Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Don't get fooled again
World Net Daily ^ | 22 August 2002 | Joseph Farrah

Posted on 08/23/2002 6:46:23 AM PDT by SheLion

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-50 next last
To: SheLion
"...It is beyond the scope of government's authority to tell private property owners what they can and can't do with their establishments...."

Try and tell that to Lester Maddox.

21 posted on 08/23/2002 7:34:15 AM PDT by Hanging Chad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

Comment #22 Removed by Moderator

To: steve50
"it is a moral obligation"

This is the point.

The big government party faithful would have us believe that:

1. Third party voters make up an insignificant number of voters and don't matter.

2. It will be "their fault" if democrats win elections because every 3rd party vote is a "vote for the dems" (see #1 above?)

3. Third party voters are selfish, utopian, and drug-heads

4. We should all work from within the party to change it.

5. Voting on principle is un-patriotic, support the gop president, "we're at war".

All these arguments amount to the same amount of lip service as the BS we get from washington about "fiscal responsibility".

23 posted on 08/23/2002 7:39:15 AM PDT by WhiteGuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: SheLion
Yet, it turns out, Bloomberg was actually a lifelong Democrat who merely switched parties to avoid a crowded and difficult primary race.

Beware of wolves in sheeps clothing. I often believe that politicians are like cameleons, changing color when ever it suits them.

24 posted on 08/23/2002 7:53:56 AM PDT by scooter2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WhiteGuy
Most eligible voters can't muster up the gumption to spend a couple hours a year pulling the lever for the rubber-stamping of whomever they feel is the lesser repugnant of whatever scumbags are offered up by the Republicrat cartel.

How utterly incompetent must Republicans be before people realized they're throwing the game?

25 posted on 08/23/2002 8:03:31 AM PDT by toenail
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: scooter2
Beware of wolves in sheeps clothing. I often believe that politicians are like cameleons, changing color when ever it suits them.

Sad, appalling, outrageous, disgusting.

They change hats whenever it suits them.  It's so easy for them to do this without so much as a thought to what they are doing to their constituents.

26 posted on 08/23/2002 8:19:25 AM PDT by SheLion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Just another Joe
Farah is full of it. It didn't "turn out" that Bloomberg was anything different than what he campaigned to be. The NYC voters knew exactly who they were voting for, and chose one tyrant over another. In fact, they chose one tyrant to replace another. The fact that Bloomberg was endorsed by Giuliani should have been exactly the clue that Bloomberg would be an abortion supporting, gay rights supporting, government control maniac, since that's what Giuliani is. The audience for Farah's piece isn't New Yorkers, for whom none of this is a surprise. He's just feigning surprise to get others riled up enough to vote for people (like himself) have no chance of winning.
27 posted on 08/23/2002 8:36:11 AM PDT by drjimmy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Impeach the Boy
I have always thought that the Libertarians would be better off joining and attempting to influence the GOP than by running on their own. One of the congressman from Texas (the name currently escapes me) is one example of a reformed Libertarian turned GOPer. It would be muc more beneficial to the US if these guys matured and attempted influence from within.
28 posted on 08/23/2002 8:42:05 AM PDT by DM1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: DM1
I agree, although I oppose much of the LP platform (legalizing drugs and isolationist foreign policy), but I agree with them on many of the liberty and Constitutional issues...but the core of the problem for them is this...if you don't control a house of Congress, you are just a noisy nat.
29 posted on 08/23/2002 9:49:28 AM PDT by Moby Grape
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Just another Joe
It is a delima...I vote GOP because it is the lessor of evils...I always hope to see REAL conservatives win in the GOP...I am not a big fan of Bush, but I thank GOD that Gore is at the helm now.
30 posted on 08/23/2002 9:51:26 AM PDT by Moby Grape
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: DM1
One of the congressman from Texas (the name currently escapes me) is one example of a reformed Libertarian turned GOPer.

I think you're talking about Ron Paul. Except that he isn't really a "reformed" Libertarian. He is one of the few congressmen that actually votes according to the Constitution, instead of party. While it may be true that he went with the GOP in order to be elected, other than the name he isn't a Repub. Kind of like a RINO, in reverse.

