Replies

You asked me to take a look at your post 87 and tell you what I thought of it. When I read your post 99, I had just finished responding to others at length along the same lines and didn't want to start over on a new one at that point. I determined to return and address your thoughts later. I took on some other easily fielded comments to me and then left the forum for a while.

I'm back. Here are my thoughts on yours.

What makes you think a McCain Presidency would feel obligated to fill Supreme Court openings with conservatives?

I don't! I've deliberately not voiced my choice of candidate(s) on the forum due to the flood of hatred that spews forth in recent years when others have done so....but I'll bite the bullet, so to speak and here goes...McCain and Paul would be the last Rebups on my list. McCain is so left-leaning I'm not sure why is even registered Republican anymore...he definitely is not Conservative. Paul, although espousing some conservative perspectives, is a conspiracy nut, as well as many of his supporters, especially on some of the nuttier forums I read for entertainment purposes. Hunter and Thompson were my original options as they were closer to my personal philosophy than any other candidates on the ticket.

Your and my views on McCain and Paul are similar. With regard to Paul I wouldn't address it so much as a 'conspiracy nut' issue, as much as a nutty 'no foreign entanglements' issue. If Thomas Jefferson (a well known founding father) could engage in a foreign entanglement circa 1785 with the Barbary Pirates, then I think it's reasoned to believe we are on safe ground today if we engage in one in Iraq.

Considering the world has shrunk do to the modern contrivances that allow us to be on the other side of the world on the same day, it's even more reasoned that we consider problems on the other side of the Atlantic to be somewhat the same as problems down the block in 1785.

We fight problems because they exist and to ignore them doesn't pay off, unless you consider them getting worse and biting you on the posterior as a positive payoff.

My thought when I made the post was the consideration (which I wish many more Americans would have considered before Hunter's and Thompson's departures) is that when faced with either Clinton or Obama as the Dem nominee so many on the forum have stated that they would either stay home, vote third party or (heaven forbid) vote for Obama due to lack of a good conservative candidate.

It was this precise thinking that caused me to try to raise the level of awareness regarding Fred Thompson before he dropped out of the race. That sure paid off. /s

I won't vote for any registered democrat. After watching what democrats were perfectly willing to watch take place in their own party in the 1990s and do nothing about it, I have very little respect for them. Now, that being said, if I'm going to be hard on democrats for breaking the rules, how could I look myself in the face if I didn't acknowledge violations of Article IV Section IV of the U.S. Constitution and speak out against that reality?

It's the same thing with those who find reasoned gun laws to be Constitutional. That is diametrically opposed to the Second Amendment. We know what the founding fathers thought of governments, even our own. They cautioned us and fully expected folks to take matters into their own hands if the government got out of control. Would they have determined that guns that would make that possible should be denied the populace? I am not convinced they would. In fact I'm quite sure they wouldn't have found such laws to be 'reasoned' at all.

If they only knew what our nation has become. They'd level criticism on us that would shame us beyond belief. As for our officials, they'd probably be looking for a lot of long ropes and low branches.

The sad thing is, many folks don't value our founding principles any longer. They think those matters are outmoded. Sovereignty is not so important.

You're dealing with folks that mean well, but turn off if you don't agree with their political favorite. Hey, I'm guilty of that too, but I would like to think I have found the most conservative man for the job. I'm sure they probably do too. Still, when you point out a number of problems and they show evidence of that not mattering, it is very disconcerting.

As with the last two Presidential elections there is much to concerned with since the potential exists for the Democratic contenders who are so far to the left (read:Socialist) gain control of our country.

I agree with this. These scare tactics (not unrealistic I might add), are used every four years to keep us in line. I will ask you to think in terms like this though. Despite what we think of the left, we do survive the Carters and the Clintons. After Carter, what did we get? We got Ronald Reagan. It's my contention that we would have gotten another conservative in the midst of the Clinton years, or certainly at the end if that hadn't been short circuited.

In the latter part of the summer or early fall of 1999 it was revealed that George Bush had a $70 million dollar war chest. Do you think this may have had something to do with the idea that a real conservative might come along and vie for the political leadership of the republican party that election cycle? I do. The republican leadership was desperate to get back on track with their version of the globalist agenda.

When I heard that Bush had that war chest, I wrote off the election. I did my best to talk folks out of it, but Bush was their fair haired boy. He was anointed early on and you didn't criticize him for anything without being swarmed.

Well they got him in. And down hill we went IMO.

