Posted on 07/17/2005 4:44:42 PM PDT by Aussie Dasher
Darn straight. -but they want you to vote your way at any cost, because they know that there isn't a snowball's chance in hell of that ever happening with the POTUS.
After all, there aren't any libs voting 3rd party because the dems aren't left enough.
At least not enough to make a blip on the screen. Perot elected Clinton, and you know it.
Perot didn't ELECT Clinton--after all, Clinton was far from even coming close to winning a majority vote. I didn't support Perot, nor Clinton & the elder Bush either (I voted Libertarian in '92). But Bush 41 did such a poor job w/ his conservative base that he deserved to lose its vote--Bush 41 elected Clinton, not Perot or even Clinton himself. Bush's would-be supporters, who voted for Perot, withdrew their support of him for a PURPOSE, did they not?
For example: if Bush 41 hadn't of LIED to the American people about "no new taxes" (remember THAT???), & wanted to continue President Reagan's goal of eventually limiting the size of the federal government, I'm sure he would have been re-elected in a landslide. But he was just as much of an Internationalist as Clinton (both are members of the Council on Foreign Relations), & his election loss was his own fault.
Get off your GOP altar & recognize the truth: GHWB did himself in, it was his fault & no one else's.
It was the LIBERTARIANS who helped me develop an interest re: the Original Intent of the Constitution, & for that I'll forever be thankful. They motivated me to read the words & letters of the Founding Fathers & the Constitutional Convention Debates, & after reading George Washington's Farewell Address, I left the LP due to his strong criticism of what he called "The Spirit of Party"...which seems to be a problem that you are going thru right now, rather than standing firm on constitutional principles.
...& like I said previously: if the GOP would return to its foundation of limited government, & respecting the 9th & 10th Amendments, then there would be no need for us to vote 3rd Party; but I guess that doesn't seem to bother you, right? Does it not matter to most GOP'ers that their Party has been hijacked by a bunch of statist, one-world neocons who wouldn't dare be in the same room w/ Sens. Barry Goldwater & Robert Taft, or the very honorable Rep. RON PAUL? As long as we prevent a Dim from being elected into power, that's all that matters, correct? Yet they ignore the fact that the GOP has embraced big government & the welfare/nanny state just like the Dims have. How despicable. Today's GOP is what the DIms were back in the 70's, & as time goes on the Dims embrace socialism more & more, & the GOP trails behind them from a distance. Some choice we have!
THANK YOU for agreeing w/ me--I wish I wasn't so alone around here...you'd think that I was a liberal democrat by some of the responses I often get from our fellow FReepers! Too bad you can't let sarasotanrepublican, bill1952, justshutupandtakeit, kempo, A Balrog of Morgoth, Dead Corpse, & so many others who spew the GOP's talking points rather than stand up for constitutional principles know that there are a few of us still around, & that we don't appreciate watching the hijacking of the GOP before our very eyes.
The aforementioned golks seem (???) to believe that ANY Republican in office is a good thing, regardless of whether or not they stand on firm constitutional ground....after all, in their minds, they're not democrats! Never mind the fact that George Washington warned us to avoid what he called "The Spirit of Party".
Strict constitutionists have their worst enemies not always from the democrats, but from the GOP Elite & their minions who make up the vast majority of the Party (remember when Sen. John McCain said, "Thank God & Greyhound he's gone" when Pat Buchanan left the GOP about 10 yrs ago? Yet here McCain is, probably the GOP's top Presidential candidate in the '08 election who has just played a minor role in the semi-porn movie "Wedding Crashers" (???) who once criticized Hollywood for making the same; or abortion supporters like Condi, Rudy, Pataki, & Arnold (sounds like a the name of a liberal law firm, doesn't it?).
I don't know where you stand on this issue-but here's still another example:
http://www.lsj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050419/NEWS04/504190339
Said it before here. The Republican party of today is the Dem party of 20 years ago. The Democratic party of today is the socialist party of tomorrow. I've arrived at the point of seriously voting Libertarian from now on. I've had it.
