Freeper Grassroots Movement to Re-Elect Bush

July 24, 2003 | nwrep

[nwrep]

I want to kick off a grass-roots movement to educate and inform discerning Democrats about the real nature of their party and am soliciting suggestions from Freepers. The reasons I am doing this are several, as listed below:

* I have several conservative Democrat friends who have always voted D, but who disagree with the stance of their party on issues like AA, tax-cuts, and regulations.

* These people do not understand that regardless of the "moderate" local Dem candidate they vote for, the party agenda is driven in Congress by an extremely liberal faction of the party.

* Case in point #1: I alerted one friend to Rep. Rangel's remarks about the death of Hussein's sons yesterday (Rangel said it was "illegal" for the US to kill them). The friend said he disagreed with Rangel, and the majority of the Dems would similarly disagree with the Congressman. I asked this friend if he knew who Rangel was. He had never heard of him. I informed him coolly that if the Dem regain the House, Rangel would become the Chairman of the powerful Ways and Means Cte., where all spending bills originate, and that he is one of the most influential members of his party in the House. The friend was shocked.

* Case in point #2: I asked another Dem friend what he thought of Kerry. He gave me a canned response about his Vietnam service, etc. I then asked him if he knew about his anti-Vietnam war stance. He said he did not, but that his parents (lifelong Dem voters like himself) hated Jane Fonda and everything she stood for. I then forwarded him the NewsMax expose of Kerr's Vietnam stance, his anti-war book, his rallies with Fonda and Ramsey Clark, and his statement to the US Senate in 1971. After reading all that, he said he was disgusted, and would forward it to his mother. He conceded that if Kerry were to be the nominee, he would vote for Bush.

* The problem is that these Dem voters are blissfully unaware of the voting records of their candidates and representatives. All they go by are finely crafted campaign statements issued during the last few weeks before the election where they pay homage to FDR, Truman and JFK. As a result, these dopey Dem voters (like my friends and their parents) continue voting for these candidates thinking they are voting for FDR/JFK-like candidates.

We need to educate these people and keep them as well informed as we Freepers are about the real day to day legislative agenda of the Rat Party. We need to highlight how they continue to vote against the best interest of these conservative, patriotic Democrats (like my friends) and how they continue to display hypocrisy by constantly changing their stance on major issues.

How do we do this?

[DoughtyOne]

To: MissAmericanPie

"Both parties support dissolving our sovereign borders."

Nonsense. You're just looking for ways to take swipes at Republicans.

Please explain the motivation behind ten, twenty, thirty year Republican Conservatives "looking for ways to take swipes at Republicans".  You are talking about people who have never voted for anyone but a Republican in their lives here.  Do you think they do this lightly?  Do you think that all of a sudden they've turned into raging Democrats?  Have any of them expressed support for even one Democrat principle? Where do you get this nonsense?

If Republicans actually wanted to dissolve our soveriegn borders, they wouldn't have killed U.S. involvement in the International Criminal Court

For the record, our government didn't express any objection to the ICC until a couple of weeks before it was certain to be ratified.  In this manner it could claim objection, although avoid doing anything whatsoever to make sure it wasn't ratified.  This is hardly something a conservative would brag about.

or killed the Kyoto Global Warming Treaty,

Tenets of the global warming treaty are being implemented as fast as they can across this nation, at the state level.  Another clear victory for conservatives, right?

or killed the U.S. - CCCP ABM treaty.  QED.

Okay, I'll grant you that.  I supported this and it came to pass.  Of course at the same time we supported a foreign trade policy that saw our largetst global nemisis given the cash to modernize every sector of it's military and help subert other nations across the face of planet earth.

153 posted on 08/03/2003 12:18 PM PDT by Southack (Media bias means that Castro won't be punished for Cuban war crimes against Black Angolans in Africa)

[Southack]

"For the record, our government didn't express any objection to the ICC until a couple of weeks before it was certain to be ratified. In this manner it could claim objection, although avoid doing anything whatsoever to make sure it wasn't ratified. This is hardly something a conservative would brag about."

Rubbish.

Bush not only unsigned the International Criminal Court treaty (signed by Clinton), but he went on the offensive and compelled more than 20 ICC-signee nations to give full ICC prosecutional immunity to U.S. citizens who might be or pass through those soeverign territories.

There is a list around here of some 34 nations who have had their U.S. military funding cut off due to their failure to either give the U.S. ICC immunity or to reject the ICC altogether, all thanks to GWB going on the offensive against a hostile press/media/Democratic Party cartel that actively supports such international leftist pablum.