So what do we get this year? Why we get another set of RINOs. And if one of them is elected where will our nation continue to head? And what will we get in 2012? Another RINO? Do ya think? LOL

IMO it would be best if the republican nominee were only to get about 10% of the vote they got in 2004. If this were to take place, the party leadership might actually start to listen to the rank and file. They sure haven't up until now. They have been bombarded with comments about the border and illegal immigration, the fence. Have they listened? No. Reportedly the finance bill passed a few weeks ago withdrew the funding for the wall. There's the leadership's willingness to listen to us.

A no confidence vote in 2008, is vitally important to the long term health of our nation. It isn't going to be any better in 2012. There will be just as good reasons then, why we must support the RP, OR ELSE. No, the time has come. It is now. It's time to say, no more lefties. If you want to run them, then get them to register as democrats and support them all you want. We're not voting for them on the right.

Not only securing our borders, lowering taxes for workers and businesses, preventing socialist health care plans from being rammed through Congress, etc., but the potential for two open SCOTUS seats which is all we have to overrule judges who continually legislate from the bench, e.g., the 9th Circuit.

Look, you're thinking in terms that let me know your heart is in the right place. That doesn't mean that your reasoning is as solid as it may appear.

The president takes many actions during his four years. Many of them are actions that the public is aware of. Many of those actions are ones that you will never hear of. Some of those actions affect commissions and work groups that liaison with the United Nations or other globalist concerns. You don't hear about those. When trade or other international agreements pop up on our radar, it is only after an administration has directed a lot of work behind the scenes easily encompassing years worth of efforts. In some instances, probably more than others will agree to and less than I suspect, these presidents work against our wishes. To what extent is open to conjecture. Still, it does go on.

Now, when a president does take conservatism into consideration on matters that are public and tries to adhere to the U.S. Constitution, I don't worry so much about what he is doing behind our backs. When a guy tries to legalize as many as 25 to 30 million foreign nationals within our borders and set up a process to usher countless others into our nation, I start to get very nervous. When a guy allows 70,000 people to come to the U.S. on student visas from a nation that was the most represented in the attacks on 09/11, I begin to not only get nervous, but I want the guy out of office as soon as is legally possible.

George Bush is one such man. He is a RINO. His instincts do not adhere to firm conservative principles. His doubling of the Department of Education's budget in his first term said a lot about him. So did other of his actions. If I want him out of there for being a RINO, do you think I want to replace him with one?

When you address the court appointments, you're right to do so. What are you willing to sacrifice across the board for those appointments? Is open borders a good trade? Is a multinational security agreement that diminishes our sovereignty? How about an American Union? Would that be okay as long as we have a 9/9 court stacked with republican choices one and all?

You see, we can win some very important issues, and still lose our nation. Is that worth a vote for a RINO in every election?

No.

Flamesuit on!

One thing you'll have to learn about addressing issues in a public forum. Folks are going to rip you. That goes with the territory. There are going to be times when you'll be wrong and deserve what you get for that. There will also be times when you'll be expressing the longings and consternation's that are confronting a lot of others, who don't want to say it online. Say it. Give it some consideration and say what makes sense to you. Let the chips fall where they will. Your honest opinion is as important as anyone else's. That's what the first amendment is all about.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1960500/posts?page=87#87

See my post #87 above, but pardon the typos...I get excited sometimes. And, please don’t misunderstand...I had hoped that we would be left with a true Conservative for our candidate, but know I’m trying to determine how to deal with what we have remaining. There is NO good choice, but I feel that the Dem ticket could cause MORE harm (hopefully) than any on our ticket. Personally, I’m ready to begin cleaning house, so to speak...House and Senate. We need to remove ALL of the RINOS in office and purge the damage that has already been committed against our nation. I previously stated today that I firmly believe that each and every day our Founding Fathers must turn over in their graves due to violations of our Constitution are abused daily. Thank you for your comments.

In California I am longing to see an initiative that removes every single state official from office. I know where you are coming from. I would welcome that at the federal level as well.

When that is done, I would like to see some punitive measures enacted that would see incarceration for some folks who have been carrying on like they have been from leadership positions in the state and the nation.

It's time for a low grade electoral revolution in this nation. The natives have had enough of the type of leadership that ends nations. It's a time for renewal, and I am fighting to make sure the republican party can be the conduit for that renewal.

If it can't get it's house in order, then it is time for the RP to fad off into the sunset, to be replaced with a party that truly does understand the miracle our nation is, and the need to preserve it's founding principles with honorable men.

Yes, I agree that our founding fathers would be very upset if they knew what had been done with the nation they handed off to their successors.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1960500/posts?page=99#99

Thanks for your comments.