Republicans angry over House vote

[DeclinetoState]

By ANDREW TAYLOR, Associated Press Writer
18 minutes ago



<!-- end storyhdr -->WASHINGTON - House Democrats apologized Friday for wrestling what appeared to be a winning vote away from Republicans Thursday night.

Republicans continued to steam, however, over the episode in which they appeared to be the winners by a 215-213 tally on a procedural motion designed to make sure illegal immigrants would not get certain benefits from an agriculture spending bill.

Instead, with several lawmakers milling in the well of the House registering votes, Rep. Michael McNulty, D-N.Y., gaveled the vote to a close, saying the GOP measure had failed on a 214-214 tie.

Republicans erupted, chanting "shame, shame, shame," and then walked out in protest after McNulty permitted further Democrats to switch their votes to prevail 216-212. Despite winning that tally, Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., moved for a revote as permitted under the rules, and Democrats prevailed again.
More at Yahoo! (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070803/ap_on_go_co/congress_notebook)

[d'urville]

There'll just be more of this, this is just the beginning of what America is going to get for letting that party become the majority again. The Democrats make rules for the opposition, they themselves abide by no rule that doesn't benefit only them.

LINK (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2dgkV6gerTY)

Blunt could not have put it better.

[DoctorDoom]

Congress has ceased to be a legislative body and has become a government within the government, an out-of-the-shadow government. I guess THAT will show Bush.

[The_Sonarman]

Tyranny by the jackals of the DNC.

[EdmundDantes]

More at Yahoo! (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070803/ap_on_go_co/congress_notebook)

Never has this hapenned! Imagine a baseball game, and the Yankees lose by two, after the final they decide that the score is actually even and they need to go into extra innings...

This is what the Dems just did, and it is not only illegal but dispicable.

[Longhorn_Platinum]

:unsmile: Actually, it happened in college football. Missouri led Colorado 27-21, with the Buffaloes deep in Tiger territory with less than a minute to play. They couldn't get the ball in the endzone on 4th down, but a group of officials who couldn't count to 4 gave them an extra down. They scored, & "won" 28-27. Ask any college football fan outside of Colorado how legit that was.

:unsmile: Oops, my bad. Late in the season, when the only unbeaten team, Virginia, lost to Georgia Tech, the Associated Press orchestrated a bowl match up between once-beaten Notre Dame & once-tied & once- (actually, twice-) beaten Colorado, by vaulting the Buffs to number two, even though there were several once-beaten teams to choose from. The Buffs pulled an upset on New Year's Day, & AP had to give them their branch of the National Championship. Fortunately, the folks at UPI aren't as biased toward the Irish, & weren't part of that debacle. They awarded their crown to Georgia Tech.

:unsmile: So, yeah, I guess some people will say this congressional brouhaha is legit; those with an obvious axe to grind.

[Venus de Smilo]

There'll just be more of this, this is just the beginning of what America is going to get for letting that party become the majority again. The Democrats make rules for the opposition, they themselves abide by no rule that doesn't benefit only them.

LINK (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2dgkV6gerTY)

Blunt could not have put it better.

Oh, but hey, haven't you heard? The 'pub voters who stayed home in 11/06 to punish 'pub candidates or voted third party to teach them a thing or two and ended up giving congress to the 'rats are very content with their decision. Many are on this board and intend to do it again in '08.

[Naturalized-Texan]

Oh, but hey, haven't you heard? The 'pub voters who stayed home in 11/06 to punish 'pub candidates or voted third party to teach them a thing or two and ended up giving congress to the 'rats are very content with their decision. Many are on this board and intend to do it again in '08.
Yep! There are some, too many, who believe in cutting off their noses to spite their faces.

[omegatrump]

Yep! There are some, too many, who believe in cutting off their noses to spite their faces.

Cutting off your nose to spite your face is to vote for either branch of the one party system. George W Shrub is testimony to that.

[DoctorDoom]

Cutting off your nose to spite your face is to vote for either branch of the one party system. George W Shrub is testimony to that.I assume, then, that you are satisfied with the results of the 2006 "protest votes" (or non-votes) that shackled us to Pelosi and Reid. We certainly are better off under them and their treasonous partyites than we would have been with a Republican Congress.

No doubt you would also have felt justified with that sort of political suicide under the regimes of AlBore and/or John F'ing Kerry.

There are times when I feel like throwing in the towel, but it takes only a few seconds to remind myself of where America is going with the RAT bastards at the helm in Congress, and what will happen with a RAT in the WH in '08.

If you like fascist states, that's the way to get one.

[The_Elucidator]

:unsmile: Oops, my bad. Late in the season, when the only unbeaten team, Virginia, lost to Georgia Tech, the Associated Press orchestrated a bowl match up between once-beaten Notre Dame & once-tied & once- (actually, twice-) beaten Colorado, by vaulting the Buffs to number two, even though there were several once-beaten teams to choose from. The Buffs pulled an upset on New Year's Day, & AP had to give them their branch of the National Championship. Fortunately, the folks at UPI aren't as biased toward the Irish, & weren't part of that debacle. They awarded their crown to Georgia Tech.



On that boggus clipping call on the Rocket's 91 yard Kick Off return with :43 seconds left in the game!!! First and ONLY time I ever broke something out of anger... I needed a new lamp at the time anywho..:evilgrin:

[Wyatt_Junker]

Bush Sr. was a meager president in meager times. And even Reagan acted meager from time to time when other responses would have worked better. But both of them acted like restraints when compared to what came after them.

So much happened to our country in such a short period of time from 1991 - 1999. Clinton was a virus, a filthy scatalogical enzyme, a catalyst and like AIDS, he turned America, in one decade, into a nation of sick sonofabitches.

The sexual harrassment industry took off. Now its a $6 billion a year industry! It insidiously corrodes workplace morale.

Lawyering. In the 90's, victimology of every sort and every vile stripe was born! The EEOC took off its training wheels under Chubbies reign and invaded the workplace with visions of power.

The entire 'protected class' was born and suddenly underwritten into the language of every workplace from Taco Bell to Charles Schwab. WE ARE AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER AND DO NOT DISCRIMINATE BASED ON SEXUAL ORIENTATION, GENDER, RACE OR CREED. I AM A ROBOT AND WILL BLOW OFF YOUR HEAD WITH MY LAZER ZAPPER IF YOU DO NOT COMPLY!!! BEEP. BUH. BEEP. BEEP.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg, lesbian whore-sicle riding the righteous white horse of irreversible SCOTUS influence into the highest echelons of American power centers. And bringing with it, foreign european dictates as her standard while shamlessly(and quite proudly I might add) trodding on the US Constitution.

Tearing down military bases, defunding the foreign spies program and putting a memorandum on military defense spending bills. >>>>>>> 9/11.

Changing the entire culture of the country so that, now, half the electorate not only votes socialism, but thinks it is their divine right to be taken care of. Why? In a word, Clinton. He cared about their pain. Remember? That little bit of brainwashing went a loooong way. Now, its embedded in the electorate's emotional temporal lobes for good.

And many, many more cultural and legal changes. We are stuck with them. They are America now. The new, weaker, gayer America. AIDS has no cure and neither does a democrat majority.

At least, Bush Sr., as dumb as he was, acted like a restrainer.

[Naturalized-Texan]

I assume, then, that you are satisfied with the results of the 2006 "protest votes" (or non-votes) that shackled us to Pelosi and Reid. We certainly are better off under them and their treasonous partyites than we would have been with a Republican Congress.
I'm sure that he got exactly what he wanted.

No doubt you would also have felt justified with that sort of political suicide under the regimes of AlBore and/or John F'ing Kerry.
Yep, he probably would.

There are times when I feel like throwing in the towel, but it takes only a few seconds to remind myself of where America is going with the RAT bastards at the helm in Congress, and what will happen with a RAT in the WH in '08.
Ditto!

If you like fascist states, that's the way to get one.
Maybe that's what he wants.

[Maggie_T]

Oh, but hey, haven't you heard? The 'pub voters who stayed home in 11/06 to punish 'pub candidates or voted third party to teach them a thing or two and ended up giving congress to the 'rats are very content with their decision. Many are on this board and intend to do it again in '08.

I came this close to voting third party in 11/06. This close. God blessed me with last-minute common sense and I voted the right way.

However, I continued to toy with the idea of a third party for 08 ... but ever since The Bitch decided to run, I backpedaled from that idea FAST.

No, my friends. I have come to my senses. I am not above admitting my errors. The idea of a third party is nothing but daydreaming. The reality is that we have commies to battle. And the battle is becoming a race to power (always was, I guess).

Of course, that does not mean we should not do some much needed house cleaning in the GOP. ;)


Incidentally. Venus honey, got a question for you. http://foolstown.com/sm/shy.gif If you believe what you said above (and you are right, of course) how come you still advertise Americasparty, a third party? Wouldn't it send the wrong message?

Just curious. http://foolstown.com/sm/str.gif

[dPrasse]

If you believe what you said above (and you are right, of course) how come you still advertise Americasparty, a third party? Wouldn't it send the wrong message?

Just curious.

Very observant !!

[Naturalized-Texan]

Incidentally. Venus honey, got a question for you. http://foolstown.com/sm/shy.gif If you believe what you said above (and you are right, of course) how come you still advertise Americasparty, a third party? Wouldn't it send the wrong message?

Just curious. http://foolstown.com/sm/str.gif
That link to Americasparty doesn't work, just as no third party works.

[omegatrump]

Maggie, it is true we have commies to fight. What difference does it make whether you vote for a Democrat commie, or a Republican commie?

Ruth B Ginsberg was paraded down the aisle by Republican Senators. Little or no opposition.

Massive social welfare hasn't decreased under Bush, if anything it's increased. Especially when you add in all of the business welfare.

There's not a three dollar bills difference between the two parties. The end result is the same. Slight differences in script, but the end goal is the same. Are there individuals who have honest intentions when they start into the fray, yes. Unfortunately, the one party system destroys most of them in their first round.

[DeclinetoState]

Something close to this has happened before. Remember the so-called Equal Rights Amendment? It was given seven years to be ratified by the states. When it failed to make the deadline, Congress gave it two more years. It failed anyway.

[LadyHawke]

Yep! There are some, too many, who believe in cutting off their noses to spite their faces.
They're welcome to cut off their own noses, if they simply must - but I don't appreciate 'em taking mine along with it!

I suppose we should be grateful, tho - Republicans in Congress are at least showing symptoms of developing vertebrae again. I've wondered how far the Dems would have to go before the Republicans would muster up the gumption to object. Until recently, they've been stuck in Advanced Grovelling Mode, and all they've been able to do is wring their hands and apologize for getting in the Democrats' way!

LadyHawke

[Venus de Smilo]

I came this close to voting third party in 11/06. This close. God blessed me with last-minute common sense and I voted the right way.

However, I continued to toy with the idea of a third party for 08 ... but ever since The Bitch decided to run, I backpedaled from that idea FAST.

No, my friends. I have come to my senses. I am not above admitting my errors. The idea of a third party is nothing but daydreaming. The reality is that we have commies to battle. And the battle is becoming a race to power (always was, I guess).

Of course, that does not mean we should not do some much needed house cleaning in the GOP. ;)


Incidentally. Venus honey, got a question for you. http://foolstown.com/sm/shy.gif If you believe what you said above (and you are right, of course) how come you still advertise Americasparty, a third party? Wouldn't it send the wrong message?

Just curious. http://foolstown.com/sm/str.gif

As you said, voting third party at this point is indeed daydreaming. I was once a member of the Libertarian Party before it became overrun with lunatics and libertines. Most rational, conservative libertarians left and with us went any chance of that party ever becoming a contender. America's Party is a place to carry out that daydreaming and, although I haven't been to that site for quite some time, I did try to help found it with 2A's management by trying to help with organizing the planks of the party. Membership was low and there was much disagreement among the members as to the specific positions we would take within the planks. It was born as more of an experiment than a serious attempt to actually form an active, bona fide third party. I had many things going on in my life at the time and was not able to contribute the time I would have liked to, and I'm sure many of them have forgotten me by now and newer people don't know me at all, so I don't visit anymore. I still carry AP's link out of fondness for my old friends there, especially my dear friend Scott, and for those who would like to take a look at true conservative ideas scribed under one roof. Nevertheless, I hold my nose and vote 'pub and, when I have time, hound 'pub congress critters to act and vote conservatively. At this point, I believe that is our only chance to put this great country back on track.

[Naturalized-Texan]

Venus: Your link to Americasparty doesn't work.

[Maggie_T]

Maggie, it is true we have commies to fight. What difference does it make whether you vote for a Democrat commie, or a Republican commie?

Ruth B Ginsberg was paraded down the aisle by Republican Senators. Little or no opposition.

Massive social welfare hasn't decreased under Bush, if anything it's increased. Especially when you add in all of the business welfare.

There's not a three dollar bills difference between the two parties. The end result is the same. Slight differences in script, but the end goal is the same. Are there individuals who have honest intentions when they start into the fray, yes. Unfortunately, the one party system destroys most of them in their first round.


Your point is well taken, trump. However, I disagree about there being no difference between the parties. There is. Very slight, and listening to some RINOs, that difference is almost non-existence.

BUT, as ladyhawk said, some 'pubs are showing something similar to a spine. And that is the hope that keeps me voting 'pub. As long as there are 'pubs who show a spine (and there are), and as long as there are 'pubs who show a willingness to reform, there will be hope for this country, and it will always be better to vote 'pub.

In short, with 'pubs there is a hope. With demunists there is NONE.

Also, the solution is NOT to stay home, or to vote dem/3rd party. By doing that, you ARE giving your vote away to the dems. Yes, I know. It's infuriating, it's frustrating. But it is also the truth. Even I have had to come to terms with that. And I am notorious for my stubborness.

Instead of bitching about bad republicans, what we must do is fight them out of office. This is not pleasant and it takes much time and effort. But it CAN be done. Look what happened with the Amnesty Bill farce. The people won in the end.

So I would suggest that you save your energy for that fight, instead of wasting it bitching about RINOs, and then bitching even more when demunists take the country hostage ... with your unintended help, I may add.

[Maggie_T]

As you said, voting third party at this point is indeed daydreaming. I was once a member of the Libertarian Party before it became overrun with lunatics and libertines. Most rational, conservative libertarians left and with us went any chance of that party ever becoming a contender. America's Party is a place to carry out that daydreaming and, although I haven't been to that site for quite some time, I did try to help found it with 2A's management by trying to help with organizing the planks of the party.

I remember that. I used to post there, too. Some of our best posters did so, too. I miss them very much.

Membership was low and there was much disagreement among the members as to the specific positions we would take within the planks. It was born as more of an experiment than a serious attempt to actually form an active, bona fide third party. I had many things going on in my life at the time and was not able to contribute the time I would have liked to, and I'm sure many of them have forgotten me by now and newer people don't know me at all, so I don't visit anymore.

Well, we still remember you here, so you should visit here more often. ;)

I still carry AP's link out of fondness for my old friends there, especially my dear friend Scott, and for those who would like to take a look at true conservative ideas scribed under one roof.

Yeah, I love Scott, too, though he upbraided me a couple of times for continuing to vote 'pub. :biggrin: He's quite a character, isn't he.

Nevertheless, I hold my nose and vote 'pub and, when I have time, hound 'pub congress critters to act and vote conservatively. At this point, I believe that is our only chance to put this great country back on track.

Yep. That's what I do, too. You should have seen me during the Amnesty Bill debacle. For days, I had the phone on one hand, while I typed furious e-mails with the other. All directed to CONgress, of course. I remember receiving a long reply from Ted Kennedy. Naturally, I flushed it w/o reading it.

Talk about allowing a virus in your computer. :eek:

[Longhorn_Platinum]

Venus de Smilo:
The 'pub voters who stayed home in 11/06 to punish 'pub candidates or voted third party to teach them a thing or two and ended up giving congress to the 'rats are very content with their decision. Many are on this board and intend to do it again in '08.

:unsmile: OKAY, ONE MORE TIME FOLKS...

:unsmile: The Republicans didn't lose in 2006 because angry Republicans stayed home. They lost because the lamestream media reported only bad news about the war/economy/&c., prompting a lot of independent voters to vote demonic rat. Venus, I really hope you were only being sarcastic. As for "many are on this board", I did a poll, & only two people here admitted staying home to punish the Republicans, & they're not even folks that come in here often.

[Naturalized-Texan]

Moo: :rotflmbo: You can't possibly still believe that nonsense?

[omegatrump]

They're welcome to cut off their own noses, if they simply must - but I don't appreciate 'em taking mine along with it!

........ they've been stuck in Advanced Grovelling Mode, and all they've been able to do is wring their hands and apologize for getting in the Democrats' way!

LadyHawke


LOL, yes, and they were in the same mode all the time they were in the majority.

[Maggie_T]

:unsmile: OKAY, ONE MORE TIME FOLKS...

:unsmile: The Republicans didn't lose in 2006 because angry Republicans stayed home. They lost because the lamestream media reported only bad news about the war/economy/&c., prompting a lot of independent voters to vote demonic rat.

AND prompting a lot of disgruntled 'pubs to do the same. C'mon, Moo. I can tell you of a good bunch of people I know that voted dem to "show 'pubs."

To say nothing of the many callers to assorted conservative talk shows - including Rush's show - who called to bitch loudly about 'pubs and how they (the voters) were going to "teach them ('pubs) a lesson."

There's no point in hiding your head in the sand, my friend. Many conservatives "stepped all over it" in their haste to pass judgement on their republican representatives. One can only hope that they learned their lesson and will do the right thing in 08.

[Longhorn_Platinum]

Naturalized-Texan:
Moo: :rotflmbo: You can't possibly still believe that nonsense?

:moo: I notice you didn't vote in my poll. Were you afraid that your honesty might skew the percentages in favor of the point I was making?

[Longhorn_Platinum]

Maggie_T:
I can tell you of a good bunch of people I know that voted dem to "show 'pubs."


There's no point in hiding your head in the sand, my friend.

:moo: I don't know of a single Republican who refrained from voting. Not one. And I can hope that the RNC isn't dabbling in the same political voodoo as the rest of you. If we're going to succeed in 2008, we need to address what really went wrong in 2006. If we continue to court back all those disenfranchised angry Republicans...

:rolleyes: ...all both of them...

:moo: ...we'll be waking up on the morning after election day wondering why we didn't make any significant gains.

[Trovalor]

Sadly, punishing a 'Pub candidate is more likely to come back and bite us on the arse, and its something the demoncraps would love for us to do. It has gotten to the point though where many public officials are only voted in because they are the "lesser of two evils."

[Longhorn_Platinum]

:unsmile: If Ghouliani gets the Republican nomination, there will be Republicans sitting it out in 2008. He simply has to be stopped.

[Naturalized-Texan]

:moo: I notice you didn't vote in my poll.
What poll?

[Naturalized-Texan]

:moo: I don't know of a single Republican who refrained from voting. Not one.
Then your statistical sample of Republicans is infinitesimal. Either that or you haven't been paying attention to what's going on around you.

[Maggie_T]

:moo: I don't know of a single Republican who refrained from voting. Not one.

Hon, I never said a word about republicans who refrained from voting. I'm talking about those who voted demunist, instead. And yes, there were some of them. And even if there was only one, it was one too many.

And I can hope that the RNC isn't dabbling in the same political voodoo as the rest of you. If we're going to succeed in 2008, we need to address what really went wrong in 2006. If we continue to court back all those disenfranchised angry Republicans...

Absolutely. That's why earlier on I posted this:

Also, the solution is NOT to stay home, or to vote dem/3rd party. By doing that, you ARE giving your vote away to the dems. Yes, I know. It's infuriating, it's frustrating. But it is also the truth. Even I have had to come to terms with that. And I am notorious for my stubborness.

Instead of bitching about bad republicans, what we must do is fight them out of office. This is not pleasant and it takes much time and effort. But it CAN be done. Look what happened with the Amnesty Bill farce. The people won in the end.


In any case, if it's true that we owe our defeat mostly to the self-described 'independents' - and you must be because hubby agrees with you :biggrin: - I'm sure you understand the reason for my deep dislike and disdain for what I fondly call The Fickle Crowd.

[Beowulf]

Oh, but hey, haven't you heard? The 'pub voters who stayed home in 11/06 to punish 'pub candidates or voted third party to teach them a thing or two and ended up giving congress to the 'rats are very content with their decision. Many are on this board and intend to do it again in '08.

So what you're saying, Venus, is that we are supposed to continue to "consider the alternative" in 2008 even if say, Guliani or McCain are the GOP nominees? As I've said before, with those two, America will die slowly. With any Democrat, it will die quickly.

I "considered the alternative" in 2004. For that, we had W trying to ram illegal immigration and amnesty down our throats amongst other things. I've had enough. The only reason we don't have a viable third party in America is because people keep saying "it'll never happen." If all of those people who felt that way acted on it, maybe things would be different.

I'm a Conservative, NOT a Republican. I will support a Conservative candidate.

[Longhorn_Platinum]

What poll?

:moo: THIS POLL (http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/showthread.php?t=48557). Nice try, Naturalized-Texan, but it was stuck to the top of this forum for about a week. Wow, now who's not paying attention to what's going on around them?

[Longhorn_Platinum]

Maggie_T:
Hon, I never said a word about republicans who refrained from voting. I'm talking about those who voted demunist, instead. And yes, there were some of them.

:moo: I don't personally know of a single Republican who voted demonic rat. Not one. According to Venus de Smilo, there are several people on this BB who failed to vote Republican out of anger, but the only two who registered a vote in my poll are buckeyepete & BIG IRON, & they're not regulars. I really don't think the number of angry Republicans was significant. Okay, I'm gonna do something unconservative here. I'm gonna...

http://i99.photobucket.com/albums/l294/Longhorn_Platinum/uhh.gif ...GASP...

:moo: ...compromise. I'll admit that there were a few angry Republicans who left the fold, if you guys will admit that the media's biased reporting of facts was a significant factor. But, please stop this incessant bleating that Republicans who wanted to teach the party a lesson were the primary cause of our defeat in 2006. That's just gettin' really old.

[Maggie_T]

:moo: I don't personally know of a single Republican who voted demonic rat. Not one.

Uh-oh. Careful, Moo. You sound like that liberal woman who, when Reagan was elected, brayed "I don't know a single person who voted for him."

The fact that you don't know these people personally does not mean they do not exist.

Okay, I'm gonna do something unconservative here. I'm gonna...


http://i99.photobucket.com/albums/l294/Longhorn_Platinum/uhh.gif ...GASP...

:moo: ...compromise.


:rolleyes:


I'll admit that there were a few angry Republicans who left the fold, if you guys will admit that the media's biased reporting of facts was a significant factor.

I never denied that the ever-misleading drive-by media contributed to our defeat.

But, please stop this incessant bleating that Republicans who wanted to teach the party a lesson were the primary cause of our defeat in 2006. That's just gettin' really old.

Only if you stop your incessant bleating against those of us who say that Republicans who wanted to teach the party a lesson were the primary cause of our defeat in 2006.

It's getting no younger that our bleating. :biggrin:

[d'urville]

I came this close to voting third party in 11/06. This close. God blessed me with last-minute common sense and I voted the right way.

The "mushy middle" - those who tell themselves they "transcend ideology" turned out last election just enough to hand Congress over to the Democrats.



However, I continued to toy with the idea of a third party for 08 ... but ever since The Bitch decided to run, I backpedaled from that idea FAST.

She'll win that party's nomination and the presidency as well if there's a third party candidate to the right of her.



Of course, that does not mean we should not do some much needed house cleaning in the GOP. ;)


Getting rid of Mel Martinez as RNC chairman would be the starting point.

[Longhorn_Platinum]

Maggie_T:
Only if you stop your incessant bleating against those of us who say that Republicans who wanted to teach the party a lesson were the primary cause of our defeat in 2006.

:idea: So, if I stop bleating against your bleating, you'll stop bleating? But if you stop bleating, then I won't need to bleat, anyway.

:moo: Deal.

[Naturalized-Texan]

The fact remains that Moo's sample is so small to be statistically irrelevant. He knows as well as I do that enough Republicans either voted 3rd party or stayed home on election day to turn Congress over to Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, et al.

BTW, just because a poll is placed at the top of this forum doesn't mean that I would necessarily see it, much less vote in it, especially if it was posted by LP. I usually scroll past LP's posts for reasons that I won't go into here.

[Longhorn_Platinum]

:unsmile: I'm sorry. Did Naturalized minus Texan say something?

[Maggie_T]

:idea: So, if I stop bleating against your bleating, you'll stop bleating? But if you stop bleating, then I won't need to bleat, anyway.

:moo: Deal.


LOL. Shake it, pardner. :biggrin:


(I need a pro-offerend hand smilie)

[Venus de Smilo]

So what you're saying, Venus, is that we are supposed to continue to "consider the alternative" in 2008 even if say, Guliani or McCain are the GOP nominees? As I've said before, with those two, America will die slowly. With any Democrat, it will die quickly.

I "considered the alternative" in 2004. For that, we had W trying to ram illegal immigration and amnesty down our throats amongst other things. I've had enough. The only reason we don't have a viable third party in America is because people keep saying "it'll never happen." If all of those people who felt that way acted on it, maybe things would be different.

I'm a Conservative, NOT a Republican. I will support a Conservative candidate.

Regarding third parties, Ross Perot almost pulled it off in '92, giving Clinton the White House by dividng the 'Pub vote. Teddy Roosevelt did the same thing in 1912 with the Bull Moose Party (official name was the "Republican Progressive Party"), splitting the 'Pub vote from Taft, thus handing the win to 'Rat Woodrow Wilson, one of the worst presidents of the century.

"Rats stick together and win; 'pubs divide and lose to 'rats who move the country ever more rapidly toward socialism. If Hillary is elected, we will have nationalized health care within two to three years of her presidency. Taxes will skyrocket, the money supply will be short, and we will face a recession that the media won't talk about. Corruption in the WH will reach an unimaginable level. The social programs Hillary will institute will be almost impossible to reverse. She and her cohorts in congress will establish a broad strata of a government-dependent underclass that would make LBJ blush about his Great Society. But, yes, do vote third party. The Clinton factor will ensure 'Rat control of all branches through the votes of grateful recipients of public largess and reverse all the strides the 'pubs made in moving people from welfare to work, better education, better jobs, and home ownership.

I despise Bush's immigration policy, and I made my voice heard along with millions of others. We won. Harriet Miers? We won. When we elect 'pubs who stray from promoting the conservative agenda, a loud enough reminder of what conservative values are and that failure to adhere to them will cause them pain at the ballot box often works. If you don't get the nominee you want out of the primary, the smartest thing one can do at that point to advance our agenda is to elect and then re-mold that elected official, which is a far sight more valuable than ousting Joe Blow of MI 3rd district or what have you and giving it to a 'rat who will work against out agenda. I want Duncan Hunter, but realistically that won't happen. Do I just fold, or do I do the best I can with the cards I'm dealt and work to improve my hand?

For those who think it is more important to send a message to some congressman or senator by dumping him at the general election polling booth rather than electing him and straightening him out is a total lose/lose situation and creates the dumbest, most moronic loser attitude possible. It's also childish: "If I can't have everything my way right now, I'm going to pick up my marbles and go home now!"

I don't think it's a mark of integrity - I think it's a mark of gross stupidity.

[Longhorn_Platinum]

Venus de Smilo:
It's also childish: "If I can't have everything my way right now, I'm going to pick up my marbles and go home now!"

:unsmile: I don't expect everything my way. I just expect NO GHOULIANI.

[Coleridge]

It is my sincerest grief to live in the age to watch America go straight down the toilet. This is lunacy. The Democrats are voting against America's wishes and know it. They are scum and they want to shove their base scum down the throats of everyone else. It's almost too painful to think about. :sad:

[Naturalized-Texan]

When I taught mathematics 50 years ago I would never have let my students get away with sloppy math like taking sample data from a handful of people and extrapolating that data to apply to 50 million people. Oh well, maybe things are different in this era of politically correctness.

[Nutrider99]

Cutting off your nose to spite your face is to vote for either branch of the one party system. George W Shrub is testimony to that.
Welcome to the ignore list. Anyone who disrespects the president as you do does not have opinions worthy of reading.

[Maggie_T]

Regarding third parties, Ross Perot almost pulled it off in '92, giving Clinton the White House by dividng the 'Pub vote.

Yep. Hubby was one of those who voted for Perot. He never forgave himself. Also, he still suffers from the trauma of making such a mistake.
Every time I mention a 3rd party to him, his face goes white and he just says one thing: Bill Clinton. That does it.


"Rats stick together and win; 'pubs divide and lose to 'rats who move the country ever more rapidly toward socialism. If Hillary is elected, we will hjave nationalized health care withing two to three years of her presidency. Taxes will skyrocket, the money supply will be short, and we will face a recession that the media won't talk about. Corruption in the WH will reach an unimaginable level. The social programs Hillary will institute will be almost impossible to reverse. She and her cohorts in congress will establish a broad strata of a government-dependent underclass that would make LBJ blush about his Great Society. But, yes, do vote third party. The Clinton factor will ensure 'Rat control of all branches ...

For generations to come.

... through the votes of grateful recipients of public largess and reverse all the strides the 'pbs made in moving people from welfare to work, better education, better jobs, and home ownership.

Yep.

I despise Bush's immigration policy, and I made my voice heard along with millions of others. We won. Harriet Miers? We won. When we elect 'pubs who stray from promoting the conservative agenda, a loud enough reminder of what conservative values are and that failure to adhere to them will cause them pain at the ballot box often works. If you don't get the nominee you want out of the primary, the smartest thing one can do at that point to advance our agenda is to elect and then re-mold that elected official, which is a far sight more valuable than ousting Joe Blow of MI 3rd district or what have and giving it to a 'rat who will work against out agenda. I want Duncan Hunter, but realistically that won't happen. Do I just fold, or do I do the best I can with the cards I'm dealt and work to improve my hand?

For those who think it is more important to send a message to some congressman or senator by dumping him at the polling booth rather than electing him and straightening him out is a total lose attitude and creates the dumbest, most moronic loser attitude possible. It's also childish: "If I can't have everything my way right now, I'm going to pick up my marbles and go home now!"

I don't think it's a mark of integrity - I think it's a mark of gross stupidity.

As a former potential 3rd party voter, I stand duly chastized. :smirky:

Seriously, guys. I learned my lesson well. And do you think I'm happy? NO WAY. I hate the idea that I cannot fully excersise my right to vote as I wish ... ok, theoretically, I can. But not without dire consequences for the country and for the next generations (and I don't even have kids!).

Realistically speaking, you either vote 'pub, or you give your vote away. Yes, I know. It's frustrating, it's infuriating, it's makes one murderously angry. But it's the truth. Take it or leave it.

Me, as long as we have to fight commies, I'll vote for whoever runs against them AND stands a chance to defeat the bastards. It's that simple.

[Maggie_T]

It is my sincerest grief to live in the age to watch America go straight down the toilet. This is lunacy. The Democrats are voting against America's wishes and know it. They are scum and they want to shove their base scum down the throats of everyone else. It's almost too painful to think about. :sad:


Welcome the the vale of tears, Coleridge. Believe me, we feel your pain, mate.

[dPrasse]

.... rather than electing him and straightening him out ....

I'm sorry , but , you can't straighten out a liberal in office ,whether they have a (D) or an (R) ...

Keeping pressure on elected officials give backbone to some of the "good ones", the ones that might be swayed by the constant braying of liberal jack-asses , but , pressure will never change a loser into a winner ...

Illinois is home to so many Republican "Democrats in disguise" elected goofs ... I'm with Beo ... Conservative over RINO ....

[Longhorn_Platinum]

Naturalized-Texan:
When I taught mathematics 50 years ago I would never have let my students get away with sloppy math like taking sample data from a handful of people and extrapolating that data to apply to 50 million people. Oh well, maybe things are different in this era of politically correctness.

:unsmile: Would you have allowed your students to get away with modifying a noun with an adverb?

[Naturalized-Texan]

NT vs LP GOP Smackdown 07

:popcorn:
Don't get too comfortable. I'm back to completely ignoring LP. If I could put him on my ignore list, I certainly would. Of course, LP knows the reason that I have been scrolling past nearly all of his posts and so do Rhino and Warlady. I made the mistake of responding to LP's posts. I won't make that mistake again.

[Longhorn_Platinum]

:unsmile: I want everyone to know that for the past couple of years, it has been easiër for Naturalized-Texan to ignore me than to issue an apology for a lie he told about me.

[UnkHiram]

According to the Statistics of the Dallas County Republican Party in the 06 election where they lost EVERY SINGLE Judgeship the Republican turnout was significantly smaller than it had been in 04,02 or 00. It wasn't that the Dem turnout was any higher it was simply a matter of Republican not showing up to vote. Here in Hunt County where we gained Two Judgeships our turnout was also smaller but thankfully not significantly.

[Beowulf]

For those who think it is more important to send a message to some congressman or senator by dumping him at the polling booth rather than electing him and straightening him out is a total lose attitude and creates the dumbest, most moronic loser attitude possible. It's also childish: "If I can't have everything my way right now, I'm going to pick up my marbles and go home now!"

I don't think it's a mark of integrity - I think it's a mark of gross stupidity.

I still have a problem with rewarding these RINOS and GOP wanna-bes with another term when they have constantly gone against the wishes of those who vote them into office. I haven't yet voted 3rd party but I've never been so frustrated and angry with these people as I have over the last couple of years.
Gross stupidity? I think not. Like I said, the difference between Hitlery vs. McCain or Guiliani is America dying quickly or America dying slowly. Either way, we all lose.

[Venus de Smilo]

I still have a problem with rewarding these RINOS and GOP wanna-bes with another term when they have constantly gone against the wishes of those who vote them into office. I haven't yet voted 3rd party but I've never been so frustrated and angry with these people as I have over the last couple of years.
Gross stupidity? I think not. Like I said, the difference between Hitlery vs. McCain or Guiliani is America dying quickly or America dying slowly. Either way, we all lose.

Think about what is best for your family and for the country. Forgo spite for a moment and the answer becomes clear.

Here's a perfect example of what I'm saying with respect to forcing the hand of RINOs and quasi-RINOs: McCain has crashed in the polls. Stick a fork in him. Why? Because of his and Uncle Teddy "The Hiccup" Kennedy's immigration bill. Now McCain is sponsoring a new immigration bill without the "amnesty" provisions in an effort to regain ground.

Don't stick your head in the sand and whine "Woe is me, we are doomed." Pull your head out and fight back through the best means available. Here's a hint: staying home or voting for someone who can't win is not the best means available - it's a loser mentality of anger and defeatism and gives more power to the 'rats by handing them offices. All any of us can do is our best. Do you honestly think, deep down in your heart of hearts, that staying home or voting third party is doing the best you can for yourself, your family, and the country? When you elect somebody to office, you don't give up your power. You're not at the mercy of the elected. If we make it clear in no uncertain terms that we will do all we can to make sure this is their final term unless they work for conservatives, we will get conservative action from them, or most of them. There was no hope for Chafee and a couple others, but the majority of them can be rolled. Hell, if the 'rats can roll them, why can't we?

[Venus de Smilo]

I'm sorry , but , you can't straighten out a liberal in office ,whether they have a (D) or an (R) ...

Keeping pressure on elected officials give backbone to some of the "good ones", the ones that might be swayed by the constant braying of liberal jack-asses , but , pressure will never change a loser into a winner ...

Illinois is home to so many Republican "Democrats in disguise" elected goofs ... I'm with Beo ... Conservative over RINO ....

Yes, you can. You may not be able to change their personal political philosophy, but you can darn sure change their performance in office.

[The_Elucidator]

Here's a perfect example of what I'm saying with respect to forcing the hand of RINOs and quasi-RINOs: McCain has crashed in the polls. Stick a fork in him. Why? Because of his and Uncle Teddy "The Hiccup" Kennedy's immigration bill. Now McCain is sponsoring a new immigration bill without the "amnesty" provisions in an effort to regain ground.


Venus brings a very good point to the table here! That's why I'm glad you're back dear.. :D

As far as GOP'rs staying home to punish anyone, it may be a case of just not being energized rather than sending a message. Why make the effort to go out and vote for someone who will go against your wishes when you can just stay at home and rearrange the sock drawer and get the same results.

I have heard some say on some local radio stations that they regret staying home and they wouldn't do it again. I have also heard some say they aren't going to bother anymore either for the reason that Beo suggested.

I don't have to be a rocket scientist to realize that over 100 Million people voted in 2004 and not even half that voted in 2006 to tell me that folks stayed home. It doesn't matter what their motives were, they just stayed home!

[Beowulf]

Don't stick your head in the sand and whine "Woe is me, we are doomed."
I don't think "Woe is me" but when you look at the list of serious GOP candidates, the favorites seem to be a Guiliani or McCain, neither of which do I like. Now you're telling me to "consider the alternative" and support them anyway.

Here's a hint: staying home or voting for someone who can't win is not the best means available - it's a loser mentality of anger and defeatism and gives more power to the 'rats by handing them offices.
I voted in 06 and supported the GOP. I handed them no offices. Its very different when it's local and state officials vs. voting for a new President. When it comes to that, I will vote for a Conservative.....a TRUE Conservative!

I have heard some say on some local radio stations that they regret staying home and they wouldn't do it again. I have also heard some say they aren't going to bother anymore either for the reason that Beo suggested.

In hind sight, maybe this turned out to be a good thing coupled with our destruction of the immigration bill. Maybe the GOP saw that we had had enough and will finally pull their heads out of their asses. Yes, the Dems are in control BUT it also brought out Bush's veto pen. I'm hoping that the GOP has finally woken up and will do what's right in 08.

[Maggie_T]

I don't think "Woe is me" but when you look at the list of serious GOP candidates, the favorites seem to be a Guiliani or McCain, neither of which do I like. Now you're telling me to "consider the alternative" and support them anyway.

Don't dispair, love. Fred Thompson is getting ready to run, I hear.

I'm hoping that the GOP has finally woken up and will do what's right in 08.

We're all hoping for that, Beo. All of us.

[Venus de Smilo]

Beo said, "I voted in 06 and supported the GOP. I handed them no offices. Its very different when it's local and state officials vs. voting for a new President. When it comes to that, I will vote for a Conservative.....a TRUE Conservative!"

So, unless somebody you deem a true conservative gets the 'pub nomination, you will vote for a third party candidate who can't win rather than cancel a vote for a monster like Hillary? You would rather see her elected and running/ruining the country than, say, Rudy? You would visit the likes of her and her policies on the country, your kids' futures, your grandkids' futures, just to avoid voting for somebody who only shares part of your political principles?

[Rhino]

I likely wouldn't vote at all. If we choose to elect a RINO as the lesser of the evils, then we perpetuate the myth that is okay to be a RINO, even desireable. I fear that far more when it comes to my kids' futures and grandkids' futures. So yes, I would sacrifice one election to get the point across to the GOP that they need to start running conservatives. Because, if they don't get that message, it doesn't really matter who wins the elections, the liberals or the liberal lites. We'd be screwed either way.

[Nutrider99]

I will support a conservative. Failing that, I will support the most conservative electable candidate, as I have always done. Beyond that, I will vote to elect conservatives who will not only support that candidate, but will send him only conservative legislation. We have failed to do that in the past. Conservatives won the last election. Conservative dems ran to the right of liberal RINO's and defeated them. Already some of the conservative freshmen are beginning to NOT side with the traitors on the far left. There are still some Reagan Democrats out there who desperately want a Reagan to step up and to lead them so that they can follow. The problem is, their voices are not being heard. Their leadership pretends they do not exist.

Many of the failings with this presidency rest with the Congress, who had the majority, who had the ability to enact conservative legislation, but who buckled to the traitors on the left and the liars for hire in democrat media. President Bush was never a conservative, but we knew that up front. He was a man of principle and conviction, but he was only center-right. That he has been able to withstand the left blowing winds of the influence peddlers for this long is simply amazing. He has had no support. Why did the Republicans not remove McCain for even sponsoring McCain/Feingold? We blame him for signing a law that NEVER should have made it to his desk. As president, he is content to lose the smaller battles to win the greater war. Those battles are SUPPOSED TO be won in his behalf by Congress.

They failed. We now have traitors in charge of our government. God help us.

[dPrasse]

Because, if they don't get that message, it doesn't really matter who wins the elections, the liberals or the liberal lites. We'd be screwed either way.

Amen , Rhino ...

Here in IL , we had a RINO Gov named George Ryan ... He was a big time RINO ... not a friend of Conservatives in the slightest bit ... he was also a big time crook ...

his crookedness tainted the electorate against Conservatives and Repubs in general ... we got stuck with Commie Blago ....

So , no , I will not vote to support RINO's , Liberal Lites or whatever just because they have an R attached to their name ...

any mis step by a (R) person I do not support will taint all good (C-- Conservative ) candidates I do support ...

Who did more to get Reagan elected in 1980 ?

A pathetic Ford administration or a pathetic Carter administration ?

When Communist Dems run this country into the ground , Conservatives have a platform to run on ... when RINO's run the country into socialism , we have nothing to stand on ... especially if we voted for the RINO in the first place as a lessor of 2 evils ...

[dPrasse]

Many of the failings with this presidency rest with the Congress, who had the majority, who had the ability to enact conservative legislation, but who buckled to the traitors on the left and the liars for hire in democrat media. ....

I agree 100% ... the Repubs in charge have no idea how to lead , even in the majority ... all one has to do is look at Reagan .... a man that could LEAD , even when he was a super minority in the Halls of Congress ...

He has had no support.

He had no support ? I'd differ there ... Bush was the one pushing many of these "progressive" ideas and Conservative folks opposed to W were slammed by the W lovers ...

I remember practically being labeled a heretic for not trusting W's pick of Harriet Meyers . Anyone not lock-step with W were the reasons Liberals were going to win control of this country , yada yada ...

Why did the Republicans not remove McCain for even sponsoring McCain/Feingold?

because that was legislation supported by the RINO party. It was intended to go thru ... W did not lobby against it ...

We blame him for signing a law that NEVER should have made it to his desk. As president, he is content to lose the smaller battles to win the greater war. Those battles are SUPPOSED TO be won in his behalf by Congress.

I guess I believe everything is happening just as W has wanted ...
He is bothered by the "uprisings" against Meyers appointment , the talk against his immigration stances ...

They failed. We now have traitors in charge of our government. God help us.

Agreed ... and I count W as one of those traitors ...

[Longhorn_Platinum]

Venus de Smilo:
So, unless somebody you deem a true conservative gets the 'pub nomination, you will vote for a third party candidate who can't win rather than cancel a vote for a monster like Hillary? You would rather see her elected and running/ruining the country than, say, Rudy?

:unsmile: YES.

:unsmile: Ghouliani is an arrogant asshole. He thinks he's God's gift to conduct the war on terror, but he refuses to part with his pro-abortion views to get elected. No, the rest of us should accept abortion "rights" in order to be blessed with his holiness in the White House. Screw that.

[Rhino]

Here in IL , we had a RINO Gov named George Ryan ... He was a big time RINO ... not a friend of Conservatives in the slightest bit ... he was also a big time crook ...Good lookin wife though. :evilgrin:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/27/Seven_of_nine.jpg

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

Good lookin wife though. :evilgrin:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/27/Seven_of_nine.jpg

EX-wife ... Senate Race Sex Scandal - June 22, 2004 (http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0622041ryans1.html)

[Rhino]

I know, but she was his wife then.

[Nutrider99]

... Bush was the one pushing many of these "progressive" ideas and Conservative folks opposed to W were slammed by the W lovers ...
Again, Bush pushed ideas in which he believed. He was not / is not a right leaning conservative. He's center-right. We are not GOING to agree with everything he says, nor are we going to agree with all the decisions he makes. We SURE AS HELL didn't want Meyers. In that case the conservatives put on the pressure and they won. WHY HAVEN'T THEY DONE THAT ON THE OTHER ISSUES????

I do NOT fault Bush for being who he is or thinking as he does. At least he has the courage of his own convictions and doesn't hold a wetted finger to the wind to determine his opinion. That doesn't mean he can't be wrong. That's why we need CONSERVATIVES to keep him, or any president, on track.

because that was legislation supported by the RINO party. It was intended to go thru ... W did not lobby against it ...
McCain/Feingold was a lie from day one. It was never reform. It was a bill to give encumbants a bully platform. They supported it because it was in their best interests. Bush wanted a campaign finance reform bill to sign. That was the only thing they would give him. Congress makes laws. The president only vetos or approves them.

I guess I believe everything is happening just as W has wanted ...
He is bothered by the "uprisings" against Meyers appointment , the talk against his immigration stances ...
Bush is right on the idea of a guest worker program, but wrong on its implementation, and slow to the mark on immigration. No politician wants to address the issue because hispanics are now the largest minority in America, and they are afraid that cracking down on illegals will upset the legal voters.

I say, f**k 'em!!! If the Republicans and the traitors work together and NEITHER side panders to the illegals, we MIGHT get something done.

Agreed ... and I count W as one of those traitors ...
I do not value that opinion from you. Sorry.

The traitors are the ones who are undermining our security and working to help the terrorists win in the Middle East. Bush is not among them. Disagreeing with a man's politics does not make him a traitor. Where Bush is wrong on the illegal immigrant issue is that he wants to offer a pathway to citizenship. I do NOT want them to become citizens. If they want to become citizens, they need to respect our laws and our borders. If they illegally invade our country, we have the Constitutional right to shoot them. If they want to work in the US and send money home to Mexico, then they should be able to register as guest workers and we should be able to keep track of them. They should NEVER receive welfare!!!!

[Maggie_T]

Well, looks like we're as likely to get screwed by the good guys, as by the bad guys. :(

No, no. I'm not upbraiding anyone. This is a free country ... for the time being, anyway ... so everyone is free to vote as they like.

It's just that, from what I read here, I have the unpleasant sensation that 2008 will somehow be the beginning of some very distressing times for this country.

May the good Lord make me wrong.

[omegatrump]

I will support a conservative. Failing that, I will support the most conservative electable candidate, as I have always done. Beyond that, I will vote to elect conservatives who will not only support that candidate, but will send him only conservative legislation. We have failed to do that in the past. Conservatives won the last election. Conservative dems ran to the right of liberal RINO's and defeated them. Already some of the conservative freshmen are beginning to NOT side with the traitors on the far left. There are still some Reagan Democrats out there who desperately want a Reagan to step up and to lead them so that they can follow. The problem is, their voices are not being heard. Their leadership pretends they do not exist.

Many of the failings with this presidency rest with the Congress, who had the majority, who had the ability to enact conservative legislation, but who buckled to the traitors on the left and the liars for hire in democrat media. President Bush was never a conservative, but we knew that up front. He was a man of principle and conviction, but he was only center-right. That he has been able to withstand the left blowing winds of the influence peddlers for this long is simply amazing. He has had no support. Why did the Republicans not remove McCain for even sponsoring McCain/Feingold? We blame him for signing a law that NEVER should have made it to his desk. As president, he is content to lose the smaller battles to win the greater war. Those battles are SUPPOSED TO be won in his behalf by Congress.

They failed. We now have traitors in charge of our government. God help us.

Nutrider, you are full on dillusional, So I suppose you don't think Bush was the driving force behind the Kennedy Amnesty bill. You won't acknowledge that Bush saved Arlen Specters bacon when the good people of his state tried to replace him with a conservative. Bush and Mcain are joined at the hip and Feingold is one of his lackies. You somehow confuse principle with stubborness. How does a principled man ignore the desperate cry from a nation to guard it's sovereignty, and uphold it's Constitution. The Constitution that supposed man of conviction swore to protect from all enemies. God help us indeed.

PS, No battles are Supposed to be won in his behalf. All Battles are SUPPOSED to be won in behalf of the American People and their Constitution.

[omegatrump]

Maggi, I noticed you said your hubby voted for Perot. I didn't vote for Perot, in fact I was out of the country durig that election and couldn't get an absent ballot or get to an embasy.

It was not the Perot voters that put Clinton in office. It was GHW Bush that put Perot in office. No Body else. If Hitlery wins in 08 it will be the RNC that puts her in office. Plain and simple.

Tell your significant other not to let the goons put that guilt trip on him.

[Beowulf]

So, unless somebody you deem a true conservative gets the 'pub nomination, you will vote for a third party candidate who can't win rather than cancel a vote for a monster like Hillary? You would rather see her elected and running/ruining the country than, say, Rudy? You would visit the likes of her and her policies on the country, your kids' futures, your grandkids' futures, just to avoid voting for somebody who only shares part of your political principles?
Venus, read through the other posts. I'm not the only one who thinks were doomed if its either Hitlery vs. Guiliani or McCain. I don't want to see ANY of them in office nor will I support any of them. I don't think my son's future OR grandkid's future will be any different with the three names I've already mentioned.

[Venus de Smilo]

Amen , Rhino ...

Here in IL , we had a RINO Gov named George Ryan ... He was a big time RINO ... not a friend of Conservatives in the slightest bit ... he was also a big time crook ...

his crookedness tainted the electorate against Conservatives and Repubs in general ... we got stuck with Commie Blago ....

So , no , I will not vote to support RINO's , Liberal Lites or whatever just because they have an R attached to their name ...

any mis step by a (R) person I do not support will taint all good (C-- Conservative ) candidates I do support ...

Who did more to get Reagan elected in 1980 ?

A pathetic Ford administration or a pathetic Carter administration ?

When Communist Dems run this country into the ground , Conservatives have a platform to run on ... when RINO's run the country into socialism , we have nothing to stand on ... especially if we voted for the RINO in the first place as a lessor of 2 evils ...

Very rarely is legislation that is passed and signed by leftist legislatures and administrations ever rescinded by subsequent, more conservative legislatures. Once a legislative body gives a benefit to a portion of the electorate, it is virtually impossible to undo. Newt's contract with America was an exception, and it took an absolute revolution to achieve the goals that were achieved as a portion of the contract, which certainly wasn't all of them. This Republican revolution took forty years to come about. If you and others hand the WH to the 'rats the way you did the '06 election, we will have another forty years of 'rat policies that will never be undone. Look what social security became. It started out sixty-five years ago as a small stipend to help elderly retirees and it was a tiny little tax. Look at it now. Look at Medi-care and Medicaid. If you hand any more power to the 'rats, kiss adequate health care goodbye and plan on paying for treating half the effing third world grown south of the border because we WILL have socialized medicine and open borders in this country. Research, drug development? Kaput. Got cancer? Take a number, get in line - we'll get to your chemo in about six months. Got an elderly relative in poor health? Tell them to get their affairs in order because Hillary ain't gonna spend much on them - they're useless, old, and have no future, so they'll all become "futile care" cases.

It is an absolutely absurd belief that power can be wrested from the 'rats as easily as you say just by teaching those RINOs and lazy 'pubs a lesson, by God. At the very least, when 'pubs hold the reins of power they set the agenda, and if enough of the more conservative 'pubs are in leadership roles, a lot of the gross Marxist policies are stopped because the leadership doesn't allow it to ever make it to the floor or out of committee. Look at Mitch McConnell and Tom Delay. Do you think they did a bad job? I don't. They killed more gawd-awful crap than Carter has pills. But they were able to because the 'pubs ruled the roost - they set the agenda for both houses of congress. But if 'rats maintain the reins of power as they do now, they will simply undertake investigation after investigation until the entire country thinks 'pubs are corrupt liars so they will maintain control for generations just as they did before. 'Rats play the cut-throat game of politics better than our guys do, plain and simple, and y'all are the perfect illustration of why that's true.

You folks are playing with fire by indulging your little hissy fits because Joe-Blow is only 70% or 80% as conservative as you are. Sure, you can teach them a lesson, but at what price? And so far it hasn't worked worth a damn anyway. Y'all would be comical if it wasn't so serious. I guess forty years of darkness wasn't enough for you. If we had an icon for an upside-down American flag, this would be a rational time to post it.

You're a bunch of quitters and spoiled little whiners. You don't want to do the work it takes to crack the whip on House and Senate representatives, so you just quit. You've illogically arrived at the conclusion that it's someone else's fault so you'll stay home and help the enemy by not only handing them control of congress, but the WH, too; damn the consequences. But, by golly and gee whiz, you sure did teach them damn 'pubs a lesson. Whoopdy-doo. Rome burns while y'all fiddle a tune of self-righteous, arrogant, fat-dumb-happy stupidity. Just brilliant. :rolleyes: When you "get what you paid for", I hope you'll have the smarts and the sense to not bitch about what you've reaped because the hypocrisy of your complaints will provoke a gag reaction in those who knew you when had the chance to correct the path but galloped off on your high-and-mighty horse instead.

I am so ashamed of and disgusted with y'all, I could just puke.

By the way, dprasse, the lines in your post I bolded are a couple of the most ignorant, ill-informed political conclusions I've ever read.

[Longhorn_Platinum]

:unsmile: The icon we really need is a smiley pumping a handcar on its way to Hell. If the smiley is demonic rat, he's pumping really hard. If the smiley is a RINO-Ghouliani, he's takin' his time, but he's still getting us there.

[Venus de Smilo]

:unsmile: The icon we really need is a smiley pumping a handcar on its way to Hell. If the smiley is demonic rat, he's pumping really hard. If the smiley is a RINO-Ghouliani, he's takin' his time, but he's still getting us there.

And you're doing......what......to stop the hand-cart? Making sure the 'rat gets the handle.

Duh.

[Longhorn_Platinum]

:unsmile: And you don't care if a RINO gets the handle? DURRRR! We need a CONSERVATIVE to pump the handcar back up the hill, not a lefty[-lite] taking us in the wrong direction.

[Longhorn_Platinum]

http://www.fortogden.com/handcar1.jpg

:moo: There ya go. Michael Moore & Teddy in the front, Giuliani & Bloomberg bringing up the rear.

[Venus de Smilo]

:unsmile: And you don't care if a RINO gets the handle? DURRRR! We need a CONSERVATIVE to pump the handcar back up the hill, not a lefty[-lite] taking us in the wrong direction.

Listen, LP. The 'pubs made HUGE strides in implementing conservative policies, albeit incrementally (which is the same way we got the leftist policies), from the mid 90's until the last two years. But you people want to just give up when things stop going your way all the time, even though during those two bad years we got two excellent USSC justices and many other federal judgeships and the immigration bill was killed, and that's just a couple of things off the top of my head. The point is, that even at their worst, they still accomplished some valuable work that we would not have had without them. If Ginsburg or Stevens keels over tomorrow, we will NOT get another Roberts or Alito through this 'rat senate.

It's our responsibility to make sure the 'pubs we elect do the work we send them to congress to do. They are ALL politicians and as such they will always take the path of least resistance whenever we let them. The 'rats pols are the same way. The difference is that the 'rat base never gives their pols an inch, whereas we send people to Washington and then go about our business. Later we are shocked that matters went awry. But the answer is not to stand down, but to stand up, vote them in and then watch them like a hawk instead of waking up like Rumplestiltskin years later wondering what the hell happened.

When it comes to our elected pols, remember Ronald Reagan's words: "Trust, but verify."

[Venus de Smilo]

http://www.fortogden.com/handcar1.jpg

:moo: There ya go. Michael Moore & Teddy in the front, Giuliani & Bloomberg bringing up the rear.

That's real funny and so on, ha-ha-ha, Moo. But you used to be a fairly thoughtful and intelligent guy. Let me ask this delicately: have you suffered a stroke perhaps, or has being around really moronic public school kids year in and year out morphed into a contagious disease that teachers are especially prone to contract?

[LadyHawke]

Got a dear relative who firmly believes that a) George W. Bush is a good Christian man, "doing the best he can" and therefore should not be questioned... and b) that "they" ("the government") are all well-intentioned people who can be trusted to take care of everything. Needless to say, political discussion with this person gives me an ideological migraine. And unfortunately, I can't throw rocks because until a few years ago, I was guilty of the same blindness. Since then, however, I've realized something:

Those folks in government - right up to the President - are only human. They're not infallible, they're not without fault or weakness, so no matter how well-intentioned they might be, they can still be wrong. And our Founding Fathers understood that - that's why they put the Constitutional power firmly in the hands of the People.

Unfortunately, we all holler about our Right to vote, but afterward many of us politely ignor our responsibility to ride herd on the people we vote for.

Can't you just see a business owner hiring employees, and then just trucking off to go fishing, and leaving them to do whatever the samhill they please? I don't think so. WE, the People, are the employers - the government works for us. And being the Boss is a hands-on position. Unless we want our "business" destroyed, ignoring it all and sitting it out simply isn't an option.

That means we have to supervise 'em - not just once in a while, but ALL the time. If need be, we have to fire 'em for poor performance, dishonesty or "insubordination". And sometimes, we have to hire an employee that's not quite the "perfect" fit for the job - because we gotta have someone in that position, and that person - imperfect as he may be - is the best that's available at the time.

I'm not thrilled with any of the "first tier" conservative candidates - but if it's the best we can do, I'll vote for a two-headed, three-eyed Martian to keep Hillary Clinton from becoming President. She is a Socialist who will destroy our Republic, and if she wins, the rest won't matter. We can close this forum down, and everyone go home to put on their Drone uniforms.

[Longhorn_Platinum]

Venus de Smilo:
But you people want to just give up when things stop going your way all the time, even though during those two bad years we got two excellent USSC justices and many other federal judgeships and the immigration bill was killed, and that's just a couple of things off the top of my head. The point is, that even at their worst, they still accomplished some valuable work that we would not have had without them. If Ginsburg or Stevens keels over tomorrow, we will NOT get another Roberts or Alito through this 'rat senate.

