Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

A Bush Hater's Poll
Jim Robinson

Posted on 07/10/2002 11:27:06 PM PDT by Jim Robinson

This is an unofficial quick and dirty presidential poll. Apparently, there is a good sized contingent on Free Republic that believes that President Bush is:

  1. Not conservative enough
  2. Not pro-life
  3. Is a gun-grabber
  4. Is a federal power-grabber
  5. Will appoint liberal judges
  6. Is a globalist
  7. Is in it just for oil
  8. Is too soft on immigration
  9. Is too soft (or too hard) on Israel
  10. Is a crook
  11. All of the above
  12. None of the above
  13. Other (you name it)

Please list the numbers that best match the reasons you don't like Bush (or state other reasons if not on the list) and state whether you believe that President Bush should be defeated even if it means installing a Democrat in the Whitehouse.

Conversely, if you believe President Bush should be re-elected, please state why.

Please state who you would like to see win the Presidency in 2004 and whether or not you believe he/she has a chance of winning.

Thanks,
Jim


TOPICS: Breaking News; Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,361-1,3801,381-1,4001,401-1,4201,421-1,426 next last
To: B. A. Conservative
"It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter.... Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!"
1,381 posted on 07/14/2002 12:25:30 PM PDT by B. A. Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1380 | View Replies]

To: All; steve50; JohnGalt; fporretto; George Frm Br00klyn Park; tacticalogic; VoodooEconomist; ...
According to information posted on the web in the recent past, only about one third of the American colonists supported the Revolution. And slightly more than a third wanted to remain as serfs to the English King. Apparently the other third was undecided. The more things stay the same, the less they change.

How say you FreeRepublic?

Patsy? Or Patriot?

1,382 posted on 07/14/2002 12:27:06 PM PDT by B. A. Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1381 | View Replies]

To: PsyOp
I agree. Vote for a third party and your throwing another bone to the Democrats. Democratic Party wants to destroy the remaining freedoms we have in the U.S.A.
1,383 posted on 07/14/2002 1:36:34 PM PDT by 2nd_Amendment_Defender
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1172 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
"If you think the Republican nominating electorate is going to nominate a pro-abortion candidate, you are demonstrating that you don't have a clue concerning the makeup of that electorate. There are a couple of lines that were drawn in the sand long ago in our Party...one concerns the pro-life nature of our platform...the other is the pro-life status of our nominees for President and Vice-President."

EV, I don't have any delusions of bursting your bubble, but there are millions of people who feel just as strongly you do, but they favor abortion and in fact insist on it as their unalienable right. While you may have some difficulty in recognizing the differences between a fetus that is not viable outside the womb if it were to be born and a child who has been borne and successfully lived outside the womb, there are differences and in the minds of people who believe in pro-choice those differences are morally, ethically and legally different. If it provides you some comfort, and there is a God who is offended by abortion, you can trust his judgment of how to deal with the offenders. You are relieved of that responsibility and don't have to worry about punishing the mother.

Looking from another vantage point to help clariy how I think about the differences between conservatives and liberals. It is all about using power. Liberals want to use government to impose things on other citizens, frequently things that are against the wishes of those other citizens. That is why conservatives despise and hate liberals. I don't care if a liberal wants to give their money to an illiterate unmarried pregnant wetback, but I resent intensely the liberal's desire to use the power of government to force me to do the same thing. Frankly, I would rather give it to my own children or invest it so that I might be able to have even more money at some time in the future. Now taking the other vantage point, liberals generally like pro-choice. And they resent it intensely when you want to take away their right to make their own decisions. Republicans and conservatives would probably get a lot more soccer mom votes and win more elections if they could get over this one issue. Freedom is making choices. Liberals want to force me to make choices that I would not choose for myself. So-called conservatives like you want to take away choices their other people would rather make for themselves.

