabit rat's a$$. I am the one who has to look at myself in the mirror in the morning, not you.
How do you know we wouldn’t get a Ruthie of Huck or McCain makes it into the White House?
When that type of school girl logic was posted on thread after thread during the 2006 election cycle, I replied a number of times that Republicans are never more more conservative than when in the minority. For the past year, I’ve been proven correct. The hapless Dim Congress has done nothing substantial to date.
This time around, if we end up with a Dim President, I am convinced that the Republicans will block all substantial legislation, and any dangerously liberal appointments during the Dim’s WH adventure.
You heard it here first.
Besides, if I decide to NOT vote for the Republican for President, it will be because I value my vote on principle, not because I want to teach anyone a lesson. And I won’t be bullied about by simple minded fear tactics like yours.
Reagan Would Not Repeat Amnesty Mistake
By Edwin Meese, III
Human Events Online
December 13, 2006
What would Ronald Reagan do? I can’t tell you how many times I have been asked that question, on virtually every issue imaginable.
As much as we all want clarity and certainty, I usually refrain from specific answers. That’s because it is very difficult to directly translate particular political decisions to another context, in another time. The better way to answer the question—and the way President Reagan himself would approach such questions—is to understand Reagan’s principles and how they should apply in today’s politics, and review past decisions and consider what lessons they have for us.
Immigration is one area where Reagan’s principles can guide us, and the lessons are instructive.
I was attorney general two decades ago during the debate over what became the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986. President Reagan, acting on the recommendation of a bipartisan task force, supported a comprehensive approach to the problem of illegal immigration, including adjusting the status of what was then a relatively small population. Since the Immigration and Naturalization Service was then in the Department of Justice, I had the responsibility for directing the implementation of that plan.
President Reagan set out to correct the loss of control at our borders. Border security and enforcement of immigration laws would be greatly strengthened—in particular, through sanctions against employers who hired illegal immigrants. If jobs were the attraction for illegal immigrants, then cutting off that option was crucial.
He also agreed with the legislation in adjusting the status of immigrants—even if they had entered illegally—who were law-abiding long-term residents, many of whom had children in the United States. Illegal immigrants who could establish that they had resided in America continuously for five years would be granted temporary resident status, which could be upgraded to permanent residency after 18 months and, after another five years, to citizenship. It wasn’t automatic. They had to pay application fees, learn to speak English, understand American civics, pass a medical exam and register for military selective service. Those with convictions for a felony or three misdemeanors were ineligible.
If this sounds familiar, it’s because these are pretty much the same provisions included in the Comprehensive Reform Act of 2006, which its supporters claim is not amnesty. In the end, slight differences in process do not change the overriding fact that the 1986 law and the recent Senate legislation both include an amnesty. The difference is that President Reagan called it for what it was.
Lesson of 1986
The lesson from the 1986 experience is that such an amnesty did not solve the problem. There was extensive document fraud, and the number of people applying for amnesty far exceeded projections. And there was a failure of political will to enforce new laws against employers. After a brief slowdown, illegal immigration returned to high levels and continued unabated, forming the nucleus of today’s large population of illegal aliens.
So here we are, 20 years later, having much the same debate and being offered much the same deal.
What would President Reagan do? For one thing, he would not repeat the mistakes of the past, including those of his own administration. He knew that secure borders are vital, and would now insist on meeting that priority first. He would seek to strengthen the enforcement of existing immigration laws. He would employ new tools—like biometric technology for identification, and cameras, sensors and satellites to monitor the border—that make enforcement and verification less onerous and more effective.
One idea President Reagan had at the time that we might also try improving on is to create a pilot program that would allow genuinely temporary workers to come to the United States—a reasonable program consistent with security and open to the needs and dynamics of our market economy.
And what about those already here? Today it seems to me that the fair policy, one that will not encourage further illegal immigration, is to give those here illegally the opportunity to correct their status by returning to their country of origin and getting in line with everyone else. This, along with serious enforcement and control of the illegal inflow at the border—a combination of incentives and disincentives—will significantly reduce over time our population of illegal immigrants.
Lastly, we should remember Reagan’s commitment to the idea that America must remain open and welcoming to those yearning for freedom. As a nation based on ideas, Ronald Reagan believed that that there was something unique about America and that anyone, from anywhere, could become an American. That means that while we seek to meet the challenge of illegal immigration, we must keep open the door of opportunity by preserving and enhancing our heritage of legal immigration—assuring that those who choose to come here permanently become Americans. In the end, it was his principled policy—and it should be ours—to “humanely regain control of our borders and thereby preserve the value of one of the most sacred possessions of our people: American citizenship.”
The time to worry about this is during the primaries. I am extremely disappointed in how this primary season is going but I fear any Democrat more than I fear any Republican so I am willing to vote for the lesser of two evils. To not to, is allowing the greater of two evils to gain control.
I'm not gonna stay home.
But I won't vote for a RINO.
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.