[Southack]

"Tenets of the global warming treaty are being implemented as fast as they can across this nation, at the state level. Another clear victory for conservatives, right?"

GWB can't be everywhere. If you've lost your state's own internal battle against Leftists, I say look first at yourself and your lack of local participation.

Bush is doing his part at the national level. That you feel compelled to blame him for your own local failures just goes to show that you recognize that you need his leadership at your state level almost as much as we all need it at the national level.

[MissAmericanPie]

"Nonsense. You're just looking for ways to take swipes at Republicans."

The evidence is in, I can't help it if you choose to keep your eyes nailed shut. I visited a small town yesterday called Olney, with a population of under 1,500. The residents were upset because the Fed has built apartments there and pay those on welfare to live there. They have no jobs, some are immigrants some are illegals, and they have brought the gangsta lifestyle of theft and intimidation with them. When I posted this finding on FR I received several responses about other small towns that this has happened to.

This has also happened in my neighborhood where H.U.D. has slipped illegals into homes. Have you bothered to study what the Fed's definition of Free Trade Zone is? It's no sovereign borders from the North of Canada to the tip of Cape Horn. You may live up north where it hasn't hit as bad, but if you can't look around and see that both parties are out to erase the people, their culture and institutions that founded this nation I don't know what to tell you except put some study into the issue of Free Trade, read a few quotes from your Supreme Court who are studing international law so if there is a conflict with the Constitution they will know which one to scrap, guess which one will be scrapped when you have a justice that makes the comment, "The Constitution becomes a less viable document the more we become one people". Globalism is a bad deal for the founding citizens of the United States.

You can wave bye bye to all of it if all we can do is ditter around with which party gets to be in charge of erasing our existance. We need another party and fast.

[Luis Gonzalez]

So you think it will be better to loose the election, watch the program go into effect anyway, and then be powerless as the rest of the social engineering is done by the Democrats?

It's not "go with the flow" Willie, it's the will of the voters.

Or do you think that the people should be ignored in the name of political ideology?

Not government of the people, by the people,and for the people, but rather government for the ideologues?

By the way, that soicialist streak of yours is showing again, what corporations choose to do is their business, not yours.

[Southack]

"We need another party and fast."

No, we don't. The whole 3rd Party spiel is designed to syphon Conservative voters away from Republicans long-enough for Democrats to win more elections.

That's why the **largest** two donors to the Alabama Libertarian Party are Democratic trial lawyers.

Lenin used the phrase "useful idiots" to describe the way such "conservatives" could be duped into stabbing their own kind.

So Olney has less than 1,500 people now? The last time that I was there it was a thriving oil town. I suspect that it still is, too. Those are some tough Texans there.

Did you ever see the two crooks from Olney Savings go to jail for killing that S&L back in the 1980's?

Well, I saw it.

But back to the subject at hand, my point was that you were posting nonsense that had the sole aim of taking a gratuitous swipe at Republicans.

To wit: you **claimed** that Republicans wanted to actively erase our sovereign borders.

To refute that claim, I pointed out that the Republicans would **not** have killed the globalists' wet dreams of their Kyoto Global Warming Treaty, the International Criminal court, and the U.S. - CCCP ABM treaty if they were truly interested in erasing sovereign borders.

If you have to post such border-erasing fabrications in order to make your own argument look compelling, then at heart your argument probably isn't compelling at all.

Something to think about.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Teddy sees the writing on the wall.

Blacks WANT vouchers, and they are about to watch their own party try to keep them from getting them.

Bush will never walk away from the GOP, it's what got him there.

[MissAmericanPie]

"I pointed out that the Republicans would **not** have killed the globalists' wet dreams of their Kyoto Global Warming Treaty, the International Criminal court, and the U.S. - CCCP ABM treaty if they were truly interested in erasing sovereign borders."

Wake up, please? Kyoto protects the big business's moving American jobs offshore, by the time our manufacturing and industry base is long gone how much difference will Kyoto make to us anyway?

And before you get too happy about the ICC, in case you didn't notice only politicians and the military are exempted from the reach of this court, not you and me. Just because a cell door hasn't slammed on your rear yet doesn't guarantee a thing about the future for people who speak up.

Both parties are neck deep in strip mining the USofA and it's native born citizens.

[Southack]

"Have you bothered to study what the Fed's definition of Free Trade Zone is? It's no sovereign borders from the North of Canada to the tip of Cape Horn."

Wow!

So you are now **claiming** that our Federal Government has a formal legal definition of a Free Trade Zone being no sovereign borders?!

