Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 12/17/2003 7:45:30 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/17/2003 7:47:20 AM EDT by garandman]
....for true Conservatives.

Think about it. Bill Clintoon STOLE much of the Republican agenda, and now we have President Bush (RINO) expanding Medicare, gutting the First Amendment (via CFR) and saying he supports Clintoon's AWB.

If Dean were elected, his ultra left wing nut job policies could renew in Republicans an understanding that Conservative principles CAN get them re/elected.

And let's face it - job security is "Job 1" with politicians.


At teh VERY least, it would create gridlock, which means our freedoms are safer from ALL politicians (as Repubs are chopping them down as fast as the Dems these days)

Whadda ya think???

Link Posted: 12/17/2003 7:56:10 AM EDT
Interesting idea. Must ponder.
Link Posted: 12/17/2003 7:56:36 AM EDT
I know where you're coming from, G-Man, but I think the damage that would occur during those four years would be devastating. We're stuck in an awkward position: Jump off a cliff into the sea, or ride a gradual slope in the hope we find a plateau where we can begin our climb back up. I do not subscribe to the "get it over with already" mentality. Too defeatist and WAY too dangerous for what we hold dear and still enjoy.
Link Posted: 12/17/2003 8:12:06 AM EDT
Link Posted: 12/17/2003 8:19:07 AM EDT
Originally Posted By EricTheHun: Uh, no. Eric The(No,Again)Hun[>]:)]
View Quote
Hun sir, a thought. IF, G-mans scenario played out. Would it be possible that such a situation would do as he suggests, and cause the GOP to see that we mean business, and that if they want our vote, they had better get squared away? Thus giving us the all around Presidential champion candidate we all hope for, and keeping futher destructive legislation at bay for a time? I ask because I am still unsure as to the best COA to take. Your take?
Link Posted: 12/17/2003 8:23:24 AM EDT
I don't think this man can be trusted. IMO
Link Posted: 12/17/2003 8:25:10 AM EDT
[url]http://slate.msn.com/id/2092786/[/url] Check out the section titled "Waiting for the next Perot" It is very relevant to this discussion.
Link Posted: 12/17/2003 8:27:39 AM EDT
ONLY if he is to be a 2-termer. If you cannot remember Reagen, you should at least remember Clinton. 1st term "liberal" legislation includes queers in military and AWB, both first term efforts. GWB's second term will be much more conservative.
Link Posted: 12/17/2003 8:32:34 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Keith_J: GWB's second term will be much more conservative.
View Quote
I certainly hope you're right... There is a school of thought that believes that GWB is systematically dismantling the Democrat party by coopting their agenda and implementing it with a conservative spin. IF this is true, then the idea is to undo the lies the Left has spoken about the GOP since 1990. If people can be brought into the fold and made to realize that we are not the monsters the hard Left (who has been in charge of the DNC since Carter) make us out to be, then a more traditionally Conservative agenda can be implemented. I'm not sure such a strategy is sound, but it makes sense in the abstract. The flaw is that it requires the GOP to do the right thing once the DNC is destroyed as a viable political force. [shrug]
Link Posted: 12/17/2003 8:34:41 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Keith_J: ONLY if he is to be a 2-termer. If you cannot remember Reagen, you should at least remember Clinton. 1st term "liberal" legislation includes queers in military and AWB, both first term efforts.
View Quote
Apples and oranges. Reagan enjoyed widespread popularity, while Bill Clinton was impeached in his second term. Bill doesn't get impeached and we probably see universal healthcare, another gun-ban, and a host of other shit.
GWB's second term will be much more conservative.
View Quote
As long as he stops pandering to everybody left of right, sure. Otherwise...
Link Posted: 12/17/2003 8:41:03 AM EDT
There's no doubt the Republican Party needs a swift kick in the gonads to get it back on a conservative track. but, The one issue that really hasn't been addressed in this term, that was a big factor in the 2000 campaign, is the nomination of Supreme Court Justices. With 2 Judges pushing 80 and a few others pushing 70 I have to believe a few seats will be available in the next presidential term. Do you really want Howard Dean picking Supreme Court Justices?
Link Posted: 12/17/2003 8:55:29 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Janus: There's no doubt the Republican Party needs a swift kick in the gonads to get it back on a conservative track. but, The one issue that really hasn't been addressed in this term, that was a big factor in the 2000 campaign, is the nomination of Supreme Court Justices. With 2 Judges pushing 80 and a few others pushing 70 I have to believe a few seats will be available in the next presidential term. Do you really want Howard Dean picking Supreme Court Justices?
View Quote
We have a winner. The next election is all about the Supreme Court. I'm actually quite surprised Rehnquist and O'Connor haven't thrown in the towel already. Bush may not be the perfect republican, but I'm sure his Supreme Court nominations would be far better than anyone Dean or one of the DNC puppets would put up. And never forget, unlike the president, they are in for life. Whoever wins the next presidential election will leave their imprint on the evolution of this country for decades after they're out of office simply because of whom they may get on the Supreme Court. That is THE issue.
Link Posted: 12/17/2003 9:25:14 AM EDT
however if dean ran it might garentee bush being relelected. I think if you are supporting dean you should really take a closer look at him and his stance on all topics. He is way to liberal and may cause more damage than good. despite the theory he would lock up the senate house and white house so no decision was made if that was true it should have stopped the 94 crime bill which created pre and post ban ar's
Link Posted: 12/17/2003 10:00:21 AM EDT
Hmmmm...don't think so G-man. Before you pull the lever for Dean, you might want to really consider the consequences: President Dean means slashing the military budget and returning our troops currently serving in combat overseas to CONUS. As those of us with half a brain know, bringing our troops home also means bringing the terrorists home too. President Dean means to issue an executive order (Not sure about the legalities of that...but for now, let's say it is possible.) repealing the Bush tax cuts...those same tax cuts that are the little engine that could, powering the recovering economy. Do you have any investments? Is your pension plan doing well now? How do you like your tax burden now...relative to what it was say...in 1994? Are you ready for another nasty recession and increased inflation...stagflation maybe? Are you ready for enactment of the Kyoto Protocol? Are you ready for incredibly stringent enviro-regs to be piled upon American businesses, thus severely increasing their cost of doing business, which must be passed along to the world wide consumers, making our companies less competitive, thus causing massive layoffs across the country and sending us into a very bad recession? Why do you think the Euro-socialists want us to sign the damn thing? Now, we are vastly more efficient than they are and our goods and services are actually much cheaper. Ever wonder why a Volvo is so damn pricey when compared to an Infiniti, Cadillac, Lexus or Acura? Sweden is a socialist state. I think it is safe to say that homo-marriage is a sure thing as soon as President Dean takes office. In light of that, I'm sure that "fairness" in this issue will extend to the military as well, as President Dean would immediately issue an EO permitting homosexuals to serve openly in all branches of the armed services. You could count on the "fairness doctrine" re-instituted soon after president Dean's inauguration, since that is the easiest way to kill all of the conservative radio and TV shows. Since it is known that Dr. Dean worked an abortion clinic for several years and that this is one of the critical items in his hidden records, and since he is an avowed liberal Democrat and since that party is the openly stated party of "abortions on demand" to ANY human female regardless of age, YOU just might rue that vote selection. Also, as you well know, returning another liberal to the oval office means that federal funds will once again be going overseas to fund world-wide abortions. You and I have been on the same side of the fence on this before...you ought to think this over. Finally, I think it is obscenely naive for any of us to believe for ONE SECOND that president Dean or ANY other Democrat will do anything whatsoever to protect and preserve our RKBA. Their promises, protestations, and prevarications notwithstanding, virtually every single Dem is, deep in their heart of hearts, a rabid anti. The ONLY reason that ANY of them have begun to sound vaguely like a gun-toting, loyal pro-gun conservative, is because, during the last three election cycles, virtually EVERY ONE of their anti-gun candidates has had his/her asses handed to them by us...the freedom-loving believers in the Second Amendment...who vote. I don't care what a Dem says to appease me. MOST of his/her fellow liberals loath guns...and will continue to do their level best to disarm all of us. They will LIE through their teeth to get elected then turn on us in a second. Bush certainly hasn't done everything I'd like, but there is really no viable alternative...not if we want to avoid sliding down into the abyss of rampant, godless, socialism. Remember who the really enemy is: American liberal Democrats. Remember from where they get their core beliefs: Communism.
Link Posted: 12/17/2003 10:23:27 AM EDT
Oh what a plan… Kind of like getting cancer to test the cure… Oh what a plan? Want a job as a test dummy tooooo?
Link Posted: 12/17/2003 10:44:38 AM EDT
I think it is safe to say that homo-marriage is a sure thing as soon as President Dean takes office. In light of that, I'm sure that "fairness" in this issue will extend to the military as well, as President Dean would immediately issue an EO permitting homosexuals to serve openly in all branches of the armed services. .
View Quote
Oh I wouldn't say that, don't think he could EO gay marriage in to being [that would be great,but don't think EO can do it] Best would be veto on antigay marriage bills,. Also he wouldn't EO the military ban unless he had no plans on a second term. Democrats pay lip serivce [pun] to gays but when it gets right down to it, like Repicals on RKBA they get all swishy washy. They don't want to piss off the middle of the road to badly [think black/Bapitist churchs].
Link Posted: 12/17/2003 11:34:21 AM EDT
I'll pass thank you. Even though I don't fly a rebel flag I believe Bubba has the right to if hippie has the right to burn the stars and stripes. Tj
Link Posted: 12/17/2003 11:42:50 AM EDT
[b]
Originally Posted By Zaphod: I know where you're coming from, G-Man, but I think the damage that would occur during those four years would be devastating.
View Quote
[/b] I agree. A dangerous ground to play. After 4 yrs or 8 yrs, our gun rights are probably non-existed, and there's nothing left to fight for. I'm a strong believer of "at-the-right-place, at-the-right-time" type of situation.
Link Posted: 12/17/2003 11:43:56 AM EDT
Originally Posted By garandman: Think about it. Bill Clintoon STOLE much of the Republican agenda, and now we have President Bush (RINO) expanding Medicare, gutting the First Amendment (via CFR) and saying he supports Clintoon's AWB.
View Quote
True on Bush, but how did Clinton steal the Republican/Conservative agenda? In two terms, the only vaugely conservative thing he did was welfare reform. So far, in Bush's first term, we have expanded Medicare, CFR, farm bill, steel tarrifs (since repealed), Education bill, and all-around massive spending. We do need to move the Republican party further to the right, but voting for a loony-left liberal Democrat (as described by LWilde) isn't going to do it. It'll just get us even more looney-left policies, and might give the Republican party the impression that the country is further to the left then they thought.
Link Posted: 12/17/2003 11:49:54 AM EDT
no, it absolutely would not be
Link Posted: 12/17/2003 11:56:47 AM EDT
I heard today that when Saddam crawled out of his hole he saw his shadow which guarenteed we would have four more years of Bush. (A good thing in my opinion)
Link Posted: 12/17/2003 12:00:30 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Janus: ... Do you really want Howard Dean picking Supreme Court Justices?
View Quote
Yep!! That’s the absolutely insurmountable flaw in your argument. The only good thing about Dean winning the presidency in 2004 is that it would, IMHO, derail Hillery’s almost certain winning of the job in 2008. And I certainly don’t see any liberals celebrating the fact that GWB is our current president!! [:D]
Link Posted: 12/17/2003 12:43:18 PM EDT
Great post Lwylde! Pretty much sums-up what I think in regards to the whole "let's elect a Democrap and get this all over-with" school-of-thought. Along with the post regarding getting cancer to test the cure. It's flawed thinking based-upon emotion. I guess that explains why they want to vote democrap. There is a difference between Bush and Dean (or any other liberal) whether you see it or not. I don't like or agree with everything that Bush has done, but I like him. And I do trust him. He has thumbed his nose at the "International Community" for too long for me NOT to like him and respect him for that. Reagan liked to employ unilateralism in his decisions too. I like that. I am not a citizen of the world. I am a citizen of The United States of America. So I'm giving Bush the benefit of the doubt leaving the jury out until I can see his deeds more clearly. What's the harm? Who can honestly tell me that voting Democrap would have had better results than taking a chance on Bush?
Link Posted: 12/17/2003 2:23:14 PM EDT
Daaang, all of this talk about trusting politicians is scaring me.[shock] Tj
Link Posted: 12/17/2003 3:04:02 PM EDT
Are you F--cking crazy? You cannot trust a democrat. They lie. They do not think with their brain, they "think" with their heart--WRONG ORGAN. Their main goal is the reaquistion of power, not the best interest of the people as a whole. If you really "think" about the best candidate, it could not be a "feeler". Bush may not make us 100% happy with his policies, but he is heads above the current competition and their bullshit rhetoric. Don't be a fool fooled by a fool--savage1--in my not so ignorant opinion
Link Posted: 12/17/2003 3:14:25 PM EDT
Originally Posted By TomJefferson: Even though I don't fly a rebel flag I believe Bubba has the right to...... Tj
View Quote
Hey now!!!I resemble that remark!lol
Link Posted: 12/17/2003 3:18:53 PM EDT
A socialist president is NEVER good for the country.
Link Posted: 12/17/2003 3:30:32 PM EDT
8 years of Bill Clinton made a believer out of me....Bush in 04 ,He may be a bitch sometimes but for now he our bitch.
Link Posted: 12/17/2003 3:52:03 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Janus: Do you really want Howard Dean picking Supreme Court Justices?
View Quote
Who cares?? The majority on there NOW were put there by repubs. Do you really believe any American gives a shit if the court, [rolleyes], rules the 2nd, or any others "un-constitutional"??? You afraid to pay the price?
Link Posted: 12/17/2003 4:29:42 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Keith_J: GWB's second term will be much more conservative.
View Quote
Bullshit!! If he's re-elected, it sends him a message, that you LIKE his socialist, anti-constitutional tendencies!!! [ROFL] When you vote FOR a man, you tell him you APPROVE of his agenda!! Do you???
Link Posted: 12/17/2003 4:39:20 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Q3131A: A socialist president is NEVER good for the country.
View Quote
(thanks!) That's a damn good reason, NOT to re-elect Bush!! [ROFL]
Link Posted: 12/17/2003 4:44:47 PM EDT
Originally Posted By 199:
Originally Posted By Janus: ... Do you really want Howard Dean picking Supreme Court Justices?
View Quote
Yep!! That?s the absolutely insurmountable flaw in your argument. The only good thing about Dean winning the presidency in 2004 is that it would, IMHO, derail Hillery?s almost certain winning of the job in 2008. And I certainly don?t see any liberals celebrating the fact that GWB is our current president!! [:D]
View Quote
Dude, your making a HUGE assumption here: that Hitlery would be president in 2008 (Jan. of 2009, actually). Your forgetting about a simple little thing called an ELECTION, which she'd never win. She's too friggin' polarizing---you either love her (and need your head examined) or HATE her. Not much of an in-between. Far more hate the bitch than love her. While I don't have faith in the sheeple, I DO have faith in the people! Then again, we had her husband for TWO terms. Oh never mind....
Link Posted: 12/18/2003 4:17:57 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/18/2003 4:23:51 AM EDT by garandman]
Originally Posted By Zaphod: I know where you're coming from, G-Man, but I think the damage that would occur during those four years would be devastating. .
View Quote
The tree of Liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. No, that's NOT original to me.
Link Posted: 12/18/2003 4:20:27 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/18/2003 4:24:15 AM EDT by garandman]
Originally Posted By shaggy:
Originally Posted By Janus: The one issue that really hasn't been addressed in this term, that was a big factor in the 2000 campaign, is the nomination of Supreme Court Justices.
View Quote
We have a winner. The next election is all about the Supreme Court.
View Quote
Dubya has WUSSED OUT on Conservative judges at the district court level. Ashcroft sits on his keister while judges legislate from the bench. And he's SUDDENLY gonna turn it all around in his second term??? Uhh, OK. [rolleyes]
Link Posted: 12/18/2003 4:22:11 AM EDT
Originally Posted By LWilde: Before you pull the lever for Dean,.
View Quote
DUDE- Where do you get the idea I'm gonna pull the lever for Dean??? Tough to legitimately debate a concept if yer gonna paint me that way.
Link Posted: 12/18/2003 4:44:23 AM EDT
A liberal (he thinks he's a moderate)[>:/]asked me why conservatives actually [i]wanted[/i] Hillary to run. Simple, I said. Nothing would bring out conservatives in record numbers on a crisp November tuesday like having Hillary Clinton running on a national ticket. As others have said: [i]Everybody's[/i] got an opinion on her.
Link Posted: 12/18/2003 4:57:39 AM EDT
Originally Posted By garandman: ....for true Conservatives. Whadda ya think???
View Quote
While most interesting and thought provoking, I believe, as a true conservative, that I must continue in my support for a real champion of the people ..........President Sharpton. While simply my personal opinion, I believe NO OTHER candidate 'energizes' both the Conservative Right and the Eastern Liberal Left in quite the same manner as President Sharpton will. I believe it highly likely that Senator Clinton will join Mr. Sharpton as his Vice Preisdential candidate. Yes, I believe only a Sharpton-Clinton ticket can galvanize forces from both the left and the right. Sharpton*-Clinton*..........leading America into tomorrow. (My eyes get moist at the very thought !) (*Please notice both names end with "ton". Many far seeing voters will immediately grasp the insignificance of this illuminating factoid. Still all significance cannot be ignored. A couple of probable 'tonnages': President Sharpton will steal a "ton". Vice President Clinton weighs a "ton".) 5sub
Link Posted: 12/18/2003 5:03:27 AM EDT
5sub - I can see the meds are having a....uplifting....effect on you. Got any I can have??? [:D]
Link Posted: 12/18/2003 5:16:27 AM EDT
Originally Posted By garandman: 5sub - I can see the meds are having a....uplifting....effect on you. Got any I can have??? [:D]
View Quote
g.man, I have no need for artificial stimulants when considering Sharp(ton)- Clin(ton) !! Even you must agree that both liberal and conservative bases would be 'highly energized' by the Sharpton-Clinton ticket. Lines of librals calmly awaiting their turn to leap from the roof of the Baker Library at Harvard; equally calm and self policing conservative. lines queing up for the big leap from the Petroleum Club in Dallas................ . 5sub
Link Posted: 12/18/2003 5:35:11 AM EDT
The Democrats and Republicans have set a terrible precedent with judicial nominations. The Democrats have used every filthy trick in the book to derail the nomination process and the Republicans have let themselves be kicked in the gonads, smiled and asked “Please sir, may I have another?” even though they nominally control the process. This does NOT bode well for replacement SCOTUS nominees. I’m not sure how this is going to go down but I do know if the Democrats have the White House we are well and truly going to be fucked for decades to come (if not forever). The fights next time around will look make what has happened look like an ice cream social. The Republicans HAVE to grow a massive set and take off the gloves next time around. The Democrats know that they are losing the battle in public perception and the only place the can truly push their socialist agenda is via the courts. They will fight like a wounded animal to get people that support their viewpoints on the bench. Again, GW and company had better be prepared to go to the wall and fight like there is no tomorrow because if they wimp out on this one, it’s all over.
Link Posted: 12/18/2003 5:44:51 AM EDT
A vote for Howard(the duck)Dean is like french kissing Hillary Klinton's asshole.
Link Posted: 12/18/2003 7:33:05 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/18/2003 7:42:59 AM EDT by shaggy]
Originally Posted By garandman: Dubya has WUSSED OUT on Conservative judges at the district court level. Ashcroft sits on his keister while judges legislate from the bench. And he's SUDDENLY gonna turn it all around in his second term??? Uhh, OK.
View Quote
I never said GW or the republicans were perfect. In fact, Airwolf is absolutely right - the republicans have let themselves take it in the nutsack with respect to their judicial appointments - they really do need to learn to play hardball. But do you you honestly think Howard Dean and the democrats would do a [i]better[/i] job of picking justices for the Supreme Court? Assuming Dean won the general election and got the opportunity to pick a couple Justices, do you really believe Howard Dean and the democrats are going to pick less activist justices than Bush? Can you say with a straight face that allowing the DNC to put their puppets on the Court is going to be a good thing for this country over the next 20-30 years (or more)? If so, then Dean's your man... Besides, in his 2nd term GW wouldn't have to worry about re-election. He wouldn't need to play nice for the sake of appeasing the moderates and soccer-moms.
Link Posted: 12/18/2003 10:27:00 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/18/2003 10:34:46 AM EDT by garandman]
Originally Posted By shaggy: Besides, in his 2nd term GW wouldn't have to worry about re-election. He wouldn't need to play nice for the sake of appeasing the moderates and soccer-moms.
View Quote
Sounds kinda like a gambling addict. The NEXT hand of cards is gonna be a winner....the NEXT pull of the lever I'm gonna hit the jackpot....the NEXT lotto ticket I'm gonna win the million... [:D] Seriously, tho.... People have been telling me "Bush is a man of principle, with core beleifs, blah, blah blah." Now ya tell me Bush is thinking about re-election, not wanting to enact the Conservative agenda, and NEXT term he won't have to worry about that. So, which is it? The attack on the First Amendment with CFR....the biggest expansion of gov't since WW2, his support of the AWB (and on and on) ... ...is that coming out of his core beliefs, or is Bush making like every other politician in the world, and ensuring his re-election UNTIL teh Constitution tells he CANNOT run again???
Link Posted: 12/18/2003 10:59:06 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/18/2003 11:06:24 AM EDT by The_Macallan]
Originally Posted By garandman: ....for true Conservatives. Think about it. Bill Clintoon STOLE much of the Republican agenda, and now we have President Bush (RINO) expanding Medicare, gutting the First Amendment (via CFR) and saying he supports Clintoon's AWB. If Dean were elected, his ultra left wing nut job policies could renew in Republicans an understanding that Conservative principles CAN get them re/elected. And let's face it - job security is "Job 1" with politicians. [red]At teh VERY least, it would create gridlock,[/red] which means our freedoms are safer from ALL politicians (as Repubs are chopping them down as fast as the Dems these days) Whadda ya think???
View Quote
No it wouldn't create gridlock because the leftwing judicial-activist federal judges could continue to shred the Constitution regardless of gridlock in Washington. [b]Federal Courts are where all our penultimate battles are fought (with the "ultimate battle" being in the streets) and that's why we need a Republican in the Whitehouse and larger Republican majority in the Senate. If there's only [b]ONE[/b] reason to vote for GWBush it's because NO Democratic President would EVER nominate strict constitiutionalists like Charles Pickering, Janice Rodgers Brown, Jay Bybee, Michael McConnell, Brett Kavanaugh, Miguel Estrada, Timothy Tymkovich, Pricilla Owens and on and on... like GWBush has done. Would President Dean nominate people like Scalia or Thomas to the SCOTUS like GWBush would? Or would he appoint a clone of Ruth Bader Ginsberg?
Originally Posted By garandman: Dubya has WUSSED OUT on Conservative judges at the district court level.
View Quote
Bullshit. [url=http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=195610]What was GW and the Repubs thinking??? (Part 1)[/url] [url=http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=198096]What was GW and the Repubs thinking??? (Part 2)[/url] [url=http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=198339]What was GW and the Repubs thinking??? (Part 3)[/url] Then there's Miguel Estrada, Pricilla Owens, Charles Pickering, Janice Rodgers Brown, Carolyn Kuhl and William Pryor who are filibustered by the Senate Democrats for being too conservative. Big picture guys.
Link Posted: 12/18/2003 11:04:24 AM EDT
Originally Posted By garandman:
Originally Posted By LWilde: Before you pull the lever for Dean,.
View Quote
DUDE- Where do you get the idea I'm gonna pull the lever for Dean??? Tough to legitimately debate a concept if yer gonna paint me that way.
