Posted on 01/29/2004 8:54:26 PM PST by skyman
O.K. I not really serious...I don't think ...but who would have thought that someday we might have to vote democrat to reduce the growth of government? (notice I didn't say cut government because certainly they wouldn't) It pains me to even think this but it's hard to imagine even a dem president spending more money than Pres. Bush is proposing.
Does Pres. Bush think we are stupid? That we will vote for him no matter what? Even those of use who would probably never vote Democrat might have a hard time getting excited about voting at all this Nov since there is getting to be less and less difference between Pres Bush and the dems on domestic issues.
Being tough on the war on terror will only take him so far if he keeps this up and bankrupts the country.
If he turns enough of us off who really want to vote for him because of his massive health care spending and increases for programs like the the NEA, he's going to be in for a big surprise when he finds his base doesn't turn out in big numbers to vote in Nov.
The US is Republicans ...
He wouldn't be so likely to get away with that if a majority of the electorate voted in a conservative manner.
Honey I have been voting and working for and contributing to Republican and conservatives while you were still pissing your diapers.
But I see stagnant wages the outsourcing of job..not only manufacturing ..but soft wear development , engineering , accounting and most recent attorneys..who knows where it will end??
I am hopping that the Mexicans leave us a few picking jobs so my grandkids can work..
If you are not worried..you need to get out more
Which would mean that a Democrat wouldn't be elected President in the first place.
Give me ONE advantage for working the the current Republican congressman (Who' wife BTW is a family friend). Please tell me one thing that will happen or not happen as a result..
Supporting a Democrat would only make matters worse, so I suggest voting for Constitution Party candidates such as Michael Peroutka. Unlike a vote for Bush or the Democrats, Peroutka seeks to reduce spending (and the related tax burden) to Constitutional limits.
If he turns enough of us off who really want to vote for him because of his massive health care spending and increases for programs like the the NEA, he's going to be in for a big surprise when he finds his base doesn't turn out in big numbers to vote in Nov.
You only prove your ignorance of what is in the bill..perhaps if you read some you might know that the bill outlaws ANY private prescription plan and any gap plan for the elderly . All of the plans now paid for by business will be shifted to the taxpayer, (75% of the elderly currently have employer/retirement based prescription plans)
What now may be a 5-10 dollar co pay a script will be 25% and a monthly fee of $25 dollars a month and a $250 deductible and the coverage is only to $2500 a year .
The plan was never about helping the elderly it was about shifting the cost from business to taxpayers .
So starting in 06 you my friend will then have the opportunity to pay your part ( 75% )of my $6000 dollar outlay for drugs. This has given a windfall to Business and drug companies and let you pay the bill , and if you have an elderly parents ...lets them eat cake
I have wallpaper on my screen with Bush on it--he's clearing brush in Crawford. I love that picture--it says everything that I cheered for and voted for.
And I'm MAD. Just FURIOUS with this amnesty *&^# ! Now he wants to turn American roads loose with Mexican drivers of big rigs. As if the roads aren't dangerous enough, and American truckers not part of the "willing" workforce!!
That only makes sense if the CP can get some momentum going. If the CP winds up with .04% of the vote then it really makes little sense to vote CP. I hope the CP does get something going, then I would vote CP, but I ain't gonna vote for a .04% party. I like yall but that's just the way it is.
third parties have a tuff row to how in the USA, the only one that is even mildly successful is the conservative party in NY. I am hopefull that something like the NY conservative party can get going nationally. Then I'd vote third party.
Often, but not always, the conservative party supports the GOP canidate, makes sense to me.
What a neato surprise! Tarzan of the Apes graces us with a post at FreeRepublic!
I don't think
No argument here.
Dude, you forgot one thing: a split conservative majority means down-ticket races go to the Democrats.
Are you referring to congressional races and the like? One can vote Constitution Party for the presidency and GOP for Congress. The CP isn't even fielding candidates in the vast majority of congressional districts.
You're presuming, wrongly, (a) that a split will not depress conservative tunrout (it would) and (b) that OTHER third parties won't be running down-ticket candidates that won't split off the vote.
Bottom line: a split conservative vote gives the Democrats all three branches of goobermint, and they will make sure next time that they NEVER lose it.
If you're referring to the following election, there's no way of predicting what exactly would happen, though it's at least as likely that a good showing by the CP in 2004 would get conservatives more energized to vote.
Then it's f***ing irrelevant to the election in question.
Jesus, Mary, and Joseph, why are the "true conservatives" so thick-headed?
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.