Posted on 10/18/2014 4:45:34 AM PDT by chrisnj
But that's the thing, there's nothing that significantly differentiates Romney from Obama politically.
He's Obama with an R next to his name.
McCain? That’ll be the day.
In the last primary, Romney won — after 2008 I promised myself I'd never again hold my nose
so I didn't vote for him.
It's not my fault that electable
isn't.
Probably because this thread isn’t about amnesty but you knew that. So once again you are deflecting and obfuscating the issue at hand.
Oh spare me your excuses.
Question: would electing a Republican senate do anything?
I've not seen them do much of anything opposition-wise even though they control the House — why should I believe that electing more of them will change things?
Looking at their [in]action on all of their party-planks I don't think that's a bad assumption.
Actually, yes. We can.
The average Democrat [voter] cares about justice — were we to frame, say the NSA's domestic espionage in terms of its injustice we could certainly get many of them on our cause. And it's like that with a lot of positions.
And that's why the Republicans cannot win as they are now: they have no message, no purpose.
Oh thanks for reminding me.
We are now at around 650 posts with POSSIBLY one person who MAY have addresses the FACT that the GOP promised Amnesty if given a majority/power. Possibly because after being asked, he has yet to reply as to which post that SUPPOSEDLY occured at. So maybe...who knows?
Now since Drifty was so kind as to bring it up, since this thread is about an article by frauds and voting for frauds no matter what, I think that the frauds ignoring their base and ramming more disease and the promise of more dead American kids down America’s throat practically begs for said base to take it’s votes where they belong. Conservative candidates.
And since the GOP’s open borders already killed a couple American kids thanks to the new polio that came with their blessed illegals, we ought to give their intentions our most strident attention.
I think it depends on what's meant by immigration reform
— if it's getting rid of the current quota-system and bureaucracy then I'm for it… if you're using it as code for amnesty, then I'm not.
We have to be careful about not letting the terms be [re]defined and used against us.
But isn't that exactly what's going on in this thread?
Those who are berating those of us who refuse to Just Vote R
refuse to acknowledge the costs that we do count — lost freedoms and liberties, increased debt, increased lawlessness, and more wink-and-nod to political corruption are unacceptable to us… these are resoundingly denied by the GOPe cheerleaders who say, essentially, vote for Moloch or Satan will win!
“IF the GOP got the majority, they could be persuaded to drop amnesty. Like bush 43 was persuaded to drop harriet miers.”
Decades ago, when I worked at Nasa. There were people who voted for Clinton, even though they were told that he would cut their jobs. Clinton was elected, their jobs were cut... they were surprised.
Harriet Miers was a disaster in many ways, not just from the conservatives. Those same forces will not oppose immigration reform.
“If the GOP doesn’t get the majority, it doesn’t matter because amnesty is going to be shoved down our throats anyway.”
Nope. If we keep the house, we keep grid-lock. The two parties don’t want to work together. Given a choice between gridlock and a liberal reform of immigration policy.
I choose gridlock. Maybe a nice 50/50 gridlock where the RINOs get to see how dems share power and we are still in a good position for 2016... but I still prefer gridlock to RINO policy.
There are CONSERVATIVES to whom mere Republicans reference as "purists." There are "Republicans," such unprincipled creatures as McCain, Myth Romney, Robert (Tax Collector for the Welfare State) Dole, Bush the Globalist Elder, Weeper of the House John Suntan and Scotch Bonehead, Mitch the Turtle McConnell.
If any of the "Republicans" or their ilk have any position of principle, it is either absolutely demanded by their constituency or sheer accident. They exist to slavishly service the US Chamber of Crony Socialism types and the Wall Street/K Street crowd. $$$$ uber alles. They buy nominations, rig party rules, expect to piss all over the base and then have the gilt-edged nerve to demand conservative support for their spaghetti-spined (at best) political whore nominees.
When CONSERVATIVES go to the sidelines and refuse to play the brainless servant of the RINO game just this ONE MORE TIME to keep the Demonrats out of office in this hour of OUR PERPETUAL GREATEST HOUR OF NEED (which arises anew every two years), if "we" win, that just maximizes the profits of the soulless RINOs by giving THEM a place at the bargaining table to line their pockets at OUR expense, they chuckle up their sleeves at conservatives for being such stupid rubes as to fall for their RINO nonsense one more time. Then the RINOs hop in bed eagerly with Obozo, Pelosi, Harry Reid, et al. and carve up the profits for ANOTHER two years.
If CONSERVATIVES walk away from the stupidity of voting for the bought and paid for GOP-E whores, at least we take their personal profit increases away for two years. If we take away our votes long enough, perhaps, they will get the message and find new hobbies. Polo? Tiddleywinks? They won't be able to aspire to be called Mr. President, or Mr. Senator or Mr. Secretary or, for their cubs, Mr. Congressman.
Yes, it IS true that the practitioners of Hackerama will be left "on the battlefield to be politically slaughtered by the" left. Tooooooooo baddd!!! When you have been slaughtered by the Demonrat left, you will at last recognize that you have been slaughtered by the left. You HAVE already been slaughtered by the left if you have voted for the left in the form of Whacko John McCain or Myth Dudley Do Wrong Romney. If you cannot recognize as meaningless the distinction between Demonrat left and GOP-E left, then conservatives need to bring that home to you by destroying your useless candidates.
It is true that when conservatives are the last men standing, we who ARE conservatives are at jeopardy of losing important rights: RTKBA, RtL, Freedom of Religion, you name it. What else is new? That has been the status quo for an extended period of time, thanks to the degeneration of the Democrat Party into the Demonrat Party and the eager co-operation of the GOP-E as junior partners to the usual Demonrat majority. Myth Romney was going to be a pro-lifer? Would stop being a gun grabber? Would stop violating religious rights? Would stop being an enthusiastic cheerleader for "gay" everything? Would be committed to ANYTHING conservative whatsoever other than protecting Muffie's trust fund? No more so than Obozo on all counts. For technocrats, Myth might, by default rather than intention, be marginally more competent (at ramming through the bipartisan leftist agenda and preening for the cameras and therefore be marginally more dangerous than Obozo).
When CONSERVATIVES refuse to submit to Wall Street, K Street, USCoC and the insufferable whores who run the GOP through the GOP-E, we are not pouting. We are on strike and an ever increasing number are on strike with each passing year until the GOP EARNS our votes by nominating candidates WORTH VOTING FOR in their own right not just because they are not Obozo or not Hillary.
Even Goldwater the pro-abort noticed these problems with the GOP-E leftists as long ago as the 1950s when he called the Eisenhower regime a "Dime Store New Deal."
After the Republiwimps have been slaughtered, the CONSERVATIVES will, if we notice, have no one else to defend our rights. That is already the status quo. How will conservatives notice the absence of allies? Who in his or her right mind, expects protection of conservative principles by trash like Myth Romney?
And 450 of them are you avoiding the issue of how conservatives take back our government.
First quit whining about how your candidates don’t win and the get a clue.
You can’t change anything by being the best loser.
Spare me your diversion.
Deal with the fact that your frauds are funding Barry and contributing to the deaths of American kids. That isn’t whining. It’s reality.
Pushback sucks huh? Get over it.
If we vote for them, they will have lived to fight for another re-election. They will KNOW that we are not serious and they will repeat the same old stale arguments again in the next cycle and you, or others like you will make the same unsupportable pose of “seriousness.” It is the song that never ends!
Really? What have they done to stop it?
Anything at the federal level?
How about the State level?
| Arizona | New Mexico | Texas |
|---|---|---|
| Art 5, Sec 4. Governor; powers and duties; special sessions of legislature; message and recommendations The governor shall transact all executive business with the officers of the government, civil and military, and may require information in writing from the officers in the executive department upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices. He shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed. He may convene the legislature in extraordinary session. He shall communicate, by message, to the legislature at every session the condition of the state, and recommend such matters as he shall deem expedient. |
Art 5, Sec. 4. [Governor's executive power; commander of militia.] The supreme executive power of the state shall be vested in the governor, who shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed. He shall be commander in chief of the military forces of the state, except when they are called into the service of the United States. He shall have power to call out the militia to preserve the public peace, execute the laws, suppress insurrection and repel invasion. |
Art 4, Sec. 7. COMMANDER IN CHIEF OF MILITARY FORCES; CALLING FORTH MILITIA. He shall be Commander-in-Chief of the military forces of the State, except when they are called into actual service of the United States. He shall have power to call forth the militia to execute the laws of the State, to suppress insurrections, and to repel invasions. |
But there's no such thing as a vote against
in our system.
To say that there is by appealing to binary logic presupposes things that simply aren't true — namely that there are only two parties/candidates to vote for.
In 2012 Romney was put up as the Republican candidate, and Obama as the Democratic candidate… neither of these were acceptable to me so I voted for Gary Johnson, the Libertarian candidate and former governor of my State — this was not a vote for Romney, it was not a vote for Obama; had Gary Johnson not appeared I would have written in EternalVigilance.
By constraining yourself to whatever dreck the Republican party throws up (because they're not as bad
as the Democrat) you implicitly vote for every move toward socialism, communism, and stateism that they make.
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.