The thread title should have been....Hilary "SLITHERS" into Presidential Ring:-)
If you are asking my opinion re: the smoking in bars issue (as well as almost all others, too), I say it depends on WHO is writing such laws: should it be the federal government, or state & local governments?
As far as I'm concerned, this is none of the federal government's business. This is a state & local issue completely, & they should be free to make such laws if the people who have elected them into the state legislatures of city councils think they should do so.
Do I personally support such anti-smoking laws? ABSOLUTELY NOT. Like the lady said, liquor & cigarettes go hand-in-hand, & the alcohol ramps up the craving of nicotine addicts & makes the situation difficult if they are unable to have their nicotine fix. Smoking in bars is an American pastime, so to speak: prohibiting it does more harm than it does good, it hurts business (& therefore the raising of tax $ by the local gov't), it gives the government more responsibilities & therefore lessens its effectiveness in doing its job overall.
BESIDES, what kind of hypocrite would I be, as a person who smokes marijuana & strongly supports its re-legalization for adults, if I tried to limit the rights of cigarette smokers to use the drug of their choice, a drug which is already LEGAL? While I am opposed to the passage of anti-smoking laws by state or local governments, I do not & will not oppose their right to pass such laws...the people can punish them come election time & replace them w/ others who would take those laws off the books.
OK, pretty good answer, but I actually wanted you to notice the fact that RHINOS are behind this latest push. Many Repubs are all for taking rights away, too. And I'm quite familiar w/justshutup&..etc; we've had him invade other threads I've been in. :D Republicans Uber Alles is his motto, and you'll never change his outlook. He's a Selective Conservative, though, as are many others on FR, sadly. There was one guy who was a gun nut (no, not against gun owners) I got into it with...he's all for unlimited gun owner's rights, but wanted the government to outlaw smokiers everywhere in the country.
Major shuddering here. Ugh.
Actually, lol, that's been our long standing joke, as I'm sure it is with a number of freepers. I guess it wouldn't hurt to have the passports and other papers in order just in case. But is there anywhere to go, including Australia, that isn't now overtaken with anti-Americanism and ultra leftiness? It seems even our Aussie friends have become less enamored with us. It seems a decade ago there were more choices.
.....who doesn't bill clinton love????....Drag another dollar bill.....bill....
How did she get her fat ass through the ropes? Or did they carry her in a sedan chair?
Thanx for pointing out to me that the GOP is involved in the anti-smoking insanity. I'm not surprised @ all by it--the GOP is no longer a limited-government party, & hasn't been since the days of FDR. Yeah, they have a FEW brave hearts out there (former Sen. Barry Goldwater, the very honorable Rep. RON PAUL, & a smattering opf others), but today their buddies in the MSM won't allow their voice to be heard by the American people & instead have RINOs like John McCain, Newt Gingrich, etc. to speak for them instead.
I'm listening to Michael Savage as I write this, & he is tearing the RINO-filled GOP apart! He sez that he's proud of the dact that he's outta "the mainstream" of conservative thought, & I agree w/ him completely. While I strongly disagree w/ him on the marijuana issue & his Noo Yawk accent drives me up the wall, I love his willingness to call it like it is & tell everyone how liberal/pro-socialist the GOP Establishment is beginning to lean.
Let's get it on!
The thought of her swinging one of those ugly piano legs into the ring makes me physically ill..
I LOVE Savage!! I agree on his weed stance, but, other than that, he makes sense on just about everything. I don't even bother with O' Reilly, Limbaugh (ever hear Mike imitate him?) , or the rest-Mike's the best. He blasts them all the time for having no compassion, trying to catch up to the Dems in elitism, etc. Got big kahunas, for sure, and doesn't care who he pi%^es off. He predicts Sweet Hillary will win in '08, due to RHINOism. We'll see.
I've been fretting for a while that Hillary will win in '08--& exactly for the same reasons that u state: no need to vote for a pro-abortion or big-government GOP'er (McCain, Guliani, Pataki, Rice, Powell, etc.), we might as well go for the real thing & vote for a Dim. Obviously I personally won't do so, I'll probably vote for the Constitution or Libertarian candidate. Too bad Pat Buchanan's best days are behind him.
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.