Bush Presidency is Advancing the Progressive Agenda

Sierra Times ^ | 6-17-03 | John Bender

[SUSSA]

If you grow the party by bribing people with handouts making more people dependent on government, what do you have? You have a copy of the democrat party and a bunch of people you will only keep in the party by ever expanding social programs.

Bill Buckley wrote an editorial when Nixon was president. He warned Nixon that he couldn’t out Democrat the Democrats for long. That's still true today. You can do it for a short time but they will always out Democrat you in the end.

In the column he warned against expanding government for short term political gain. He was right. Expanding the party by making more people dependent on the government is throwing away the whole system that made this country the envy of the world.

Growing the party by making more people dependent on government is running away. Fighting to stop the leftward slide is working for the good of the country.

[Consort]

If you grow the party...

One of the major parties will run the government. It sounds like you don't like the Democrats. If that's true, then do what you can to defeat them and you will have accomplished something for yourself and for the rest of us that feel the same way.

[SUSSA]

Right now too many Republicans are acting like Democrats including President Bush. I'll keep working to turn him around but if he keeps going the way he's going I'll vote third party.

I can't see enabling someone who is narrowing the difference between the parties.

[Consort]

I'll keep working to turn him around but if he keeps going the way he's going I'll vote third party.

Oh yeah. That worked like a charm in '92 with Perot. We sure taught Bush 41 a lesson. He won't mess with us any more, no way. Conservatives kicked his butt out of our White House and replaced him for 8 divisive years with.......I forget...who did we replace Bush 41 with? Were you one of the one who replace him?

I can't see enabling someone who is narrowing the difference between the parties.

But you don't mind enabling Liberals again. Said like a true Conservative.

[SUSSA]

No I held my nose and voted for Bush the Elder. I did vote for Howard Phillips in 96 because Dole is just Clinton who never raped anyone we know of so it made no difference which one was elected.

In 2000 I voted for George the Younger against my better judgement. After I did it I was sorry because Texas was going for Bush no matter what. I knew what he was, but voted for him anyway. I felt real bad afterward when I realized that it was another free chance to vote conservative and I missed it.

I've voted for the lesser of two evils too often. Now I've had enough. Unless he turns around, I'll vote third party or leave the president space blank.

It's up to Bush. If he turns into a conservative I'll work my butt off for him. If not, I figure he in't interested in my vote any way. That's the bottom line.

In the mean time, I'll keep working to try to bring him around and working to encourage DeLay and the other conservatves to buck him when he goes left.

It's all up to Bush. He may think he can keep governing to the left and keep all his base, but at least with me, he's wrong.

[Consort]

No wonder you're so confused. You overcomplicate things. Keep it simple. Don't let the Democrats implement any more of their agenda. Put everything else aside. And if you have to bash someone, pick a Leftist.

[tpaine]

Deb I normally have to Freep solo no big deal. At least we know you support socialism if you support the Bush agenda on the socail issues.
Stand and be counted as one of the duped.
616 -TLBSHOW-



What social issues, you fruit loop?

You wouldn't know a "Socialist" if one peed on your shoe.

And the more you and your fellow brain donors throw that word around, the more ignorant you sound.
619 -deb-


Shoe peeing? Great line Deb. [once upon a time, long long ago]

-- But I think we're now seeing a golden socialist shower on his one man freep parade.. Gollywood 'writer' style.

[SUSSA]

I'm not confused. You are confusing the word Republican with the word conservative.

The Democrats are getting 80% of their agenda now. That's better than they did under Clinton or Carter. That might change, but as of now that is the fact we all have to live with.

Enabling Bush to continue on the path he is on makes no sense. I don't plan to continue to enable him in his rush to the left.

[Consort]

You're spending way too much time worrying about politics. Try raising chinchillas for fun and profit. And when election day comes along, look at who is on the Democrat ticket and everything will fall in place for you.

[SUSSA]

I can't just run away and pretend this is not happening. I have to fight it as hard as I can.

[Consort]

This can become a health problem for you. You might try listening to recordings by the Throat Singers of Tuva or Alpine Yodeling to calm your nerves. Stay away from pictures of Helen Thomas, especially nude ones.

[Amelia]

Because I possess this knowledge, the possession of same requires a higher standard. If i know that my vote will help to further the Socialist Nanny State we are sliding into, how can I (in good conscience) vote for the person that does that, just at a slower pace than the other guy?

In an election, you have 3 choices:

• Democrat
• Republican
• Third party

You also know the practical results of those choices:

• Democrat - fast slide into socialism
• Republican - slower slide into socialism
• Third party - help elect the Democrat = fast slide into socialism

Your vote is going to help "further the Socialist Nanny state we are sliding into" no matter how you vote, unless it's one of those extremely rare situations (i.e. Jesse Ventura) where the third party candidate actually stands a chance of winning.

 

Therefore, is it better to vote for a fast slide into socialism, or a slower slide into socialism?  I'd say, to keep the country as Constitutional as possible, we have to go with slower.

 

We may not like it, but in actually right now the only two choices we have are faster and slower, and in my opinion, voting for faster, even 'inadvertently' (by voting for the third party candidate), is irresponsible.

You notice I put 'inadvertently' in quotes - that's because, since we FReepers are "much more informed than most folks on either side", we KNOW that the practical result of voting third party is to help the liberals.

   

[sauropod]

Actually, there is a fourth choice, but the country is not ready for it yet.

[RJCogburn]

Therefore, is it better to vote for a fast slide into socialism, or a slower slide into socialism?

Good question and the answer is not so obvious as it might at first glance appear.

[Amelia]

So when are our Republican leaders going to actually start acting like Republicans?

Our Republican leaders will start "acting like Republicans" when they think they can win elections that way.

You might also see TigerTale's post #140, which is a good assessment of the political realities.

[Mulder]

Our Republican leaders will start "acting like Republicans" when they think they can win elections that way

You mean landslides in 1980, 1984, 1988, and 1994 weren't enough to convince you that this is generally a conservative country?

Show me the last time a liberal or a moderate won a national election in a landslide.

The line about "we can't be conservative because the country is liberal" is a lie propagated by the RINOs and their apologists here.

Most people want illegal immigration stopped (75% of Californians voted as such several years ago).

Even a majority of democrats believe in an individual Right to keep and bear arms. At the same time Bush is supporting the AWB, many democrats are opposing it. Other democrats have even signed CCW bills into law.

I could list more examples, but you get the point. Most Americans just want to be left alone by their government. The elections in 1980, 1984, 1988, and 1994 prove this.

I still believe as Reagan did that Americans will generally do the right thing when presented with all the facts.

[Amelia]

Actually, there is a fourth choice, but the country is not ready for it yet.

No, I don't think civil war would get many takers -- and right now, I can't see it being any more successful than the last one.

[TLBSHOW]

as well you shouldn't give up you're principals just beause Bush and his crew have.

[Amelia]

You mean landslides in 1980, 1984, 1988, and 1994 weren't enough to convince you that this is generally a conservative country?

 

• In 1980, Reagan won the presidency, the GOP won the Senate, but the Dems kept the House. This was repeated in 1984, but the GOP lost the Senate in 1986.

• In 1988, Bush I won the Presidency, but the Dems kept control of the House and Senate - that's not exactly what I'd call a "conservative landslide" either....

• In 1994, the GOP took back both houses of Congress, but Dems kept the presidency (it being an off-year election) and also kept the presidency in 1996.

Frankly, it looks to me like this is generally a divided country, but maybe that's just my opinion.

[sauropod]

Its just a question of what will bring America to a flash point.