You may not agree with any of this. You may not even understand it. But print it out and keep it handy. Read through it once a day for a couple of weeks. Think about it every day after you read it. While you are thinking about it, consider the fact that no matter what laws you and conservatives like you might be able to pass prohibiting abortion, it will be just like the counter-productive war on drugs. You will not eliminate the behavior; all you will have accomplished is to criminalize it. You will not have stopped the deaths of the unborn, but now you will have caused the deaths of countless women who will die from poorly performed or otherwise unsafe abortions. I know. I am a retired pathologist who has been there. Legislating morality is counter productive. It almost always does more harm than good. It promotes official corruption of the people who are supposed to enofrce such laws. And it leads to corruption of countless public officials who have committed moral crimes through blackmail and extortion.

1,384 posted on 07/14/2002 9:00:50 PM PDT by B. A. Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 959 | View Replies]

To: B. A. Conservative
EV, I don't have any delusions of bursting your bubble...

No, but you seem to have plenty of other delusions to keep you busy.

...but there are millions of people who feel just as strongly you do, but they favor abortion and in fact insist on it as their unalienable right.

Well, they are not the people who decide who is going to represent the Republican Party on its Presidential ticket.

While you may have some difficulty in recognizing the differences between a fetus that is not viable outside the womb if it were to be born and a child who has been borne and successfully lived outside the womb, there are differences and in the minds of people who believe in pro-choice those differences are morally, ethically and legally different.

Tell me what will happen if your abortionist buddies just leave it alone. Will it somehow become a 'fetus animal'?...or will it become a human being, endowed by its Creator with certain unalienable rights?

If it provides you some comfort, and there is a God who is offended by abortion, you can trust his judgment of how to deal with the offenders.

Oh, there is, and He will.

You are relieved of that responsibility and don't have to worry about punishing the mother.

Except to whatever extent it was in my power to prevent it...it's a little thing called the duty and responsibility as a sovereign citizen of the United States of America and as a Christian.

Looking from another vantage point to help clariy how I think about the differences between conservatives and liberals.

You obviously don't even have a clue what it is to be a conservative. No conservative justifies abortion. Your screen name is a fraud. You are a liberal.

It is all about using power. Liberals want to use government to impose things on other citizens, frequently things that are against the wishes of those other citizens.

And conservatives want to protect the life and liberty of the innocent, using the self-evident truths outlined in our founding documents. So do you think unborn babies would want to be torn to pieces or have their skin burned off their bodies, or have their brains sucked into a sink?

That is why conservatives despise and hate liberals.

I hate liberals because they hate God, they have no qualms about destroying innocent life, and they are taking away the liberty of my children and my grandchildren.

I don't care if a liberal wants to give their money to an illiterate unmarried pregnant wetback, but I resent intensely the liberal's desire to use the power of government to force me to do the same thing.

Like most liberals, in or out of the closet, you are apparently a racist as well.

Frankly, I would rather give it to my own children or invest it so that I might be able to have even more money at some time in the future. Now taking the other vantage point, liberals generally like pro-choice. And they resent it intensely when you want to take away their right to make their own decisions. Republicans and conservatives would probably get a lot more soccer mom votes and win more elections if they could get over this one issue.

Spoken like a true liberal.

Freedom is making choices.

True liberty never makes choices that destroy other's life or liberty.

Liberals want to force me to make choices that I would not choose for myself. So-called conservatives like you want to take away choices their other people would rather make for themselves.

I don't want to take away anyone's legitimate choices...but the rule of law, and decency militates against the kind of license you advocate for doing evil. The Founders of this country would be appalled at your gross misunderstanding of what liberty is all about.

You may not agree with any of this.

At least you got something right.

You may not even understand it.

I understand it perfectly.

But print it out and keep it handy. Read through it once a day for a couple of weeks. Think about it every day after you read it.

If I printed it out, I would be wasting paper. Your post is worthless.

While you are thinking about it, consider the fact that no matter what laws you and conservatives like you might be able to pass prohibiting abortion, it will be just like the counter-productive war on drugs. You will not eliminate the behavior; all you will have accomplished is to criminalize it.

Well at least the murders will not take place under the color of law.

You will not have stopped the deaths of the unborn, but now you will have caused the deaths of countless women who will die from poorly performed or otherwise unsafe abortions.

I will not be accountable for their crimes, they will be. Unfortunately for people like you, at the moment the blood is on your hands.

I know. I am a retired pathologist who has been there.

