Luis, don't you get tired of being a mindless political hack? 
Posted on 03/26/2004 12:06:46 PM PST by Willie Green
Edited on 05/07/2004 9:06:02 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
In a recent letter to the president of the United States, I informed him of my resignation from the Republican Party in Greenville. I shall continue to be involved in the local political arena, but not as a Republican.
I am sick and tired of the Republicans selling us down the river. No matter how hard I try to institute positive change, Republicans and the Republican Party ignore my pleas. For this reason I have joined the U.S. Constitution Party and urge other conservatives to do the same.
(Excerpt) Read more at greenvilleonline.com ...
Yadda, yadda, yadda...
Same lame scapegoat arguement that's been raised a bazillion times by apologists for the two-party status quo.
What Ross Perot proved is that a significant number of Americans would vote Third Party if it presented a sensible alternative platform on issues.
And the entrenched mucky-mucks in the Republicrat monopoly can't STAND the possibility that American voters may someday reject their idiocy and throw their pathetic butts out of office based on a principled stance on ISSUES.
IMHO, two-party rule is an antiquated and inherently unstable political power structure in the modern, information age. People naturally have a much broader mix of political views that can't be pigeonholed into two overly simplistic categories.
The only thing propping up the two-party system is $$$, voter apathy, and a nightmare tangle of election laws that make it difficult for minor parties to compete on an equal footing. But Perot proved that the more absurd that the Two-Party cartel gets, the more likely the People will give 'em the boot.
The problem with you is that you're too arrogant to admit that you LOST based on the pathetic, lackluster position of your own candidate on issues. Tough beans for you.
Oh please...if I'm not going to vote for Bush, why would I vote for Kerry, who is even worse? Give me a break. As if Coke and Pepsi are the only drinks out there.
"Shortly after, you set up a Web site and spend 8 years complaining about Clinton and what a bag of pus he is."
Uh, I believe you have me confused with someone else. I don't have a website, nor have I ever had one, for non-business purposes that is. Unless of course, you're just speaking hypothetically. But yes, I do think Klinton was/is the festering wound you described. While I don't have that low an opinion of Bush, the man is spending a lot faster than did the Commie-in-Chief.
"Either you take Bush with all his fallacies, you take Kerry with all his fallacies, or you waste your vote on a so-called noble cause."
I beg to differ. I wasted my votes in '92, '96, and '00, holding my nose and voting for RINOs that were the lesser of two evils. Well, as the saying goes, the lesser of two is still evil. I'm writing in Tancredo this year, and for the first time since '88, will be happy about the vote I cast. So what if I don't vote for Coke or Pepsi? They're both killing us, only one faster than the other. So why prolong the agony? The sooner we drive over the cliff and hit the bottom of the ravine, the sooner we can clean up the mess.
I thought 9-11 would have been a wake-up call for the American sheeple to get their heads out of their hineys, and start returning to the principles of limited government, and yes, borders, language and culture (nod to Dr. Savage). But I was wrong. Coke and Pepsi will continue to rule the roost, and we slaves will continue to dutifully pay our taxes, let the courts tell us how to live and what to believe, and continue to be placated with government bread and Hollyweird circuses. Why? Because we keep nominating and electing SOBS like Bush, Kerry, Gore, Klinton, and Bush. Good men, if there are any left, are doing nothing and allowing evil to triumph. Well, at least when Claire Wolfe's "awkward period" is over, I'll have a clear conscience.
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
Luis, don't you get tired of being a mindless political hack?
Yeah, there's a lot of shallow-minded Americans who think voting is similar to placing a bet with a Las Vegas bookie. Gotta pick "the winner" no matter what their stance on the issues, maybe they'll hit a jackpot!
More thoughtful citizens cast their votes for the candidates that best reflect their own views on issues.
Don't tell fish stories where the people know you; but particularly, don't tell them where they know the fish.
--Mark Twain
No problemo.
That's what I'm here for: to simply express my humble 2¢ in an honest and straightforward manner.
I don't hide behind any convoluted lies or BS misrepresentations.
I let the flying monkeys play those devious and malicious games.
BTW. as a true conservative, I loyally cast my vote for Papa Bush back in '88.
But in '92, he had a better established track record of his own.
And while I voted for Perot based primarily on economic views, I was also disatisfied with Papa Bush's mishandling of the military.
He not only failed to bump-off Saddam Hussein when he had the golden opportunity (which would've spared us a lot of BS that's still ongoing), his Hollyweird scripted and choreographed compassionate "invasion" of Somalia was one of the most strange and bizarre events I've ever witnessed on TV.
Good grief, Marines hitting the beach in their night-vision gear being chased around by a pre-positioned Press Corps with floodlights. What the heck kind of publicity stunt did Papa think he was trying to pull-off? We shouldn't even have been going into Somalia to begin with. Their local tribal feuding had absolutely nothing to do with our own National Security.
That puts your boy Buchanan in a truly bad light Willie.
What did he get last time?
Roughly 1% of the vote?
In your own words, that means that he failed to provide Americans with a sensible alternative platform on the issues.
I was in the Castro school system roughly less than 3 years, but don't let facts get in the way of your lies and fabrications..typical communist tactics.
What my experience in Castro's Cuba did leave me with, is a great ability to spot communists under whatever disguise they may don.
That's how I spotted you.
But then you're already aware of that, aren't you Luis?
That is, afterall, the purpose behind your marxist subterfuge: to alienate conservative support for the President with your constant flame-baiting?
That's the difference between you and me, Luis.
My disagreement with the Administration is based on honest, legitimate principles and issues.
You, OTOH, are merely a disingenuous troll.
What new penalties are you referring to? If you're talking about the aforementioned fee, then in order for that to qualify as a penalty it would have to be imposed regardless of whether the illegal alien wishes to stay. Is that what the plan calls for?
Those who do not volunteer, fall under current law, and will be penalized as do all illegal aliens once they are apprehended.
The fee/penalty buys the illegal a renewable three year license to travel across the border to work, then return home. At the end of that period of time, the individual must return home.
It's the old Bracero program revised.
Amnesty would carry with it an accelerated path to citizenship. Bush's plan does not allow for that.
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.