THE DEMOCRAT PARTY IS BEYOND CORRUPT, IT'S ALSO EVIL WARNS JIM ROBINSON IN SCATHING ATTACK OF TRUTH

freerepublic ^ | 9/21/2002 | Jim Robinson

[TLBSHOW]

The Democrat Party is beyond corrupt, It's also evil.

And what is this evil that triumphs when good men do nothing? What are we really talking about here and is it worth fighting for? Is it worth turning our heads and allowing evil to continue on while we do nothing? (and I count voting for a third party candidate when knowing that he has absolutely no chance of defeating the Democrat, and worse, actually planning and hoping to knock out the Republican candidate who otherwise might have defeated the Democrat, as doing nothing).

Corruption is accepting campaign cash from the Chinese in exchange for military hardware. Corruption is accepting campaign cash as bribes from Indonesian power brokers, from Buddhist Monks, from corrupt corporate moguls. Corruption is defined by the myriad criminal acts and practices of the Clintons and the Gores and their corrupt Democrat minions.

Corruption is the land grabs, the power grabs, the gun grabs, the bribery, the shady deals, the high crimes and treason. Corruption is the theft of campaign dollars through forced labor union deductions. Corruption is the systematic indoctrination of several generations of our youth with socialist dogma via government school systems. Corruption is the removal of God from public life and substituting in the evil homosexual/feminist agenda and the destruction of moral society. Corruption is lying to the public about global warming and the selling of the Kyoto treaty. Corruption is giving up our national sovereignty to the United Nations. Corruption is the abuses of office, obstruction of justice, lying, perjury and subornation of perjury.

The Democrat Party is thoroughly corrupt. There is no question about that, but it's way beyond corrupt. It's also evil.

Waco was evil. The killing of innocent men, women, children and babies is evil. Torturing them for weeks on end, gassing them, and then burning them alive is pure evil. This was perpetrated by a corrupt and evil Democrat Administration and covered-up by corrupt and evil Democrat Congressmen and Senators, many of whom you are saying should be allowed to remain in office even today.

And as bad as that is, it pales in comparison to the Democrat government sanctioned and funded wholesale slaughter of the most innocent life of all, the murder of innocent human life in the womb. This is evil. Pure evil. And this evilness is openly perpetrated by a thoroughly corrupt and evil Democrat Party. The same corrupt and evil Democrat Congress and Judiciary whom you are now saying deserve to remain in office.

IMHO, allowing these Democrats to remain in power is aiding and abetting the corruption and treason, and is acting as an accessory before and after the fact to the murderers of innocent human life. Is doing nothing and allowing this evil to triumph evil itself?

I love my country. I love the Constitution. I love life. I love God. I know that the Democrats hate my country, hate the Constitution, hate God and hate human life. I see that the only Party capable of blocking and defeating the evil Democrats is the Republican Party. I see that many races are so close that as little as a one percent siphon of conservative votes to a third party could be the difference between success and failure. I see allowing a Democrat to remain in power when it could have been prevented as a triumph of evil.

JIM ROBINSON

[NittanyLion]

To continue my thoughts...this method will work better than the threat of punishment (IMHO). Parents seem to understand that their children need to learn to be responsible for their actions, yet the same idea seems lost on them where government's involved.

[TLBSHOW]

I see now that jedigirl is no longer with us, sorry nittanylion it was a flame question with a flair of rat in it.

[MHGinTN]

Well Guy, attention to the on-going political environment is the key. A multi-stepped program to retake OUR Republic must have a first step. I agree with Jim that we must first get the damn socialist democrat heirarchy out of office, then hound the elected Republicans and threaten with expulsion if they don't legislate as we demand. May I ask, which would be easier to replace with a Constitutional Party candidate, a Republican who is failing to uphold the Constitution, or a democrat who openly demands that the 'living document' be changed to fit the current social trends? In the meantime, we must release the starnglehold the socialist dims have on the judiciary and the society at large ... dimocrats' policies have pandered to the homosexual movement and the abortion rights folks; has that improved our society? and how many more partial birth abortions will cause the somnambulent american public to rise up and demand laws banning that particular form of murder of the innocent? [HINT: in activating the electorate to vote the dimocrats out, the possibly more important effect would be an awakened electorate that would then watch the elected pubbies like the attentive sovereigns we're supposed to be ... and if they're not constitutionally conservative enough, replace them with a better alternative, but ANY democrat cut from the current heirarchy or their selections (like the Coloradan running against Allard, a clinton hand-picked dem) is the enemy to be overcome in order to get OUR Republic back.]

[WhiteGuy]

"so we don't need to take what you say to heart? More like a LOL alert.

It's up to you, do you think I'm being serious or am I just full of crap?

Some days it just makes more sense to post "LOL" remarks.

[tacticalogic]

Agreed. But the question remains, is conservativism purely a matter of what the intended result is, and having no relationship to the means used? IMHO this is the crux of much of the acrimony. The pure liberals are easily identified - they are pursuing a socially liberal agenda through politically liberal means.

The libertarians seem to be pursuing a liberal social agenda through politically conservative means. The "neocons" seem to be socially conservative, but willing to use politically liberal means, and the "paleocons" and to be of a conservative/conservative bent. All three lay claim to the label of "conservative".