I tell you what, you show me just one legitimate U.S. government web source that posts an official government definition of a free trade zone that matches your "no sovereign borders" claim above, and I'll carry the tag line of your choice from now until Friday.

Now, do you believe in your claim strongly enough to mirror my tag line bet back to me? I mean, you did question whether I had even "bothered" studying this issue, after...

[Willie Green]

Or do you think that the people should be ignored in the name of political ideology?

Yeah, yeah, yeah, Luis...

As if we've never seen Calypso Louie Gonzalez do his "we are a democracy, not a republic" shtick before.

But, in general, the protective system of our day is conservative, while the free trade system is destructive. It breaks up old nationalities and pushes the antagonism of the proletariat and the bourgeoisie to the extreme point. In a word, the free trade system hastens the social revolution. It is in this revolutionary sense alone, gentlemen, that I vote in favor of free trade.

~Karl Marx, "On the Question of Free Trade" - January 9, 1848

[Southack]

"Wake up, please? Kyoto protects the big business's moving American jobs offshore, by the time our manufacturing and industry base is long gone how much difference will Kyoto make to us anyway?"

Are you trying to say that killing the Kyoto treaty doesn't matter, or that Kyoto is what big business wants? I really couldn't understand your response. Please clarify.

[Southack]

"And before you get too happy about the ICC, in case you didn't notice only politicians and the military are exempted from the reach of this court, not you and me. Just because a cell door hasn't slammed on your rear yet doesn't guarantee a thing about the future for people who speak up."

That's incorrect. The International Criminal Court has ZERO jurisdiction in the U.S. and in any U.S. territory, regardless of you being a mere citizen, soldier, or politician.

What you say about only U.S. soldiers and policians being exempt is true only in some few countries that have limited their immunity from ICC prosecution while those specified people are inside those countries' own sovereign borders, a right that every sovereign nation maintains.

[Southack]

"Karl Marx, "On the Question of Free Trade" - January 9, 1848"

Karl Marx also claimed that every capitalist system would grow poorer over time as workers were "exploited," and that every socialist system would grow richer.

Dear Karl, I give you North Korea and Cuba versus Japan and the U.S.

Life is good!

[Sabertooth]

The whole 3rd Party spiel is designed to syphon Conservative voters away from Republicans long-enough for Democrats to win more elections.

Not necessarily. When the two major parties cease to be a check and balance on each other with regard to this or that issue, the threat of a third party insurrection is sometimes the only means of chastising one's own party, and evoking in party leaders for certain constituencies.

It's not a card that should be played frivolously, or often, but it certainly has utility.

When leaders of either major party ignore the prospects of a third party insurrection, and end up losing elections, they have only the myopia of their own vision to blame.

[Sabertooth]

" and evoking in party leaders for certain constituencies." should read...

" and evoking in party leaders appropriate respect for certain constituencies."

[DoughtyOne]

To: DoughtyOne

"For the record, our government didn't express any objection to the ICC until a couple of weeks before it was certain to be ratified. In this manner it
could claim objection, although avoid doing anything whatsoever to make sure it wasn't ratified. This is hardly something a conservative would brag
about."

               Rubbish.

No, this is fact.  I notice you morphed the issue rather admit this was fact.

Bush not only unsigned the International Criminal Court treaty (signed by Clinton), but he went on the offensive and compelled more than 20 ICC-signee nations to give full ICC prosecutional immunity to U.S. citizens who might be or pass through those soeverign territories.

Yes, when did Bush unsign the ICC?  Once Bush knew the treaty was a done deal, anotherwords enough nations were committed to signing on by a certain date, he voiced disagreement.  Once again, it was too late.

Sure he went on the offensive and compelled more than 20 ICC-signee nations to grant immunity of prosecution of our military, but as another poster pointed out to you, that was just our military, not individual citizens.  A crime against humanity can be as little as speaking out against homosexuality.  It can be as little as speaking out with a "woman's right to choose" termination of the life within her.  Who protects these people and the churches they are members of when the ICC comes a knockin?

There is a list around here of some 34 nations who have had their U.S. military funding cut off due to their failure to either give the U.S. ICC immunity or to reject the ICC altogether, all thanks to GWB going on the offensive against a hostile press/media/Democratic Party cartel that actively supports such international leftist pablum.

Once again, Bush was in office 15 months before he took a stand on the ICC, and only then after the ICC was assured of ratification.  If this is an example of good leadership (regarding this issue) to you, then I have to ask what team you are actually on.

You state, "all thanks to GWB going on the offensive against a hostile press/media/Democratic Party cartel that actively supports such international leftist pablum." Okay, why did it take fifteen months for Bush to go on the offensive, and why did that only happen after ratification was assured?

