If Kerry had won the elections..

[Lestat]

Just as a hypothetical. How do you think things would be today if Kerry were President? What changes positive or negative do you think would have been implemented already or would be on the way to be implemented?

I don't live in America, so I can't really tell much, but I would be interested in some of your views. How would the lives of conservatives be affected if he or just the left would had won?

[Tumblehome]

As of today? I think things wouldn't be a whole lot different actually. The war in Iraq had already started and both were comitted to seeing it through, from what I read. But then, like you, I am not American and speak from an outsider's p.o.v.

[Beowulf]

I am from America so.....

-We would have already begun the steady withdrawal from Iraq, even though much work remains to be completed.
-We would be discussing the new Liberal nominee to the Supreme Court, whoever that may be.
-Kerry would be pushing his single payer health care system that is controlled and rationed by the government.
-He would also be rolling back much of the Bush tax cuts.

Overall, I don't know that Kerry would accomplish much as the GOP would still have firm control over the House and Senate. Alot of his agenda would never pass and will remain that way until either another GOP president is elected OR the House and Senate revert back to Democratic control.

[Faithful_Servant]

Kerry would have pulled the troops out of Iraq within 30 days of being in office. The terrorists would have taken over Iraq and a new Taliban would have arisen in Iraq. Within two years we would have had another major attack on US soil, this one targetting even more people than 9-11. Tax cuts would have been eliminated as fast as Kerry could pull it off and we would have been sinking into another reccession by the spring of 2006. By the fall of 2007, America would have been in the worst reccession in it's history. An exodus of corporations would have ensued as Kerry pushed for ever higher taxes. Unemployment would have been over 15%. Oil prices would have been higher than they are now due to increased federal taxes. The euro would be the dominant currency. Suicide bombings would be common place in America, but there would be dozens of terrorists in our prisons serving 10-20 year sentences while teaching and converting 1000s of prisoners. Our Constitution would be in the process of being reviewed by the UN with sweeping changes being recommended. Changes that included revoking the 2nd Amendment, drastically altering the 1St Amendment to impose limits on religious speech, and whole loss of rights for parents regarding what their children are taught in school. The Kyoto treaty would be ratified and cars would be taxed for mileage driven to the point where simply going to the store for milk would mean a $2.00 driving charge.

The 2008 election would see the most sweeping change in American politics ever. George Allen and Condi Rice would be elected by an overwhelming 65%, Democrats in congress would be swept from office in over 70% of the elections, and state legislatures would see a similar fate. Over the next 10 years of Republican leadership the country's economy regains it's momentum, we begin aggressive military action against every country that supports terrorists. This includes suspension of official bans on assassination and military strikes specifically intended to kill foreign leaders. Americans are officially encouraged to arm themselves and begin organization of local militias that are trained specifically to deal with terrorists. Our southern border becomes a virtual war zone as our militia enter intorepeated engagements with groups of terrorist infiltrators. As our gov't begins to put pressure on Mexico to stop these people from their end, terrorists attack Mexico City's water supply. The Mexican people respond by lining their northern border with the heads of terrorists mounted on stakes. The Mexican gov't condemns this action and is overthrown and replaced with a very pro-American gov't. Their military begins cooperative actions with ours. This trend continues throughout C. America and a new alliance is formed. Canada becomes the next infiltration route for terorrists. With our southern border secure, America's militias turn their attention north. When an over-zealuos militia pursues a group of terrorists across the Canadian border and the Canandian border Patrol fires on them a new 'Cold War' begins. We are not willing to engage Canada in direct military action, but they are no longer our friends. Our northern border is quickly armed and fortified. Razor wire, motion detectors and armed guards become the order of the day. Alaska becomes an armed camp, with all citizens required to be armed at all times (this results in the violent crime rate in Alaska to drop to almost zero). The UN attempts to condemn the US for it's actions, but is blocked by the rising power of pro-American Eastern Europe. A distinct division occurs within the EU, resulting in it's fracturing and slow demise with E. Europe, Spain, a very pro-American France after mutiple terrorist attacks and Great Britain drop out. The world stands on the brink of a new world war; all because John Kerry was elected President.

