Republicans: Don't give up on 'W' now! {Henry Lamb}

WorldNetDaily / Commentary ^ | Posted: January 31, 2004 | Henry Lamb

[swampfox98]

Then you guessed wrong.

[alnick]

evil regimes that wish us harm

People are forgetting.

[arasina]

Then you guessed wrong.

I certainly did. You're evidently just as stupid as I thought.

[sauropod]

"As to the claim that a tin-pot Mussolini, like Hussein posed a viable threat, I think that the evidence is speaking loud and clear on a daily basis."

Then you haven't been paying attention. Remember Salman Pak? What about the Doug Feith memo?

[swampfox98]

Yeah, and I'm clever with words, too.

[dmzTahoe]

"Then you guessed wrong."

"I certainly did. You're evidently just as stupid as I thought."

Hey Swampfox98, you should have seen this coming from arasina. Whenever a person on these threads is losing an intellectual arguemnent, they resort to name calling.

Keep it up, Swamper, you are showing these people's true colors... Arasina thinks like a liberal

[sauropod]

"Third party voting brought us Clinton in '92, Clinton brought us economic recession, terrorist attacks, corporate dishonesty, sensitive miltary secrets sold to our communist enemies, and much more. I voted for Perot in '92, I'll never be pursuaded by a third party again, the consequences or too dire, as I just pointed out."

I question this.

My old man told me he was going to vote for Perot and I asked him why. He told me he was going to "send a message." I asked him what message was that? He couldn't tell me.

I doubt you could either.

Vote FOR a candidate. Make a rational decision based on what his platform is.

[LaraCroft]

No way. The quicker things hit bottom, the sooner people will get off their padded sofas and start fighting to get their Country back.

It's like turning up the heat slowly on water.... you don't realize you're being cooked til its too late.

[swampfox98]

Arasina thinks like a liberal

ARRGGGHHHHH Can you loan me a cross? It's still daylight, but I fear my garlic powder won't work on FR much longer.

[LaraCroft]

I love the libertarian philosophy and platform, however, all of the people running as Libertarians are morons that I wouldn't vote for if my hair were on fire and they were the only one who could put it out.

I think the time is coming where people will turn to a third party, now its time for Libertarians to come forward with a viable (and GOOD) candidate.

[dmzTahoe]

"My old man told me he was going to vote for Perot and I asked him why. He told me he was going to "send a message." I asked him what message was that? He couldn't tell me. I doubt you could either."

Your "old man" is a man of principles, and was willing to face the consequences rather than compromise those principles for short-term convenience.

Thank God our Founding Fathers were the same ilk.

[dmzTahoe]

LOL

[alnick]

Your strategy replaces a strong CiC with a weak one at wartime. Or do you believe that money is more important than winning the war?

That's what many of you seem to have decided. Money trumps everything.

[AEMILIUS PAULUS]

Statement: "...we do not want America to become France II."

Response: It won't. More like Rome II. We are only just starting into our Social War the opening of which will formally end the Republic.

[alnick]

Republican or Democrat, we aren't going to get a decent Supreme Court nominee during the next 5 years. Sorry. But it will be the fault of the Republican President I passionately supported who betrayed me.

No, it will fall squarely on the shoulders of people like you. You're wrong about Dubya nominating a moderate to the SC. He's given every indication that he will nominate a strict constructionist to the SC, based on his other nominations.

You seem to think that he is supposed to wave a magic wand to break the 'rat filibusters against the judges. It doesn't work that way.

He's offered recess appointments to every one of his conservative nominees. Pickering accepted and he's now on the bench.

If we can pull off another 2002 and get some more senate seats, even if we don't make 60, we stand a stronger chance of breaking the filibuster. At least a few 'rat senators should start fearing backlash from their constituents after two elections in a row like '02.

BTW, if people like you put a democrat in office as CiC, you'll be responsible for us losing the war as well as putting another Ruth Bader Ginsburg or two in the SC.

[Keyes2000mt]

Right on!

[dmzTahoe]

GWB thanks his lucky stars everyday that he hasn't had to nominate a Supreme before this election. I wish it would happen. We would then see his true colors...if he appointed a true conservative, he'd upset the Dem's and not be seen as "compassionate". If he selected a moderate, he'd further alienate his base. My guess is he'd go for the appeasement, especially in an election year.

God help him if he has to appoint someone before November, because we conservatives will show him no mercy.

[arasina]

Dear dmzTahoe,

Thank you for defending me and using a roundabout way to call arasina the L word and at the same time accusing HER of resorting to name calling. You're my clever hero.

Love, Swampfox98

[Owen]

>
I believe the negative result - a Supreme Court nominee who supports abortion - is a certainty regardless. Therefor, I see no down side on this issue.
>

You believe GWB will intentionally nominate pro Choice USSC justices? You base this belief on his nominees for lower courts? Why is it then, that the liberal organizations disagree with you? Why do they not support his nominees?

Methinks you are contorting your thinking to justify your position.

[sauropod]

I think you misunderstood my post.

If he has principles then he has not articulated them clearly.

I have often voted third party and I can tell you exactly for what reasons.

That is a huge difference between us.

That my FRiend, was my point.