I guess your oath was the 'hypocritic' oath, instead of the 'hippocratic' one, eh?

Legislating morality is counter productive.

Classic silly liberal one-liner...you just continue to out yourself.

It almost always does more harm than good.

Legislating morality keeps people from killing you, stealing all your stuff, and our civilization from descending into total anarchy.

It promotes official corruption of the people who are supposed to enofrce such laws. And it leads to corruption of countless public officials who have committed moral crimes through blackmail and extortion.

You have a twisted view of the world.

1,385 posted on 07/14/2002 9:32:42 PM PDT by EternalVigilance
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1384 | View Replies]

To: Deb
Just to set the record straight: I have no idea why, but Lott refused to let the House Managers present the evidence to the Senate. Since the proceedings in the Senate were televised around the world, all Americans would have had a chance to review the evidence against Clinton for themselves. My guess is that in spite of the rhetoric from the Democrats, if the evidence had been presented it would have been so damning that the Democrats in the Senate would have been forced to vote or remove Clinton from office because of the public sentiment that would have been aroused. Even long-term Senate Democrats fear the wrath of an aroused electorate.

Lott and the Republicans could have forced the presentation of the evidence. Who knows what Clinton and crew had on whichever Republicans (rememer those illegally obtained FBI files) but this was one of worst caves in the history of the Republican Party. This alone is a compelling argument for TERM LIMITS.

1,386 posted on 07/14/2002 9:34:41 PM PDT by B. A. Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1125 | View Replies]

To: DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet
"And voting for 3rd party candidates in whom you know don't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning won't "move the country right," either."

You are both wrong. Coupled with the right incentive that is precisely what it takes to move the country right.

1,387 posted on 07/14/2002 9:46:27 PM PDT by B. A. Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1161 | View Replies]

To: B. A. Conservative
No, sir - YOU are wrong. And please, don't address me until you're ready to apologize for suggesting Iwo Jima was a waste of time.
1,388 posted on 07/14/2002 10:44:53 PM PDT by DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1387 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
Bush is a No. 11.
1,389 posted on 07/15/2002 4:27:06 AM PDT by CWRWinger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: B. A. Conservative
Excellent essay, and I would love to see many of these ideas implemented.

IBD had an excellent interview on Friday of the dude in Peru who implemented privatization of Social Security.

Cato, as you pointed out, has a project going to advance this agenda, and I am very much for it. (I would wait until the market gets over its hangover, though, before starting any major publicity campaign!)

Do you think we need a five million Constitutional Republican march on the Mall to make our point?

I don't think the entire GOP is hopelessly derailed, I just think a few cars are off track.

A march would be excellent.

We should get off our asses.

September is when they ratified the Constitution.

1,390 posted on 07/15/2002 6:14:17 AM PDT by caddie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1297 | View Replies]

To: B. A. Conservative
I see you might be about to understand the meaning of "irony" now if you want to fight back and show me some information indicating the falsity of my statement perhaps even more progress can be made.
1,391 posted on 07/15/2002 6:55:29 AM PDT by justshutupandtakeit
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1266 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
This is an unofficial quick and dirty presidential poll. Apparently, there is a good sized contingent on Free Republic that believes that President Bush is:

3, 4, 6, 8, 13

13. Not consitutional enough: he signed bills into law that were *clearly* unconsitutional. Whatever political games there are to be played, the Constitution shouldn't be a part of it.

As for your other questions:

I didn't vote for GWB in the first place. I wont vote for him in the next election, either.

I'm not sure if it would be best to vote him out if it meant a Dem would take over the Presidency. However, I don't think anyone should vote for him simply because he is the lesser of two evils. Perhaps, though, if a Dem *were* elected, the resulting disaster would *finally* wake up Americans as to the Leviathin that our government has become -- I doubt it, though.

Sadly, I haven't seen anyone of clearly presidential stature waiting in the wings. I like Buchanan, but am not sure he would make a good president. All Dems are, by definition, unfit to run the country. Maybe by the time the next election draws nigh, a fit man will stand forth but, again, I doubt it.