[Phil Osophical]

Had Democrats won the election, America would have suffered numerous terrorist attacks due to lax or non-existant security measures. Consequently, the nation would be on the brink of economic collapse and at the mercy of the world.

It is important to understand that liberals and Democrats, due to their unbridled zeal to promote civil rights, human rights, political correctness and open borders, actually caused the 9-11 attacks on America.

Bush's U.S. military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan probably have prevented new terrorist attacks, but only because President Bush sent a message to the radical Muslim world that America will indeed retaliate for such acts of terrorism.

[DeclinetoState]

Phil probably thinks he's being sarcastic.

[Warlady]

You sure DTS? Sounds right on to me. So does Federal Farmer's assessment.

[Naturalized-Texan]

Phil probably thinks he's being sarcastic.
The only sarcasm was in his 2nd paragraph which reads:
It is important to understand that liberals and Democrats, due to their unbridled zeal to promote civil rights, human rights, political correctness and open borders, actually caused the 9-11 attacks on America.
He knows very well that liberals and Democrats oppose civil rights and human rights. However liberals and Democrats DO enforce the liberal line on political correctness and they DO promote open borders to let in illegal aliens to serve as gardners, maids, and cooks in their multi-million dollar mansions and to let in more terrorists.

[Warlady]

He also knows that Democrats and liberals caused the 9/11 attacks since they were planned on Clinton's watch along with 5 other attacks on his watch. Their unbridled zeal to promote civil rights and human rights only applies to their voters.

[Phil Osophical]

He knows very well that liberals and Democrats oppose civil rights and human rights.

I'm wondering if you might have made an error in your statement. ... "liberals and Democrats oppose civil rights and human rights."

It's a well-established and undisputed fact that liberals and Democrats are at the vanguard of promoting civil rights and human rights, not opposing them.

And no, not a single word in my message was intended to be sarcastic. Why would anyone think so? Is this not a conservative forum?

Oh well, no big deal.

May you have a nice evening and I thank you for the dialogue.

[Warlady]

Phil, are you not aware that when Congress passed the civil rights act of 1964 most Democrats voted against it? And had it not been for the Republicans it would not have passed. Vanguard of promoting civil rights? Ha! The Democrats started a well known group called the KKK. Did you know that? Ever hear of the Dixicrats? Senator Byrd? You need to read some more.

[Naturalized-Texan]

I'm wondering if you might have made an error in your statement. ... "liberals and Democrats oppose civil rights and human rights."

It's a well-established and undisputed fact that liberals and Democrats are at the vanguard of promoting civil rights and human rights, not opposing them.

And no, not a single word in my message was intended to be sarcastic. Why would anyone think so? Is this not a conservative forum?

Oh well, no big deal.

May you have a nice evening and I thank you for the dialogue.
Liberal Racism

I have never understood why blacks retain their allegiance to the Democrat Party. Liberal Democrats have relegated millions of blacks to living on welfare, to living in sub-standard housing, and to sending their children to sub-standard schools. Liberal Democrats have forced millions of blacks to be slaves totally dependent on the government for handouts. In contrast, a Republican president freed the slaves, for nearly 100 years in the South, the Republican Party was the only party that allowed blacks to vote in primary elections and become party members, and proportionally more Republican than Democrats voted for the 1964 Civil Rights Law.

In addition, blacks should be thronging to the Republican Party because of their tremendous gains under President Ronald Reagan. Under Carter, real median family income for blacks declined by 13.6% but increased by 15.7% under Reagan. That compares with an increase of only 13.8% for whites. The number of black families with incomes over $50,000 (in constant 1989 dollars) declined by 12% under Carter, but increased by an astounding 89% under Reagan. (Source: Bureau of the Census) Moreover, the black poverty rate under Carter increased by 5 percentage points, but declined by 5 percentage points under Reagan. (Source: Bureau of the Census, "Poverty in the U.S.: 1990, August 1991, pp. 16-17

In his famous "I Have a Dream" speech on August 28, 1963, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. said, "I have a dream that my four children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." Today, nearly 42 years after Dr. King's speech, liberals still judge people "by the color of their skin," while conservatives still judge people by the "content of their character." Dr. King must be spinning in his grave over what liberals have done to his people.

[Melz]

I didn't realize that Phil here was a resident liberal. If so, why didn't he just answer the question based on his liberal views on what may have been happening if Kerry were President? Instead he feigns a realistic conservative view and hopes no one notices he is mocking conservative views while doing so.

[Beowulf]

Phil is another Liberal who can't handle the truth.

[tacitus]

Phil, are you not aware that when Congress passed the civil rights act of 1964 most Democrats voted against it? And had it not been for the Republicans it would not have passed. Vanguard of promoting civil rights? Ha! The Democrats started a well known group called the KKK. Did you know that? Ever hear of the Dixicrats? Senator Byrd? You need to read some more.

You don't expect liberals to admit they are racists?

[Warlady]

No I don't tac. Just like Reagan said "It's not that liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so much that isn't so". I believe that also applies to black Democrats. I believe if they knew the truth they would dump the Dem party. Liberals and their liberal press/media keep them dumbed down by omission.

If Kerry had won we would have a repeat of Jimmy Carter's presidency. That is pretty frightening. If any Democrat wins in '08 we will see a repeat of Jimmy Carter's presidency. We are going to have our hands full educating the fence sitters in the next 3 years. It's tough to educate a liberal. They're, deaf, dumb and blind in one eye and can't see out of the other.

[Phil Osophical]

I post messages on this forum which clearly indicate that:

1. I am strongly against illegal immigration, and point out that governor Richardson of New Mexico is requesting federal tax monies to accomodate and cover up the illegals already in his state; and not to stop illegal immigration.

2. That 9/11 was brought on by liberals and Democrats who advocate political correctness, human rights, civil rights and lax national security measures.

3. America has plenty of oil and we should go get it. Screw the environment!

However, on this particular forum, I am considered to be the "resident liberal."

I thought my views were those of conservatives, not liberals. Maybe I'm too far to the right for this message board? Maybe some gremlin or glitch in cyberspace has compromised my computer and I'm actually posting messages on the Democratic Underground and not on Free Conservatives?

[Melz]

Phil you have 28 whole posts on this message board. I may have seen one of them before this specific forum so if I incorrectly labelled you a liberal I am sorry (because yes, that is an insult..lol). But don't expect that I know where you stand on everything just yet, too early to know.

[Phil Osophical]

Phil you have 28 whole posts on this message board. I may have seen one of them before this specific forum so if I incorrectly labelled you a liberal I am sorry (because yes, that is an insult..lol). But don't expect that I know where you stand on everything just yet, too early to know.

Thanks for your response. Of the 28 messages that I have posted, I can't recall any of them having a liberal slant. I do know that most of my messages are hastily-written; not well-written; wordy; and somewhat sarcastic which could lead to ambiguity and confusion (I had to attend public schools and was absent the day they taught journalism).

Free Conservatives is an active and popular forum. Political forums and blogs are becoming increasingly influential. You would be surprised at who might be perusing them. In a local political meeting (Republican, of course), our congressman admitted that he (he said his "staff) look at letters to editors, forums and blogs to "gauge the political climate."

I think it serves a useful purpose for citizens to post opinions, ideas and learn about the views and ideas of others. Forums can also serve as an intelligence gathering apparatus to alert fellow conservatives about what the nation's hateful and spiteful little liberals and Democrats are up to. And you never know what curious and interested "mover or shaker" might be lurking near the lamp post.

I do have some liberal views:

I like animals (cats in particular). I own a house gun (equalizer), but I'm not a hunter, therefore I sympathize with PETA on some occassions. (But I don't like tree-huggers and environmentalists.)

I think drugs should be legalized because it would take the crime out of it.

I'm rather neutral and indifferent on abortion -- I think it's wrong, but I won't try to talk anyone out of doing it.

And morally speaking, I'd probably be somewhat pro-gay if they weren't just another minority trying to shake me down and if they weren't spreading AIDS. (If you visit Frisco, don't let those AIDS-infected mosquitoes bite you.)

Atheists. I have known some genuine Communist-style atheists. Some of them did humanitarian work, not because they were afraid God was going to get them if they didn't, but because it was just their nature. I think atheists in America are not real atheists -- they are confused and like to debate the issue, hoping that someone can convince them one way or another. A true atheist is indifferent about religion and won't even discuss it, much less make trouble, like that American pseudo-atheist, Newdow or something or other.

I have a lot of religious tolerance. I'm pretty much all-denominational (but not a Muslim, Bhuddist, pagan, etc.). I'm more of a no particular denomination Christian. (Methodist churches seem to always have the largest and more convenient parking lots.)

Well, now that I have admitted to having some serious liberal political views and flaws, I'll probably be less than welcome on this forum.:flushlib.

BTW, I'm a donor and supporter of the Minutemen -- but where are those guys? They seem to be keeping a low-profile.

[Melz]

Thanks for your response. Of the 28 messages that I have posted, I can't recall any of them having a liberal slant. I do know that most of my messages are hastily-written; not well-written; wordy; and somewhat sarcastic which could lead to ambiguity and confusion (I had to attend public schools and was absent the day they taught journalism).

Free Conservatives is an active and popular forum. Political forums and blogs are becoming increasingly influential. You would be surprised at who might be perusing them. In a local political meeting (Republican, of course), our congressman admitted that he (he said his "staff) look at letters to editors, forums and blogs to "gauge the political climate."

I think it serves a useful purpose for citizens to post opinions, ideas and learn about the views and ideas of others. Forums can also serve as an intelligence gathering apparatus to alert fellow conservatives about what the nation's hateful and spiteful little liberals and Democrats are up to. And you never know what curious and interested "mover or shaker" might be lurking near the lamp post.

I do have some liberal views:

I like animals (cats in particular). I own a house gun (equalizer), but I'm not a hunter, therefore I sympathize with PETA on some occassions. (But I don't like tree-huggers and environmentalists.)

I think drugs should be legalized because it would take the crime out of it.

I'm rather neutral and indifferent on abortion -- I think it's wrong, but I won't try to talk anyone out of doing it.

And morally speaking, I'd probably be somewhat pro-gay if they weren't just another minority trying to shake me down and if they weren't spreading AIDS. (If you visit Frisco, don't let those AIDS-infected mosquitoes bite you.)

Atheists. I have known some genuine Communist-style atheists. Some of them did humanitarian work, not because they were afraid God was going to get them if they didn't, but because it was just their nature. I think atheists in America are not real atheists -- they are confused and like to debate the issue, hoping that someone can convince them one way or another. A true atheist is indifferent about religion and won't even discuss it, much less make trouble, like that American pseudo-atheist, Newdow or something or other.

I have a lot of religious tolerance. I'm pretty much all-denominational (but not a Muslim, Bhuddist, pagan, etc.). I'm more of a no particular denomination Christian. (Methodist churches seem to always have the largest and more convenient parking lots.)

Well, now that I have admitted to having some serious liberal political views and flaws, I'll probably be less than welcome on this forum.:flushlib.

BTW, I'm a donor and supporter of the Minutemen -- but where are those guys? They seem to be keeping a low-profile.

Thank you for letting us know where you stand on issues, although that in itself will not get you less than welcome on the forum. Usually that depends entirely upon how you present your views and debate them, not necessarily what they are.

I find it impossible to be nuetral and indifferent on abortion, it is just too powerful and personal of an issue. I haven't met a lot of people who are actually indifferent about it actually.

Okay, enough hijacking this thread, sorry about that WL :)

[tacitus]

The Minutemen are in Houston, this time they are armed.

[Jag Wife]

President Kerry? First Lady TERREZZA?

Some things I'd just rather not think about.