[justshe]

Since you're keeping track:

gunshy signed up 1999-05-19.
This account has been banned.

But I disagree with your premise. 2 of these basically pushed the envelope. In gunshy's case, he ASKED to have his plug pulled. I don't know what prompted the Jedigirl banning.

But to say that this was a "draw-'em-out-of-the-woodwork-and-ban-'em kind of thread" presupposes an ulterior motive by TLBShow and Jim Robinson. Isn't that a bit silly?

[VadeRetro]

I don't know what prompted the Jedigirl banning.

Rumor has it that it was prompted by "Buh-bye," whatever THAT means.

But to say that this was a "draw-'em-out-of-the-woodwork-and-ban-'em kind of thread" presupposes an ulterior motive by TLBShow and Jim Robinson. Isn't that a bit silly?

Why do you say so?

[justshe]

This thread was born from a post by JR on another thread. Many (myself included) stated that Jim's post was so important that it deserved its own thread. TBLSHOW thus posted from the original thread....and started THIS thread.

Now, are you accusing TLBSHOW of starting this thread in an attempt to draw out people so they could be banned? And of course he had to do that in conjunction with JR's agreement to ban people. Do you realize how tin-foil that sounds?

But this off topic. I heartily agree with the topic of this thread: Vote Republican and vote the Dems out!

[VadeRetro]

Now, are you accusing TLBSHOW of starting this thread in an attempt to draw out people so they could be banned?

I'm saying that that's what it turned into, and nobody that matters minds.

[WhiteGuy]

"We must first get the damn socialist democrat heirarchy out of office, then hound the elected Republicans and threaten with expulsion if they don't legislate as we demand.

Your basic points are solid and I appreciate your response.

Let me bring up a tiny example from right here in the Great State of Ohio.....

Our governor, who carries the bloodline of President William Howard Taft, has proven to care not for the idea of smaller limited government. He has instead raised taxes and increased state spending.

I can clearly not vote for him under any circumstance.

I refuse to vote for a "d" candidate. What choice do I have? Many "third party voters" face a similar challenge.

Believe me, I've tried it your way, the gop took a mandate in '94 and turned it into "big government lite" in 8 short years. The gop had 2/3 of the power for years and still went left of center.

I voted straight gop even when the candidate (like taft) was pathetic.

What has it gotten us?

Out of control government spending funded by a confiscatory tax scheme. Mountains of useless regulations. No coherant strategy to head off the train wreck that will be SS and Medicare in the near future. A "watered down version of the bill of rights" and a policy of don't ask don't tell as it applies to the treasonous acts of our former president.

Maybe I'll spend election day at the bar or racetrack.

[VadeRetro]

But this off topic. I heartily agree with the topic of this thread: Vote Republican and vote the Dems out!

You might also consider whether purification down to some hard-core base is a tactic for winning elections. (Hint: you could ask Barry Goldwater or George McGovern.)

[TLBSHOW]

tin foil anyone

[thisiskubrick]

By this count (Democrats PLUS moderate republicans PLUS "most of the major news media") you've probably gone over 50% of the US population.. in effect calling over half of all US citizens "evil".

With respect, I have to say that the real evil is Al-Qaeda, Islamic Fundamentalism, and so on.

If we can't even bring the country together, how can we bring the rest of the world on board in our attempts to root out Al-Qaeda.

Frankly I think the level of hatred between the Dems and Republicans has gotten so out of hand that it is damaging the country. Our real enemies know the maxim: divide and conquer.

And, of course: "United we stand, divided we fall.."

[F.J. Mitchell]

" Is that clear enough for you?"

Duh.....hold muh beer while I splain how clear it is for me. You're saying that it's better for the country if we elect the worser of two evils, instead of those amateurish lessers of two evils. Right?

[justshe]

Considering. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

OK.....rejected.

Vote Republican...OUST the Dems!

[VadeRetro]

Little tent = little showing. Period.

[justshe]

***tin foil anyone***

I've purchased stock in the 'heavy duty' type.

[Askel5]

How do you define "conservative"? I seriously would like to know since you are on record as pro-abortion [?], pro drug legalization and an outspoken animal rights adherent.

832 posted on 9/24/02 3:10 AM Eastern by Texasforever


I am against abortion after the first trimester --- JediGirl

---

"[Abortion] should be allowed in the first trimester only.

... Morals cannot be legislated."

Barbara Bush, A Memoir ... Barbara Bush (1994)

---

The Muteness of Prince George
Read his lips: No comment.
By William Saletan

William Saletan is a Slate senior writer. 
Posted Thursday, March 11, 1999, at 4:30 p.m. PT

       Gov. George W. Bush, R-Texas, announced Sunday that 
he is forming a committee to explore whether he should run 
for president. After a parade of adulatory speeches from 
committee members, he fielded questions. One reporter asked 
whether abortion should be illegal in the first trimester. 
"That's a hypothetical question," said Bush. 

article

---

[newgeezer]

I am against abortion after the first trimester.

So, after 13 weeks, 2 days and 8 hours, the blob o' tissue becomes a human being with rights of her own, eh?

Oops, too bad you can't answer me, as you've been banned.

BWA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA.

Get high, get knocked-up, get abortion. How utterly convenient.

[VadeRetro]

LOL! Someone needs to get after that Bush family. Bunch of DU disruptors!