Posted on 10/22/2002 5:44:18 AM PDT by Tumbleweed_Connection
There is absolutely no way that President Bush could have turned around the extensive level of liberal social policy, that has been entrenched in the federal bureaucracy, for the last seven decades. After all, unlike Reagan, Bush wasn't given a landslide victory, by way of an electoral mandate, to push through sweeping changes. But even after two huge victories by Reagan and some serious conservative policy changes to the income tax codes, deregulation of federal standards and huge increases in national defense spending, he couldn't break the back of the tax and spend mentality that has still has a stranglehold on the citizens of this great country.
Those individuals, who choose not to vote for conservative Republican's candidates and instead, give their vote to some third party candidate, are simply wasting that precious vote in the name of protest and nothing more. It's quite clear, these people have concluded, it's better to deny conservative Republicans a victory and allow liberal Democrats even more opportunity to advance a leftwing policy, that further takes America down the wrong road. It's my opinion, that these people have reached such conclusions, based on emotional wrongheadedness and not on anything that resembles a fair minded intellectual process. This cycle has to be broken, once and for all.
Well, third parties have been notoriously unsuccessful; they usually wind up dividing the very people that should be united. And then we elect the wrong kind-the side we're out to defeat wins.
Ronald Reagan, 1975
Okay then, how 'bout "The Most Conservative POTUS since Eisenhower, excluding Reagan"...does that carry any water with you?!
Same difference, different timeline.
Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Bush episode I - The Spineless Meanace, The UNIBANGER, Bush episode II - Attack of the Immigrants.
We have had one conservative since the Pubbies lost it all the last time the economy went T-U. GWB isn't he.
First question: Why do I need my face stomped?
Second question: How does your post square with JimRob's position on personal attacks and advocating violence in your posts?
OK, for clarification...
Urban refers to the general urban culture that dominates the so-called "blue zones" in the USA. These are big city dwellers, and generally have a very socialist, big-gov't view of society. The urban culture is distinct and in opposition to the culture which, in theory, is a safehaven for freedom, American Heritage, and a law-abiding way of life.
Most cities are an absolute hell-hole of crime and dependancy. I didn't think this would be a stretch - perhaps I was wrong.
Breeders refers to someone who reproduces themselves with no regard for the maintenance and upkeep of their offspring. The word is intended to be a pejorative. Typically, this would refer to those women who have several children, by different inseminators, and in many cases can not differentiate among the many inseminators as to the correct parentage of their many children.
The second part of the sentance refers to "the payroll." The context correctly suggests that it is the government's payroll.
Everyone has a job. I fly airplanes around the US and, in return, receive a sum of money for that effort. If I don't fly, the money stops. The same government once paid me to fly naval aircraft around the Atlantic Ocean.
That government pays these "urban breeders" to have more children, especially without the financial benefit of a stable father. The more unstable the father figure, and the more kids the woman has, the more money she receives from Uncle Sugar. Her job is to breed in a fashion found typically in the urban areas of the USA. If she lost all her kids, or had a husband with a stable source of income, she would be terminated from the gov't payroll.
Our gov't spend big bucks on this program. It must be important.
There are also "rural breeders." The same can be said for them. "Urban breeders" encapsulates the hopeless government policy of welfare dependancy, whereas "rural breeders" is not as immediately obvious as to my intention. You may feel free to substitute "rural breeders" anytime you wish.
I hope this clears this matter for you.
Why do I need my face stomped?
rdb3's response:
You need your face stomped. Badly.
Your ability to follow a line of questioning really speaks quite well of you. No wonder you graduated cum laude.
I ask again:
Why do I need my face stomped?Was it something I said?
Could you elaborate on what it means to be a "Regenerate Christian?" Is that the Christianity where you advocate personal, felonious violence against someone with whom you have an honest disagreement? Just curious...
That "urban breeders" comment of yours... Very classy.
Wanna play? Let's go.
It does - I find I'm in disagreement with your assessment; and that many would find almost personal affront with your descriptions. And that includes both urban and rural dwellers.
Certainly there are many urban residents who are Democrats, but to refer to them that way - with a single broad brushstroke - is just plain wrong, and there are plenty of folks who would offer examples of the fallacy of your statement.
Did I hit too close to home with the "urban breeder" comment? The dog who yelps is the one that got hit.
Tell me, regenerated Christian, why do I need to have my face stomped? This is my third request for an answer to a very simple question. Then again, I may not grasp your level of sophistication in matters related to simple interrogatives.
I stand by my characterization of our welfare state as the FEDGOV's urban breeder program. That is what Congress is paying people to do. People have noticed.
Did I say all urbanites are in the program? Check again.
I never mentioned party affiliation of those on "the payroll." I never said that everyone was on the payroll.
Please reread the posts. You are disputing claims that I did not make.
Yes, urban breeders is supposed to be offensive. Congress has set up a hellish agency of 105,000 agents to extort money from my family. If I protest, I go to prison, where I get to live with the inseminators I previously mentioned. If I attempt to defend myself in court, I get a $25K fine. The bulk of this money goes to welfare bums, and related programs.
Now, about personal affronts...
Simple...if Bush proposed it, Joe Lieberman would be the first Democrat out of the gate to call it "tax breaks for the rich".
Bush doesn't have to propose it...let Lieberman go on record with the idea. Then when they lost the Senate, see if he supports the idea again. He won't.
This a pure political move to make the Dems look good to the independents they know they are losing in droves. It's a "me too" play. This shows their desparation, not the lack of GOP ideas!
Polls are showing that even with the "economy" getting back to the #1 concern, the voters trust the Republicans more than the Democrats to do something about it. And Daschle was first to set the agenda with "increase the minimum wage and extend unemployment benefits"! Whoopie!
Wrong totally. We just know bovine excrement when we hear it!
I bet you belived Clinton when he pounded the podium and said, "I didn't have sex with that woman..................Miss Lewinsky."
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.