I think we have entered an era of mediocre (at best) presidents: men who are too timid to lead from the front, but instead rely on opinion polls and discussion groups. What we get will, sadly, ultimately reflects the condition of our society.

Tuor

1,392 posted on 07/15/2002 7:26:34 AM PDT by Tuor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: B. A. Conservative
The two of you added together wouldn't make a half-wit.

We'd still out-wit you by about 100%.

1,393 posted on 07/15/2002 8:54:13 AM PDT by My2Cents
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1318 | View Replies]

To: B. A. Conservative
You may find Murray Rothbard's 1992 essay on the future of the Hard Right to be interesting. http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/ir/Ch1.html
1,394 posted on 07/15/2002 10:20:49 AM PDT by JohnGalt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1387 | View Replies]

To: Fish out of Water
"I agree with part of what you say but if both parties are heading in the same wrong direction, the only
difference being how fast they will arrive at their destination, then what do you do?"

Get on board with the slowest and do what you can to apply the brakes. That's what primaries are for. Support the candidates in your party that most agree with you. Make sure they have enough people of their party in power so that they can get their own legislation passed. Be vocal - verbally, or in writing. Hold their feet to the fire by supporting same party challengers in the next primary.
That's the way it used to be done before the days of open primaries, when parties had an actual agreed on platform at the national level that everyone expected to be followed. That is one of the reasons the "contract with America" pledge was so successful. The pary came out, said what it believed in, and pledged en-masse to get it done.
1,395 posted on 07/15/2002 10:46:01 AM PDT by PsyOp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1341 | View Replies]

To: rdf
...and get on with the business of winning conservative victories in real politics!

In the end, this is the only thing that matters: VICTORY.

1,396 posted on 07/15/2002 10:49:39 AM PDT by rdb3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1356 | View Replies]

To: My2Cents
Not even if I tied half my brain behind me and blind-folded the other half.
1,397 posted on 07/15/2002 10:54:33 AM PDT by B. A. Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1393 | View Replies]

To: PsyOp
I have a problem in my area in that the local GOP is incompetent and unable to run a successful campaign. I tried to volunteer several times last election to support a Republican to replace my socialist congresscritter and they couldn't even be bothered to respond until months latter on the weekend before the election. They sent me an e-mail asking if I would stand on a local street-corner with a political sign, by that time I had already arranged to be out with a Bush for President sign. About the only thing I can do locally is to attend my congresscritters townhall meetings and embarrass him with questions; but the people who show up are already committed and unlikely to change their vote no matter how incompetent, lacking in principles and hypocritical the Congresscritter appears. Also with an unorganized incompetent local party it is difficult to influence their positions and makes no difference to government action.
1,398 posted on 07/15/2002 12:44:53 PM PDT by Fish out of Water
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1395 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
A big anti-abortion bump to you. Thank you for your post.
1,399 posted on 07/15/2002 2:35:29 PM PDT by LowOiL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1385 | View Replies]

To: Fish out of Water
Unfortunately, there is not much you can do in a case like that. But you have to keep in mind the bigger picture. You can try to complain to the state or federal republican committees and voice your concerns. If enough people in your area are complaining about the guy and thing he may be losing is ability to win elections or is somehow damaging the party, they may be inclined to put pressure on him to straighten up.

As long as he votes with the rest of the party and supports its legislative initiatives, and is not fundamentally dishonest, as opposed to not being particularly competent, consider it a vote for the party, not the individual. And keep working to get a better candidate. The only time I have ever voted outside the Republican party has been at the lowest local levels, for conservative independents or libertarians that I thought could be trusted when there were no desirable Republican candidates. But I have been very careful about doing that, and have only done it for those that seemed to have a chance of winning.

At the upper levels of the state and federal level though, I do a straight party ticket. Even if I don't like the particular candidate, politics is a numbers game. If you don't have the seats, you've got nothing, even if you have to live with the occasional cardboard cutout. Unless the guy is completely off the reservation, like Jeffords, keep him/her in place till you can get a better candidate.
1,400 posted on 07/15/2002 2:47:02 PM PDT by PsyOp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1398 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,361-1,3801,381-1,4001,401-1,4201,421-1,426 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson