Posted on 01/08/2008 11:25:26 PM PST by Justice
I am a guy who has recognized that even if we vote in a republic president, congress and senate, every election for the next thousand years, we are still going global. We will still cease to be us, a free sovereign state. My reaction has been to attack every factor that supports that eventuality.
Today I attack the republican party because they are the stealth enabler. Many people do not see this. Many people think our leaders would not sell us out as the European leaders have their peoples, to surrender to the E.U.
Have I given up simply because I refuse that fate?
Or have you, for accepting that fate?
If the republican party will not stop supporting this fate, then we need to change the party or kill it in favor of one that will.
It is time to say to the republican party, you do not represent me. And that being the case, you lose.
Next time nominate someone who does, or pass into oblivion.
I will NEVER accept global rule. I recognize the stars and stripes and the founding principles.
It’s time we turn back to them. No, it’s way past time when we should have, and every conservative knows this.
I consider this a debate. I do not consider it scolding, berating or anything of a negative sort.
We’re FReeper friends and I realize you desire the same things I do. We see the options from a different perspective. Ten years ago, I would have agreed with you. Today, I no longer can.
You take care. I appreciate you taking the time to respond. I know that last one was quite extensive.
D1
That’s the way I see also. We keep doing the same thing and expecting a different outcome.
So what if their libs take us down. Our libs are doing the same thing. It’s time for a second party.
That’s harsh because our side does a couple of things right, but globalism is the ultimate goal. Not no. Hell no!
I guess you'll be staying home in November.
And that's only the GOP platform. Just think of what the Dems would do to this country!!!
Amen.
LOL, smart ass. Heh heh heh...
You’re right. I can hardly imagine, but at that point the republicans would probably find reason to approve.
I agree, it is a debate.
Also for me it is trying to pass on some history to others who have not learned the lessons of Ross Perot getting us Clinton.
Granted you know most of the history all to well, but some others are young, uninformed or for some history goes only back two days ago... :-)
Another Islamic terror attack, a really bad recession, gas going up to $5 a gallon and people will start to get far more involved in politics.
As it is, I would guess only at most 10% investigate anything and maybe another 30% get their ideas from family and friends. Most to their detriment are NOT politically active as they should be. At least they should be informed IMO.
2008 is especially a bad year to elect a Democrat because two liberal Justices will retire, one from age, one from cancer.
Let’s face it, if the Dems had no gazillion government employees, and people getting benefits to vote for them, they’d never get elected.
Seems every election the Dems have 33% built in before they start with teachers, government unions, recipients of assistance and so forth. So in many cases the Dems have to find 17% +1 more votes when the Republicans have to get a whole 50% +1.
We have to reduce government employment and all that for both economic and political solvency’s sake.
Mexico sucks, but we can hardly MAKE them do anything, just like we can’t make Pakistan let us in to get Bin Laden or other terrorists.
The other two posts didn’t have much for me to respond to. I appreciate the comments.
This post did. You mentioned the 75% necessary to vote in order to ratify what Clinton did. It doesn’t work that way.
We were playing by U.N. rules. The U.N. only required the signature of a national leader to bring the I.C.C. into being. It was ratified in this manner.
If you wish to say the U.S. wouldn’t be bound by the I.C.C., it’s a pyrric victory. You see, the U.S. would be loathe to make and affront to the court. We have already had litigation before this court if I remember accurately.
We talk a big game when it comes to international agencies, but we always tow the line.
There is an I.C.C. today. We are subject to it’s rulings even if our Congress did not ratify it, because we accept what the WTO, the ICC and the UN tell us. Basicly, we’re had.
If you can think of examples to disprove this, by all means provide them.
One poster said there could be as many as five. Just letting you know you may be mentioning too few to make this arguement.
Well, that being the case, I guess it’s vitally important we nominate a conservative isn’t it.
I wouldn’t disagree with your conclusion, but I’m not sure the dems benefit as much as it seems they would from government jobs. There seems to be about a 35% base on each side, and about 30% in the middle, although some address a 40/40/20 figure.
Do we need to cut government jobs? You bet your -— we do.
Mexico and the U.S. conduct a lot of trade. We purchase a lot of their oil. And we take a lot of guff.
Mexico is not in the driver’s seat. We are. Our GNP is probably fifty times what Mexico’s is. Mexico talks a big game, but it’s not going to ignore the wishes of the U.S., if we actually showed some backbone.
If we slam that border shut and shut off the services, they’re in for a real hard time.
We need to demand they open up the middle class and employ the poor.
It’s time to see Mexico clean up it’s act, and it’s a major embarassment to watch our team act as if Mexico called the shots for us. That just insulting.
Very few people who stay home will be trying to “teach a lesson.” They simply will not see voting for the available candidates as a compelling reason to go to the polls. For most it won’t be a conscious decision. It will be not getting around to it or going fishing instead. The point is that there won’t be a positive reason to jerk their consciousness. Negative voting just does not attract the crowds of voters that perceived Optimism and Determination do. Not many people voted for Reagan to keep whats-his-name from getting elected. If this election becomes one in which a large segment of the Republican base has to “hold its nose” then too many just won’t get around to it. It will be worse if the Democrat is Hussein Obama. He has the aggressive optimism and the can-do aura that Reagan had but among Democrats and independents. He combines those qualities with zero policy and goal substance which goes a long way to really turn on the Democrat base and will not be felt as sufficiently threatening by Republicans if they are already not enthused by “their” own candidate.
Of course the UN are going to make it a minor gesture to get in, but that only goes well as long as the people of the United States are happy.
I hope a conservative gets through to the main election. The Republicans are the only ones that could come up with an electable candidate against the Democrats though.
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.