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

Skip to comments.

If not Bush, then who?
12-28-2003 | agitate

Posted on 12/28/2003 11:26:16 AM PST by 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?



TOPICS: Culture/Society; Government; Politics/Elections; Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: 2004; bush
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 421-440441-460461-480481-496 next last
To: Consort
No one is going to do that...so don't hold your breath. Again, if big government makes you unhappy, then prepare to be unhappy for the rest of your life, but try to keep your unhappiness to yourself.

Got a flash for you, studly. Instead of being unhappy about it, as perhaps you might be, I am doing something about it. I do NOT intend to hand off to my kids and grandkids a country that is so much less free than we were handed by the founders. If your liberty means so little, all I can say is, "May your chains rest lightly and may posterity forget that you were one of my countrymen." Or, to steal someone's song: If you're happy and you know it, clank your chains...

461 posted on 12/31/2003 1:52:31 PM PST by dcwusmc ("The most dangerous man, to any government, is the man who is able to think things out for himself.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 457 | View Replies]

To: Leatherneck_MT
You're right, bro. I feel like I'm rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic when I talk with some of them. Others will at least attempt to discuss it rationally and then agree to disagree politely. The rest know NOTHING but peddling their fears to us in the guise of "arguments."

SF
DC
462 posted on 12/31/2003 1:54:56 PM PST by dcwusmc ("The most dangerous man, to any government, is the man who is able to think things out for himself.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 459 | View Replies]

To: dcwusmc
"The rest know NOTHING but peddling their fears to us in the guise of "arguments."

Kinda reminds one of Democrats trying to scare the old folks and Minority Races about the "Ebil Repubbies" and what they are going to do to their chilren, free food programs, social security checks, etc.. etc.. ad nauseum.
463 posted on 12/31/2003 2:00:51 PM PST by Leatherneck_MT (Those who do not accept peaceful change make a violent bloody revolution inevitable.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 462 | View Replies]

To: Leatherneck_MT
Roger that. My wife is of a "minority" bent... from Jamaica... and she is a conservative that would put a LOT of these "people" to shame. You'd have to talk with her to see what she thinks of welfare and government handouts and all the rest of the socialist package... She's a delight. (Only real problem is, she's utterly crazy, like certifiable. After all, she married ME!!!)
464 posted on 12/31/2003 2:55:32 PM PST by dcwusmc ("The most dangerous man, to any government, is the man who is able to think things out for himself.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 463 | View Replies]

To: gatorbait

If you have the links to the actual act, I'd like to see them.

Here is the link to the Thomas HTML version of the Act. When I printed out the Acrobat version, that is supposed to be the same as delivered to Congress, it was 267 pages.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c107:h.r.3162.ENR:

Although Title III has received much of the media coverage and is where a large part of the problems can be found, it is far from being the only problem. Many provisions of Title II, for example, are clear violations of the 4th Amendment. Among other things, Title II contains roving warrant provisions (Sec. 206) that violate the 4th Amendment's requirement that warrants shall describe "the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." It also reverses over a century of SCOTUS rulings, that are further based upon many centuries of Common Law, upon which our laws are based, that require prompt owner notification of the execution of a search warrant (Sec. 213).

Title III deals almost exclusively with monitoring the financial transactions of US citizens and others, who use the US banking system, even though every federal agency that investigates such matters has reported, on numerous occasions, that not only do the terrorists NOT use our banking system to launder money, but they have no motivation to do so. That's because they have access to the Arabic banking system, which is a much more secure method of laundering money.  Since Arabic banks have no central control (like the Fed) and operate on a cash settlement basis, it makes it impossible (not virtually impossible - impossible) for us to track their transactions.

What all of that boils down to is that the only remaining possible reason for the inclusion of Title III, was to make it easy to spy, not on terrorists, but on normal US citizens like you and me. That case against the club owner, out in Las Vegas, is a good example of the Title III abuses that I and many others warned of, only days after the act was signed into law.