Now if more Libertarians were to do this, and take over the GOP, I would call that "working within the system." As it stands now, that would require more guts than any "politician" has. Except Ron Paul. Thus "working in the system" is a lost cause, imo.

31 posted on 08/23/2002 9:57:32 AM PDT by serinde
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Impeach the Boy
You don't have to be libertarian to see that neither party has much to offer. And it doesn't really matter a whole lot if voting for a third party causes Democrats to get elected, because the liberal mindset is already in control regardless. When's the last time you heard Bush take a stand against liberalist attitudes about how society should be run? I think the last time I heard anything like that was during the election campaign, where Bush was giving us these vague platitudes like "I trust the people. Mr. Gore trusts government," over such monumental differences in policy as when Gore proposed full prescription drug coverage within three years, and Bush said it should be done in five. This is not a winning strategy, folks.

At least with Democrats in charge, no one's getting fooled. It would be a small (and temporary) price to pay for an opportunity for a genuine conservative movement within this country.

32 posted on 08/23/2002 10:19:04 AM PDT by inquest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: inquest
I could not disagree with you more...there is not enough difference between the parties, but what differences there are are huge. To allow democrats to control both houses of Congress and the presidency, which allows them to appoint socialist liberal judges to mandate from the bench, allows them to redraw districts making sure that only democrats can win, and allows them to gut defense, give more money to the NEA, and make it easier for the trial lawyers to loot American companies, is not only lacking in "principle", but is anti-American, and is anti everything that the third party folk claim to stand for.
33 posted on 08/23/2002 10:27:51 AM PDT by Moby Grape
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Pern
To all sheeple: Get educated, stay informed, and vote their asses out! It is your obligation as an American

Pern; It seems to me, it doesn't matter how you vote, but how you count. After the last fiasco, where a lot of the votes weren't even counted, I can see why over 50% of the eligible voters didn't even bother to vote.

34 posted on 08/23/2002 10:53:52 AM PDT by biffalobull
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Pern
To all sheeple: Get educated, stay informed, and vote their asses out! It is your obligation as an American

Pern; It seems to me, it doesn't matter how you vote, but how you count. After the last fiasco, where a lot of the votes weren't even counted, I can see why over 50% of the eligible voters didn't even bother to vote.

35 posted on 08/23/2002 10:54:25 AM PDT by biffalobull
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Impeach the Boy
And how likely is any of that going to happen if only a tiny percentage vote third-party? On the other hand, if a very sizeable percentage (>10%) vote that way, it may result in Democrats claiming some more positions, but if they claim them by minority in an election where a clear majority votes conservative, their precious "mandate" will dwindle to nothing, and even the media won't be able to ignore that. Whatever victory the Dems might be able to congratulate themselves with would be short-lived.

In order to defeat the leftists, the goal has to be (among other things) to provide the people with a way of seeing that they can still exert some control over the political game, and right now, the current system doesn't provide any of that. Yes, there are some risks involved, although they seem rather small in the grand scheme of things. But nothing ventured, nothing gained. And believe me, nothing will be gained if we keep on the present path.

36 posted on 08/23/2002 10:55:10 AM PDT by inquest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: All
Sorry for the double post.
37 posted on 08/23/2002 10:55:33 AM PDT by biffalobull
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]


38 posted on 08/23/2002 10:59:02 AM PDT by 2Trievers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: biffalobull
I can see why over 50% of the eligible voters didn't even bother to vote.

I know, I guess that's the fuzzy math GW was talking about. But I still drag my wife and son to the polls every election day. I tell my friends and associates "If you don't vote, then you have no right to complain."

Maybe if they stopped using affirmative action vote counters we could see accurate results.

39 posted on 08/23/2002 11:00:32 AM PDT by Pern
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: SheLion
Nobody is forced, but everyone should have the right to eat in peace, smokers and non-smokers.

I am sorry, but I don't buy the load of crap that smoker's rights are more important than mine. No.

My solution would be allow smoking in all restaurants, but build a separate section.....a completely separate room with closed doors, for the smokers. That way you get to puff your life away and I get to enjoy some reasonably clean air.
40 posted on 08/23/2002 11:11:44 AM PDT by rwfromkansas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-50 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson