Republicans: The Big Government Addicts

PoliticalUSA.com ^ | 7/2/2002 | Jeff Courere

[illstillbe]

Of the 300 hundred million potential votes you seek to dedicate to ANY candidate ... it might be useful to remember that there is a fair amount of potential voters, there, decidedly below the registration age ... legitimately lowering the count, marron ... whose name comes very close to ... well ... legendary jokes, here ...

Drop a letter here ... pick up one there .... you see where I am going ... to the maroon crowd ....

[headsonpikes]

'vocifolrfously'

Okay, I surrender. Against words like that, who has a chance?

[marron]

voting GOP "no matter what"

No, you vote the more conservative candidate of the ones available.

[marron]

Of the 300 hundred million potential votes you seek to dedicate to ANY candidate

Its easier for me to guess the total population than to guess the total number of voters. What would be a good number, say, 33% of that number? 100 million voters? Maybe fewer.

It doesn't change my point. It was a very close election. There isn't a conservative majority in the country. We have to fight that fight, which of course we do. Radio, internet, an occasional major media victory. And thank goodness the libs occasionally make such public idiots of themselves that we gain a few inches.

But it is slow going. And since we don't elect dictators, no conservative president is going to have carte blanche unless we can give him a conservative majority in congress, which hasn't happened since, well, when?

And, were you making fun of my pseudonym? That hurts deeply. You don't make fun of a guys pseudonym. I spent hours thinking that one up.

[zoyd]

It's just all about votes. When Republican voters actually start demanding more limited government, and polls reflect such desires, Republicans MIGHT start being more fiscally conservative. But as long as 'conservatives' launch defenses over the bloated Farm Bill, and Republicans clamor to be the first in line to promote a Prescription Drug Bill, backed by Republican polls, nothing will change.

Republicans simply understand that the Democratic method of promising more and more goodies for more and more votes works. For now. The voting populace has the responsibility to change things. But, given the support that RINO big-government advocates get here at FR, a supposedly conservative board, things won't change.

[Vast Buffalo Wing Conspiracy]

No, you vote the more conservative candidate of the ones available.

So you are a non-voter, then?

[lds23]

To help things in the long term I recommend we concentrate on getting Bush's court appointments through Congress.

[AAABEST]

I had a really hard time reading your #13, I'd rather attempt to decipher the dead sea scrolls.

I caught the bottom-line however. We should all roll over and continue to take it because our bad guys aren't quite as bad as their bad guys. I'm glad there wasn't too many of your type running around in 1776 when one of the reasons we started a revolution was a 5% tax rate.

We all worked every day from New Years until about now (end of June) to pay for politician's careers and the useless whiners that prop them up. I've listened to you "we have to and voted with you "shut up and take it" people for too many years now. From now on anyone who takes my money without asking or fiddles with our constitution despite the fact that they swear to God to protect it is a useless POS that WON'T

get my support.

[Sabertooth]

No, you vote the more conservative candidate of the ones available.

Nice dodge, but since that's usually going to be GOP, you didn't answer my question...

What if voting GOP "no matter what" only encourages President Bush to pander leftward even more?

[zoyd]

What if voting GOP "no matter what" only encourages President Bush to pander leftward even more?

Then they'll vote for him again, because, hey, "At least he'll be spending money on Republican issues!"

[Ahban]

Man, that was good.

[Sabertooth]

Then they'll vote for him again, because, hey, "At least he'll be spending money on Republican issues!"

With the battle cry, "we're taking the Democrats' issues off the table!"

[zoyd]

With the battle cry, "we're taking the Democrats' issues off the table!"

Touché!

[135steward]

Why do Republicans support h.r.1890? PRO BIG GOVERNMENT!

[jordan8]

Throughout the West you see this same homogenization of politics. The complaint of many non-voters in the recent election campaign between "conservative" Chirac and socialist Jospin was that there was little difference between them. The main reason is that the mass medias, especially movies and television, set the cultural agenda and if you control the culture you will control or at least dominate politics. (In the case of Europe much of this cultural agenda is controlled by foreign powers: Hollywood and New York. Not only do they pump propaganda [a lot of it bitterly anti-American] directly at the populations of these nations [an extraordinary phenomenon when you think of it from an historical perspective] but they influence how the native media functions as well.) The media mullahs control what the masses think on a wide variety of issues and have the power to hammer politicians who get out of line on the ones that really count. Politicians on the left take two steps to the right and politicians on the right take ten steps to the left and meet somewhere near the left curb.

For example, Britain is a grossly overpopulated nation of sixty million or so people crammed into a space roughly the size of Oregon (3.5 million). An excellent case could be made on many grounds (enviromental, quality of life, etc.) to zero or near zero immigration into this country yet no politician of a major party would dare do so. Because of the constant shrieking on the subject by American left-wing propagandists immigration has become holy dogma in the secular religion of the West. Politicians are reduced to arguing about the numbers or what constitutes a legitimate refugee and other trivialities, but like political parties in Iran who may argue on the meaning of a passage in the Koran as it relates to government they would never dare to reject the "holy writ" of "immigrationism" any more than an Iranian politician would dare reject Islamic law as the basis of government. And as for arguing that immigration should be restricted to preserve the British culture and people, Oh My God! Politicians have been drummed out of the CONSERVATIVE party for even suggesting it (I don't think even the BNP dares to suggest such a thing in public). If he or she persisted they might even wind up in jail. There is a running non-debate in Britain about displaying the "Union Jack" in public. People are often ordered by various authorities to take it down because its display is considered to be provocative and offensive. Again think of that from a long historical prospective. A nation that is ashamed of its national symbols, that has no preference for its natives (or native ways) over foreigners, and where no "legitimate" public figure dares argue for certain measures no matter how sensible they may be lest he be accused of selfishly favoring his own nation. There is more going on here than individuals simply making bad choices.

[nopardons]

Not at all; just not used to this laptop, dear. And if you had something of value to say, you wouldn't be such a waste of space. : - )