Posted on 06/14/2003 8:18:22 AM PDT by TLBSHOW
Thus, when the only goal is to get Republicans in power in an effort to deprive the Democrats of power, they sometimes forget why they wanted change in the first place.So if Kyle Williams is not going to register as a Republican, does that mean he'll vote against the GOP, thus handing power to the 'RATS ? You know, they're the ones obstructing Conservative judicial pics in the Senate. They're the ones running off to Ardmore to prevent legitimately needed and proper redistricting in Texas. And so forth ad infinitum. Is that what he wants? More of that ? The DemocRATS don't have a sound platform that I'm aware of. Mostly what I see are objections to the current administration, and plain Bush-bashing ala Robert Byrd, Tom Daschle, Hillary Clinton, etc.That is the reason I have a problem with the Republican Party and that is the reason why I doubt I will register as a Republican in four years. The national platform is that of a goal of political power, compromise and lack of conservatism.
Debate within the party is one thing. To sabotage the party and hand things freely over to the 'RATS is yet another. I'll be voting GOP in 2004 all the way !!
Or maybe I'm missing something here ?? Enquiring minds want to know . . .
Please let me know if you want ON or OFF my General Interest or Texas ping list!. . .don't be shy.
When I was 15, I actually was pro-Libertarian and debated for the Libertarian candidate for President(Ed Clarke) that year(1980) in High School, because I thought his ideas on drug legalization were so cool.
Todd, when a person is 14 it isn't the "truth", but idealism, IMHO.
But what the hey when you find someone who shares your malcontentism, you have to proclaim it to the highest mountains.
Hear, hear. I've come to much the same conclusion.
and when you get to be Rush Limbaughs age
Huh? You can LOL all you want, but idealism is idealism and even Rush will admit that political factors have to be considered.
But what the hey, you go by article titles and one sentence sound bites to make your point and world view.
Do you really think the money in the Republican party would still be there if the party was taken over by Constitutionalists? Personally, I kinda tend to doubt it. Reason I doubt it? If the money was for Constitutionalists, that's where it would be going now.
Well, I asked a logical question of you, politely stated my belief about the probable outcome of your proposal, and gave my reasoning for the basis of that belief.
You do seem to display your intellectual capacity rather well with this reply, though. No need for you to stay up all night to do that; it seems to me that it shouldn't even require a measurable amount of time.
No, no, no say it ain't so!! I've been told high and wide I'm, how was it put again, a a nut and an irritant for believing such things? Come moneyrunner, tell us all how it really is. Straighten us out for thinking we should even believe such 'nonsense'
"Whenever a man has cast a longing eye on offices, a rottenness begins in his conduct."--Thomas Jefferson
"Either force or corruption has been the principle of every modern government." --Thomas Jefferson to John Adams, 1796
"There is in the nature of government an impatience of control that disposes those invested with power to look with an evil eye upon all external attempts to restrain or direct its operations. This has its origin in the love of power. Representatives of the people are not superior to the people themselves." - Alexander Hamilton - Federalist Paper No.15, 1787
"Were parties here divided merely by a greediness for office,...to take a part with either would be unworthy of a reasonable or moral man--Thomas Jefferson
Wow even one by a good little statist like Hamilton. Note again none of these spoke against either party, rather politicians as a whole!! And a quote I think we need to see a bit more of as politicians lead us down this primrose path, either fast or slow, it will lead to the same thing unless we stop thinking along party lines and start on what an elected official believes. Because here in the South there are Democrats currently in office at the state level that are more conservative than some Republicans. Simply shocking...
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasure. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's great civilizations has been two hundred years. These nations have progressed through the following sequence: from bondage to spiritual faith, from spiritual faith to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependency, from dependency back to bondage." Alexander Tyler
An excellent article Kyle, and hope for a future that we may return to a Federal Constitutional Republic
I wish. Voted for them the one time their candidate was on my state's ballot.
But I live in a world of soccer moms who are very conservative yet vote for the democrats.
I'd say in all, Americans are too apathetic to to pay much attention to what is going on in our government. Most vote based on where their emotions a few weeks prior to elections and that's where propaganda rules.
Bottom line, it's now all about who controls the media and whose propaganda can get the biggest emotional response.
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.