If the idea of an ICC was bad, wouldn't it have been far better to damn the idea of an ICC from day one than allow it to be assured of ratification before going on the record with regard to it?

162 posted on 08/03/2003 12:50 PM PDT by Southack (Media bias means that Castro won't be punished for Cuban war crimes against Black Angolans in Africa)
 

[Southack]

"It's not a card that should be played frivolously, or often, but it certainly has utility. "

OK, point taken.

On the other hand, I trust that you acknowledge that it's also a popular tactic to abuse the above said card, even going so far as funding a Green or Constitution or Libertarian Party in order to merely syphon votes away from your competitor.

[Jhoffa_]

Not necessarily. When the two major parties cease to be a check and balance on each other with regard to this or that issue, the threat of a third party insurrection is sometimes the only means of chastising one's own party, and evoking in party leaders for certain constituencies.

Bravo.

Not only that, but politics is more than a "us VS them" sports analogy.

People go to ball games and such to cheer their favorite team, and pray the opposition loses. People become interested in politics however, because of issues.

When both major parties refuse to take up a particular issue, what are the supporters of said issue to do?

It's like someone who wants mexican walking away from Burger King & McDonalds, to the Taco Bell down the street.

Logically, if the two former businesses didn't want to lose their customer, they might try modifying the menu options to accomidate him, and earn his sales dollar fair and square.

Instead, what we are seeing now is the management of the two burger franchises taunting the man, blaming him for his taste in food and calling him a bad customer.

In any situation than our two party monopoly, this strategy woudl fail miserably.

[Southack]

"Yes, when did Bush unsign the ICC? Once Bush knew the treaty was a done deal, anotherwords enough nations were committed to signing on by a certain date, he voiced disagreement. Once again, it was too late."

It wasn't too late. Bush has taken the U.S. out of the ICC, and Bush has convinced numerous other ICC nations to give us immunity from the ICC when Americans are on the territory of those other nations.

Now granted, taking on the ICC that Clinton signed wasn't Bush's very first Executive Action. He did things such as reversing Clinton's abortion EO's, fighting Kyoto, getting our EP-3 plane and crew back from China, passing the first tax cut (i.e. his core campaign promise), and then we got hit on 9/11, a mere 8 months into Bush's Presidency.

But Bush had managed all of the crisises and situations and still managed to gut the ICC within his first year and a half in office, amazingly fast for Washington, D.C. standards.

Criticizing Bush about his timing, rather than what he actually did, is also pretty weak in my book.

The ICC is gutted. The deed is done, and that's a good thing overall in the big picture.

[DoughtyOne]

If Republicans actually wanted to dissolve our soveriegn borders, they wouldn't have killed U.S. involvement in the International Criminal Court, or killed the Kyoto Global Warming Treaty, or killed the U.S. - CCCP ABM treaty. QED.

153 posted on 08/03/2003 12:18 PM PDT by Southack (Media bias means that Castro won't be punished for Cuban war crimes against Black Angolans in Africa)
 

To: DoughtyOne

"Tenets of the global warming treaty are being implemented as fast as they can across this nation, at the state level. Another clear victory for conservatives, right?"

GWB can't be everywhere. If you've lost your state's own internal battle against Leftists, I say look first at yourself and your lack of local participation.

I am involved.  And I do exercise local participation.  And the tenets of the Kyoto Treaty are still being implemented.  You stated that the Kyoto Global Warming Treaty was killed.  Hmmm, if something is dead, does it still live on?

What further steps has our leadership taken at the federal level to block implementation of the Kyoto Treaty across this nation?  Bush did renounce the Kyoto Treaty and state he would not sign on.  At the time I saluted him for doing so.  Now, what good will that do us if the Kyoto Treaty is implemented across this nation anyway?

Has Bush defunded a single NGO that you can name?  Has he stopped them from drawing up legislation that the fifty states will rubber stamp and pass into law?  He does have the power, coupled with his House and Senate partners to do just that.  Has he or they?

Bush is doing his part at the national level. That you feel compelled to blame him for your own local failures just goes to show that you recognize that you need his leadership at your state level almost as much as we all need it at the national level.

Well, as I have just pointed out, he hasn't done his part at the federal level.  Kyoto is still being implemented by a coordinated effort of NGOs, local governments and federal officials looking the other way.

163 posted on 08/03/2003 12:52 PM PDT by Southack (Media bias means that Castro won't be punished for Cuban war crimes against Black Angolans in Africa)