View Quote
I knew you wouldn't. I am (was) concerned that your premise that gridlock would make our freedoms safe from ALL politicians, including conservative Republicans, is frankly scary. While I'm not at all satisfied with the current waffling on the part of Dubya and several other prominent Republicans, I believe the alternative...another Democrat in the White House, and this time a Liberal donkey at that, is a terrifying scenario...for just the reasons I stated before. Gridlock always works to the Dems favor because of their pals in the media. Remember how they blamed all of the countries woes on Newt and the Boyz in 1996...making Clintoon and the country out as "victims" of a bunch of crass, greedy extremist meanies?
Link Posted: 12/18/2003 11:06:39 AM EDT
I disagree with this premise. The reason the Democratic party is failing misserably is that they have lost touch with the center. The Republicans overall have not. The extremes, left or right, don't win elections. The center does. Now, I certainly don't agree with the far left. Neither do I agree with the far right in all areas. I am a centrist. That is left on some issues, right on others. The current republican stance takes this pretty much into account and reaches me. A swing to the far right would lose me in a heartbeat. The only real dividing issue for me is the 2nd ammendment and even there I can live with the current administrations formal policy. I can't however abide a renewell of the AWB but overall I think such a move by putting Dean in place will do more harm than good could possibly come down the road.
Link Posted: 12/18/2003 11:08:06 AM EDT
Originally Posted By The_Macallan: ....NO Democratic President would EVER nominate strict constitiutionalists like Charles Pickering, ...., Miguel Estrada, ....and on and on... like GWBush has done. Big picture guys.
View Quote
Big picture INDEED. Dems won't nominate 'em, Repubs won't fight FOR them. They let 'em die on the vine. Either way, we're NOT GETTING strict Cosntitutionalist judges. There's NO difference between the Dems and Repubs in this regard. Your point is moot. I like ya bro, but your point is moot.
Link Posted: 12/18/2003 11:12:24 AM EDT
GM - Some people may have told you "Bush is a man of principle, with core beleifs, blah, blah blah." but it wasn't me. As far as I'm concerned, Bush is still a politician and will always act in his best political interest, even if it does somewhat compromise his core beliefs. And I'm not saying the next hand of cards under Bush is going to be a winner either. But I'm pretty sure I'd rather be playing with Bush, who occasionally has to play a bad hand, than with any democrat who'll cheat with an ace up his sleeve.
Link Posted: 12/18/2003 11:17:12 AM EDT
Originally Posted By LWilde: I am (was) concerned that your premise that gridlock would make our freedoms safe from ALL politicians, including conservative Republicans, is frankly scary.
View Quote
There's no need to safeguard our freedoms from Conservative Republicans. They advance our freedoms.
While I'm not at all satisfied with the current waffling on the part of Dubya and several other prominent Republicans, I believe the alternative...another Democrat in the White House, and this time a Liberal donkey at that, is a terrifying scenario...for just the reasons I stated before.
View Quote
I've already regarded the America the Founding Fathers created as dead. I merely want to hasten the revolution that MUST come to a time when I am capable of fighting for freedom. Worse than the frightening scenario a Dean presidency represents to America, is the notion that the revolution will come when I am too old to fight for freedom.
Gridlock always works to the Dems favor because of their pals in the media. Remember how they blamed all of the countries woes on Newt and the Boyz in 1996...making Clintoon and the country out as "victims" of a bunch of crass, greedy extremist meanies?
View Quote
SURE, the Repubs took their lumps in teh media. I don't really care, cuz "the Repubs looking good" is NOT something I worry about. Compare the Clinton Presidency to teh Bush presidency. Clinton wasn't able to accomplish the CFR attack on the First Amendment. Clinton wasn't able to role out socialized medicine (like Bush did with prescription drugs) Clintons presidency was charachterized by gridlock. Bush's presidency was charachterized by Republican control of House, Senate White House. Bottom line? More freedom died under Bush than under Clinton. That is INDISPUTABLE.
Link Posted: 12/18/2003 11:20:14 AM EDT
Shaggy - It appears we agree on the nature of the problem. We just disagree on teh nature of teh solution. In my estimation, the only REAL solution is revolution. Your "solution" merely postpones the problem to a time when I'll be too old to fight for the Constitution in the revolutiuon.
Link Posted: 12/18/2003 11:43:01 AM EDT
I thought talk of revolution and such was forbidden. [nono]
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top