If any lawmaking body leaves a gaping hole in a law, such as those that riddle the (ANTI)Patriot Act, you can bet that someone will take advantage of that hole, to abuse the spirit of the act. I always tell people that when you read the text of any proposed law or regulation, you should stop at the end of each paragraph and ask yourself, "How could hillary abuse this provision?" Interestingly, not only are there many provisions strewn throughout the (ANTI)Patriot Act that invite abuse by people like hillary, but Ashcroft has already availed himself of most of them. What does that say about Ashcroft or the man who allows him to stay in power, to continue to violate our Constitutional guarantees, in the false name of fighting terrorism?

If Title III of the (ANTI)Patriot Act had been left out, in its entirety, it would not have made the tiniest bit of difference in our ability to fight terrorism, because, as pointed out above, it does not apply to terrorists or their activities. Then, although about half of what's left, might have a temporary place in law, during this time of conflict, most of those "extraordinary powers" have no sunset provisions attached to them, meaning that it will take an act of Congress and Presidential signature to repeal them, rather than taking an act of Congress and Presidential signature to keep them alive. Both sides of the aisle prefer it that way, since it is much easier for lawmakers to justify taking no action, than to justify taking the wrong action. The few sunsets that are a part of the (ANTI)Patriot Act were bones that were thrown in, to pacify the dissenters and are tied only to the less onerous provisions.

There are some very good provisions that are part of the (ANTI)Patriot Act. But, all of those provisions comprise less than 50 pages of the 267 page document that is the (ANTI)Patriot Act. Then, to add insult to injury, part of Patriot II was recently enacted, that redefines the meaning of "Financial Institutions" to include travel agencies, airlines, insurance agencies, casinos, jewelry stores and car dealers. This very small redefinition has terrible impact on our privacy, when applied to the (ANTI)Patriot Act.

 

465 posted on 12/31/2003 4:58:50 PM PST by Action-America (Best President: Reagan * Worst President: Klinton * Worst GOP President: Dubya)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 367 | View Replies]

To: Action-America
Thanks Action.. I'll read it between flu meds .

Thanks for your time and thoughtful efforts.
466 posted on 12/31/2003 5:21:25 PM PST by gatorbait (Yesterday, today and tomorrow......The United States Army)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 465 | View Replies]

To: dcwusmc
Got a flash for you, studly.

Watch those hot flashes...they cause intense whining.

Instead of being unhappy about it, as perhaps you might be, I am doing something about it.

Such as...?

I do NOT intend to hand off to my kids and grandkids a country that is so much less free than we were handed by the founders.

And...?

If your liberty means so little...

You have no clue about what liberty and freedom mean to me (or probably anyone else for that matter). I don't see any special insight or meaningful contributions coming out of you. Who do you think you are?

467 posted on 12/31/2003 8:45:43 PM PST by Consort
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 461 | View Replies]

To: Consort
You have no clue about what liberty and freedom mean. Put the period there and you have.... YOU. If you did you would hardly be cheering Bush on the way you do. Try reading the Constitution and the Federalist/Anti-Federalist papers. Then come talk to me.

As to who am I... I am just a retired old mud Marine who swore an oath to protect and defend the Constitution for the United States against ALL enemies, foreign and DOMESTIC. No one relieved me of that oath and I take it seriously indeed. Something I would hardly expect the likes of YOU to understand.

468 posted on 12/31/2003 9:14:57 PM PST by dcwusmc ("The most dangerous man, to any government, is the man who is able to think things out for himself.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 467 | View Replies]

To: dcwusmc
Put the period there and you have.... YOU.

Yeah...and you have all the answers, and you are more patriotic than the rest of us, and you know it all, and you you you....it's all about you. How pathetic.

469 posted on 12/31/2003 9:25:23 PM PST by Consort
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 468 | View Replies]

To: Consort
Aren't you the one who said this???

Everybody has core beliefs. Some are rigid and some are flexible. Some core beliefs are better than others. Some or all are cancelled out by others on election day. I respect other's core beliefs — until they impinge on my life, as would be the case if you helped to elect Democrats by the way you vote or don't vote based on your "core beliefs". Then your core beliefs become problematical for me and for many others. It ain't just about you. Clinton was elected by people with core beliefs...so was Hitler, I suspect.

Nope, it AIN'T about me. It's all about YOU. Your convenience. Not at all about liberty, freedom and the Constitutional repuiblic we were given. Not a bit... So you keep whining about being impinged on by people with principles and we will keep voting (or NOT VOTING) our consciences. Something you don't appear to be troubled with possessing.

470 posted on 12/31/2003 10:13:27 PM PST by dcwusmc ("The most dangerous man, to any government, is the man who is able to think things out for himself.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 469 | View Replies]

To: Leatherneck_MT
>Bad strategy?

Maybe

But I refuse to vote for an almost a Democrat.<

Well then, you will assist to elect a REAL democrat
471 posted on 01/02/2004 9:59:55 PM PST by tj005
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 325 | View Replies]

To: inquest
>Umm, he is one of the perps that do it. All of these spending increases have been at his behest.
==> agree

But don't worry. My attention won't stray from our congressional friends in the slightest.
===>>> agree to that one too
472 posted on 01/02/2004 10:04:45 PM PST by tj005
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 166 | View Replies]

To: Agitate
Heaven forbid!!! But if the UN has its way.. that will be EXACTLY what will happen
473 posted on 01/02/2004 10:06:11 PM PST by tj005
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 186 | View Replies]

To: Agitate
Georgie,"I never meet an illegal I didn't like",Bush. Will not get my vote.
474 posted on 01/02/2004 10:27:31 PM PST by lucidloony
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tj005
>Bad strategy?

Maybe

But I refuse to vote for an almost a Democrat.<

Well then, you will assist to elect a REAL democrat

Then I will reiterate.

The Republican Party needs to wake the fuck up. I don't want a democrat in the white house, senate or congress. But I REFUSE to sit by while my party moves to the left and NOT protest it.

The ONLY way to protest it so that they hear me LOUD AND CLEAR IS TO STAY HOME ON ELECTION DAY.

If you come up with another method for me to use, I am all ears on making it happen. But it better be effective or I won't bother.
475 posted on 01/03/2004 10:18:44 AM PST by Leatherneck_MT (Those who do not accept peaceful change make a violent bloody revolution inevitable.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 471 | View Replies]

To: Leatherneck_MT
The ONLY way to protest it so that they hear me LOUD AND CLEAR IS TO STAY HOME ON ELECTION DAY.

If you come up with another method for me to use, I am all ears on making it happen. But it better be effective or I won't bother.

Here's another method: Vote Constitution Party. It sends a far more explicit message than not voting.

476 posted on 01/03/2004 10:36:55 AM PST by inquest (The only problem with partisanship is that it leads to bipartisanship)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 475 | View Replies]

To: inquest
"Here's another method: Vote Constitution Party. It sends a far more explicit message than not voting"

I'm seriously considering it.
477 posted on 01/03/2004 12:00:46 PM PST by Leatherneck_MT (Those who do not accept peaceful change make a violent bloody revolution inevitable.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 476 | View Replies]

To: Leatherneck_MT
yeah... I get frustrated myself and at one time decided that my mode of protest was to not vote... which I proceeded to do.. or not do. Its difficult to bitch about conditions when one does not exercise the power of their vote even though it is only one. But nevertheless, I didnt vote for several elections.

I have seen however, the results of divided votes; ie: Clinton being the most recent. So, that made me realize that my protest may have contributed to a far worse situation and I will no longer choose to stay in the shadows and not vote against the worse of the two candidates. But thats just me.
478 posted on 01/03/2004 7:48:03 PM PST by tj005
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 475 | View Replies]

To: dcwusmc; Consort
dcw,

Don't worry about Consort and her ilk. She and the rest give up freedoms easily, never having had to pay anything for them. "Easy come, easy go" comes to mind.

From one who was the first to take you to the trouble, and the first to get you out, take care marine!

Hb
479 posted on 01/03/2004 8:10:34 PM PST by Hoverbug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 470 | View Replies]

To: Hoverbug
Were you in Marine Corps aviation? I was with a Marine helo squadron in RVN in 1969... I flew over the killing fields, didn't hump through them... but we took our grunts in and out of there... resupplied them and brought out the dead and wounded... all that stuff.

WRT consort and its ilk, may their chains rest heavily as they think back on what they gave up.
480 posted on 01/03/2004 8:35:40 PM PST by dcwusmc ("The most dangerous man, to any government, is the man who is able to think things out for himself.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 479 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 421-440441-460461-480481-496 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