If not Bush, then who?

12-28-2003 | agitate

[Agitate]

I've noticed several threads where people say they will not vote for Bush if he supports certain causes. Some include:

Memogate:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1045476/posts

Broad Amnesty in immigration:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1046165/posts

(Please don't see this as an attack on those threads or any comments in them, it's not.)

While I agree with the conservative position on both of these threads, I don't understand how a person could not vote for Bush even if he does some things that are inexplicable from a conservative point of view.

My belief is nothing could be worse than a democrat in office in 2004. I know that is the lesser of two evils vote, but it is true.

Even if Bush gave amnesty to immigrants to pander to hispanics, which would be disgusting, is that reason enough to allow a democrat a greater chance to get in office? Wouldn't the dems likely do worse?

[dcwusmc]

Since your whole case is based on fear... fear of Dean and/or the Dems... why don't you take it over to the nearest kindergarten and see if you can scare the kiddies into voting for Bush. We ADULTS can weigh the evidence and make up our own minds. To me, voting for Bush, under current circumstances, is voting for the GREATER evil. Sitting at home is getting to look better and better.

Of course, you COULD try to make a case based on rationality, logic and reason... but that would necessitate actual THOUGHT on your part, and an abandonment of emotion. I'm not certain that you'd be capable of that.

[gatorbait]

I hope that your chains rest lightly upon you.

---

I hope your meds kick in soon.

[gatorbait]

Rooster J Heartburn says:"A personal insult ..."

Looking in your mirror again,poltroon? You seem to enjoy dishing them out, can't take 'em too well. Have fun with your fellow conspiracy loons.

[Consort]

What if you have a hard time telling democrats and Republicans apart?

Then you aren't paying attention. Dems are not pro-life, are not pro-second amendment, are not pro-school vouchers, are not pro-tax cuts, are not pro-military....and that's just for starters.

Sounds like I'm joking...

You're joking.

I will cast (or not cast) my vote for the person(s) who will do the least harm to this country. If that means not voting or voting for a democrat or a 3rd party, then I will gladly do so.

Then you are part of the problem and the guidelines were written for people just like you. It's not just about you.

[Leatherneck_MT]

Bad strategy?

Maybe

But I refuse to vote for an almost a Democrat.

[Leatherneck_MT]

Makes no difference to me what you think of it.

The fact remains is that the Republicans are going to lose people. Maybe not enough to make a difference in this next election, or for many elections afterwards. But they are going to have to work to get me to vote again. I'm not voting for Democrats or Libertarians or whatever, but I won't show up and show my support for policies I do NOT support.

Let 'em swing in the wind until they come back to their base. Until that time, screw 'em.

[gatorbait]

Let 'em swing in the wind until they come back to their base. Until that time, screw 'em.


I can actually understand and appreciate your sentiment. I have to say I am not in love with the stategy, frankly. This said, I'll still back the President in the 2004 election.You can sit at home on your can and pout,making your statement. It matters less to me what you cogitate.

[gatorbait]

Maybe it's not so good that the Republicans control congress and the presidency. Perhaps a Democrat in the White House would keep the GOP honest and more accountable to the conservative base.

It's that 1992 cogitation again.. You have got to face the reality that if a Dim gets in the Oval Office,the news and other media will deify him/her or it..Try to recall,and it's not TOO hard, the fall of 1995 and see what Clinton with masive media support did to the Rebulicans.Never mind mind that the Dims and their lapdogs lied , it was very effective, culminating into the impeachment farce. However, don't let that historical reality intrude into your waldkuckooscheim.You keep on your one note "principle"

[Leatherneck_MT]

No pouting about it. I'm quite happy with my decision. Just as you, I'm sure, are happy with yours.

The difference is, I'm not sitting here making snide comments about you. I'd appreciate the same consideration.

Semper Fi

[gatorbait]

I'm not sitting here making snide comments about you. I'd appreciate the same consideration.


You were given that consideration. And yes, I do think you are poutting. I think every one of us who starts speaking of bailing when when we don't get our way is poutting , me included. I believe this election upcoming is too important to ignore , nor throw protest votes away to the Communist Party(Democrats if your prefer)
I happen to be glad you did your 20 and are out here with us.

Off topic, if need be, would you go back? I have pondered this a great deal and believe I would.

[Agitate]

I understand what you are saying. I just believe it is vital to keep the dems out of office. Big government can be shrunk eaiser than getting liberal judges off the bench.

[Agitate]

If you want to show yourself an adult, you will have to learn to disagree without being insulting. I've said NOTHING to merit your vitriolic response.

I have a strong aversion to the things I've listed:

1. UN and EU control of our sovereignty,
2. EU laws for the US (this is already happening thanks to life-time, liberal dem appointees like Bader-Gingsberg),
3. Extreme enforcement of PC principles that will continue to curtail religous freedoms,
4. and best of all, Liberal judges to rule all in a leftist oligathy.

If you take the time to see beyond next week, you would be concerned about this also. The left is getting their way because they have made sacrifices and worked long and hard at their agenda, not because they got mad and pouted in a corner when they didn't get Everything they wanted.

BTW, I wouldn't brag about sitting at home. What was that about evil triumphing when good men do nothing?

[Agitate]

Since your whole case is based on fear... fear of Dean and/or the Dems... why don't you take it over to the nearest kindergarten and see if you can scare the kiddies into voting for Bush. We ADULTS can weigh the evidence and make up our own minds. To me, voting for Bush, under current circumstances, is voting for the GREATER evil. Sitting at home is getting to look better and better.

Of course, you COULD try to make a case based on rationality, logic and reason... but that would necessitate actual THOUGHT on your part, and an abandonment of emotion. I'm not certain that you'd be capable of that.

Oops, corrections in order:
If you want to show yourself an adult, you will have to learn to disagree without being insulting. I've said NOTHING to merit your vitriolic response.

I have a strong aversion to the things I've listed:

1. UN and EU control of our sovereignty,
2. EU laws for the US (this is already happening thanks to life-time, liberal dem appointees like Bader-Gingsberg),
3. Extreme enforcement of PC principles that will continue to curtail our freedoms,
4. and best of all, Liberal judges to rule in a leftist oligarchy.

If you take the time to see beyond next week, you would be concerned about this also. The left is getting their way because they have made sacrifices and worked long and hard at their agenda, not because they got mad and pouted in a corner when they didn't get Everything they wanted.

BTW, I wouldn't brag about sitting at home. What was that about evil triumphing when good men do nothing?

[Happy2BMe]

"President Bush and other current Republican office holders are wrong on illegal immigration. They are pandering to the Hispanic population and employers who depend on cheap labor."

Q: Why does the United States Government permit wholesale illegal Mexican immigration?

A: For the workers.

Q: Why does the United States Government need foreign workers (not just Mexicans)?

A: It does not have enough labor force to meet the service sector and other blue collar work sector demands and growth within it's economy.

Q: Why does the United States Government not have enough workers to meet economic demand?

A: Over TWENTY MILLION AMERICAN WORKERS HAVE BEEN ABORTED OVER THE PAST TWENTY YEARS.

Q: If over twenty million American workers have been aborted over the past twenty years, who is going to pay for (read: generate taxes) the Social Security of the baby-boomer generation (now reaching critical mass)?

A: Mexican workers.

Final Question: If they had survived, who would they have to thank for it and WHO WOULD THE TWENTY MILLION ABORTED AMERICANS HAVE VOTED MOST FOR?

Any questions?

[Xenalyte]

Ping 'cause you might be interested in this thread!

[onyx]

Posted by Jim Robinson to The_Eaglet
On RLC Liberty Caucus 12/12/2003 2:22:46 AM PST #100 of 180

LOL. Yeah, I've had my fill of all politicians. Unfortunately, they're the only kind of people who run for office and get elected. Also, unfortunately, 99% of the elected ones are going to be either Democrat or Republican. And again, unfortunately, the party that has a higher count of its members seated in each chamber, House and or Senate, gets the best shot at enacting its legislative agenda. The minority party is basically relegated to the cloakroom. And, furthermore, in the very rare case that a third party or independent candidate does happen to get elected, he's going to caucus with either the Democrat side or the Republican side so it really doesn't make a whole lot of difference. Thus the vast majority of the Americans who vote are naturally going to side with either the Democrat Party or the Republican Party and even the majority of those who don't side with one or the other are probably going to pick one or the other on election day anyway.
And in case you've never read any of my posts I'll sum it up for you. I just don't happen to care much for the party that includes abortion, homosexualism, atheism, environmentalism, socialism, subjugation to the United Nations, disarmament of the American people, etc, etc, in its party platform. And that would be the Democrat Party.

No thank you sir. I will stand with the Republicans. At least the majority of them are opposed to most of the same evils I'm opposed to.

---

Posted by Jim Robinson to John R. (Bob) Locke
On RLC Liberty Caucus 12/11/2003 10:52:19 PM PST #35 of 180

I believe that during the campaign, Bush ill-advisedly promised to sign a campaign finance reform bill if delivered to his desk. Probably some kind of compromise with McCain. And who knows? Without that compromise, we may very well have had President Gore.

Again, it doesn't excuse a bad bill, but I don't think the ^conservative Republicans actually had majority control when this passed. In fact, I believe the Democrats had majority control of the senate at the time.

http://clerkweb.house.gov/cgi-bin/vote.exe?year=2002&rollnumber=34

In the House it passed 240 yea to 189 nay with 6 not voting (5 of those Republican). Almost all of the Democrats voted for it and very few Republicans. The vast majority of the Republicans (178) voted no, while only 11 Democrats voted against it. Only 41 Republicans voted for the bill, but a whopping 198 Democrats voted yes.

It passed the Senate 59 to 41. All but two of the Senate Democrats plus McCain and 11 rinos voted for the bill. Again, the vast majority of the Republican senators voted against it.

In sumamry, the vast majority of the Democrats along with the help of a relatively small minority of Rinos passed the bill.

Yes, President Bush should've vetoed it, and that was a major mistake as far as I'm concerned, but there is no mistaking the fact that this was a basically a DEMOCRAT passed bill.

The conclusion is not that we should abandon the Republicans, the most of whom did not support this fiasco, but we should boot the jackass Democrats, the majority of whom did.

And there's no way we should boot Bush. That'd only make matters much worse. We lose the presidency, we lose the majority and we'll lose big time to a liberal activist judiciary for the next 40 years. Do not make the mistake of turning the majority power back over to the Democrats. Enough already! Vote the rat bastards out!

---

There's more, but rest assured Jim supports Bush. The last paragraph says it all.

[gatorbait]

Final Question: If they had survived, who would they have to thank for it and WHO WOULD THE TWENTY MILLION ABORTED AMERICANS HAVE VOTED MOST FOR?

Any questions?


None, Happy..point deeply made.

[gatorbait]

And there's no way we should boot Bush. That'd only make matters much worse. We lose the presidency, we lose the majority and we'll lose big time to a liberal activist judiciary for the next 40 years. Do not make the mistake of turning the majority power back over to the Democrats. Enough already! Vote the rat bastards out!

---

There's more, but rest assured Jim supports Bush. The last paragraph says it all.

Do you think this might make a dent in the righteous armor of the true believers?

[onyx]

Do you think this might make a dent in the righteous armor of the true believers?

Heck no. Some people refuse to accept half a loaf --- they get their kicks bitching from the side line. Never a player always a by-stander.

[dpa5923]

those are the only things I can think of now that are worse than selling our troops and our sovereignty to the UN and the EU, abortion, a socialist agenda, and more far left judges.

So you do have limits. Thank God. I was afraid you might be a simple sheep but am pleased to know there are some things you will not stand for.

The measure of a man is the point at which he says "no more". Some have reached this point and are standing true to their convictions. Others have a different line that must not be crossed. I have more respect for those who have a line too short than those that have no line.