:unsmile: There has been a lot of bellyaching about Bush at this BB, but I'm not the one who has been doing it. I'm thrilled that he chose two fine justices for the Supreme Court. But I'm so glad you brought this up. If Ghouliani wins the White House, we won't be getting any more conservative justices. He has already pledged his support for Roe vs. Wade, so if he's elected, we could end up with a couple more Souters. Yeah, you remember Souter. He's not only pro-abortion, but he's also one of those criminals who voted to take away people's property under the guise of "imminent domain". So tell me again, how will this be any different than a justice chosen by Swillary?

[Nutrider99]

Those folks in government - right up to the President - are only human. They're not infallible, they're not without fault or weakness, so no matter how well-intentioned they might be, they can still be wrong. And our Founding Fathers understood that - that's why they put the Constitutional power firmly in the hands of the People.
Too bad so many can't quite grasp that concept. They don't think President Bush is conservative enough on some issues so they jump in with the traitor-crats in their hatred of him and proclaim that he is, indeed, as bad as Hitler. "Conservatives" on TV and radio routinely attack him personally. Such behavior only plays in to the hands of the traitor-crats. He was blinded by his personal opinion of Harriet Meyers and could not see her liberalism. That's why he has a cabinet. That's why we need CONSERVATIVES to control the House and Senate. Not everyone is right on every issue. I come pretty close. :biggrin:

I'm not thrilled with any of the "first tier" conservative candidates - but if it's the best we can do, I'll vote for a two-headed, three-eyed Martian to keep Hillary Clinton from becoming President. She is a Socialist who will destroy our Republic, and if she wins, the rest won't matter. We can close this forum down, and everyone go home to put on their Drone uniforms.
Amen. The least conservative of these is Rudy. After Fred Thompson, he is my first choice. Why? Because 9/11 happened in his doorstep, and he was there to see the buildings come down. Rudy has more of an interest in hunting these bastards down and eliminating them than anyone, other than President Bush. We need to kill the terrorists first. If we don't succeed in that, nothing else will matter. Does anyone think tax and spend will get us out to the economic disaster of another 9/11? The 9/11 attack cost America more money than did the entirety of the second world war. How many such attacks can we afford? If not for the tax cuts, we would have had a major recession. The "sure you saved our economy from total economic collapse, but what have you done for me lately?" mentality is childish and infantile. Why has NOT ONE conservative congressman come up with a workable conservative solution to Social Security reform, the immigration issue, or torte reform? We all point our fingers at the president, but laws are made by Congress. The president is an administrator.

[Longhorn_Platinum]

Nutrider99:
Not everyone is right on every issue. I come pretty close. :biggrin:

:moo: Yeah, you're almost me.

[Rhino]

I love the humility here! :rotflmbo:

I resemble that remark.

[The_Elucidator]

We need to kill the terrorists first. If we don't succeed in that, nothing else will matter. Does anyone think tax and spend will get us out to the economic disaster of another 9/11?

I don't know, maybe I am in the extreme minority, but I am of the mindset that if we conservatives allow ourselves to become numb to the abortion issue that it doesn't matter who we have in office we will never win this GWOT. We can argue the semantics of degree of importance on issues all day long, but as a conservative Christian I just can't fathom this country being blessed and protected by our Heavenly Father while we slaughter millions of helpless children. Give me someone who puts effort into protecting the innocent children, protecting my 2A and securing my border and he will get my vote.

If Sen Thompson waits too much longer my donation will be going to Gov. Huckabee!!!

[Nutrider99]

I don't know, maybe I am in the extreme minority, but I am of the mindset that if we conservatives allow ourselves to become numb to the abortion issue that it doesn't matter who we have in office we will never win this GWOT. We can argue the semantics of degree of importance on issues all day long, but as a conservative Christian I just can't fathom this country being blessed and protected by our Heavenly Father while we slaughter millions of helpless children. Give me someone who puts effort into protecting the innocent children, protecting my 2A and securing my border and he will get my vote.
First, in order to have a moral country, you have to have a country. No issue can top national security when we're at war with Islamic extremists who want to destroy us. Make no mistake about it, this IS a battle with evil. Islam is the religion of the damned. No Muslim will ever make it to Heaven. It is our Christian obligation to fight this evil and to spread the word of Jesus Christ to those who are enslaved to Islamic tyranny.

You aren't going to make abortion illegal. Sorry. The best we can hope for at this point is to overturn Roe V Wade and return the issue to the states, where it belongs. Some states may be successful in making it illegal. However, it is IMPERATIVE that we deny federal funding. It's easier and cheaper to get an abortion than a tooth extraction. That has to end. We may need a Constitutional amendment on the abortion issue, and the president really has no say in that. If we get enough votes for an amendment, we can override any presidential veto. We DO need to insist on constructionist judges. That's where we need the Senate.

Bottom line. We can do just as much on the abortion issue with hillary as president as we could with you as president.

After the 9/11 attack, there's a part of me than could never shake the irony that New York elected the serial perjurer, and then they suffered the attack. Our major cities are moral cesspools. How can we seek God's blessing when we have become such an abomination in His eyes?

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

I don't know, maybe I am in the extreme minority, but I am of the mindset that if we conservatives allow ourselves to become numb to the abortion issue that it doesn't matter who we have in office we will never win this GWOT. We can argue the semantics of degree of importance on issues all day long, but as a conservative Christian I just can't fathom this country being blessed and protected by our Heavenly Father while we slaughter millions of helpless children. Give me someone who puts effort into protecting the innocent children, protecting my 2A and securing my border and he will get my vote.

Ditto that.

Major change requires major resistance. The dems can get away with the incremental ca-ca, but Conservatives cannot. We must do things in big ways to show we mean business. Conservatives (real ones, anyway) don't pussyfoot around, they follow their principles and do what needs to be done. Until we collectively as a group rise up and push the RINO's out, we will forever be compromising our principles, values, and standards away.

I don't care if there are those who think me crazy for not accepting the lesser-of-two-evils anymore. I was on your side in the last presidential election, and remember having this very same argument with Samcat (pretty sure that's who that was). I have now come to the realization if we do not forcefully draw that line in the sand and STICK TO IT, we will forever be traveling that slow road to you-know-where. Perhaps it is too late, perhaps all there is left is to RINO-up, but I won't be a party to it and I won't be responsible for it, my hands will be clean, for I WILL stand by what's right and I WON'T compromise anymore.

It is true, united we stand, divided we fall, but it is all of those who wish to compromise our country away that need to unite with those of us who are not going to take it anymore. We are at an American Revolution moment in this country, in that, the government has become as England was to the colonists, and NOW is the time to say we are not going to go down THAT road anymore. We can't appease anymore, we can't compromise anymore, we can't. I won't.

If Sen Thompson waits too much longer my donation will be going to Gov. Huckabee!!!

And for me, it will be, Tom Tancredo.

[The_Elucidator]

First, in order to have a moral country, you have to have a country. No issue can top national security when we're at war with Islamic extremists who want to destroy us. Make no mistake about it, this IS a battle with evil. Islam is the religion of the damned. No Muslim will ever make it to Heaven. It is our Christian obligation to fight this evil and to spread the word of Jesus Christ to those who are enslaved to Islamic tyranny.

You aren't going to make abortion illegal. Sorry. The best we can hope for at this point is to overturn Roe V Wade and return the issue to the states, where it belongs. Some states may be successful in making it illegal. However, it is IMPERATIVE that we deny federal funding. It's easier and cheaper to get an abortion than a tooth extraction. That has to end. We may need a Constitutional amendment on the abortion issue, and the president really has no say in that. If we get enough votes for an amendment, we can override any presidential veto. We DO need to insist on constructionist judges. That's where we need the Senate.

Bottom line. We can do just as much on the abortion issue with hillary as president as we could with you as president.

After the 9/11 attack, there's a part of me than could never shake the irony that New York elected the serial perjurer, and then they suffered the attack. Our major cities are moral cesspools. How can we seek God's blessing when we have become such an abomination in His eyes?

Nut - you are preaching to the choir! I understand about the security of this country; I didn't spend 21 years in the AF because of the Educational benefits!

But I completely and whole heartedly disagree with you on security taking precedence over morality when it comes to determining a candidate. Sure the major cities are a cesspools, look how they vote! However as a Christian, and knowing God's view on lukewarm Christians, I can't in good conscience support someone who openly supports the wholesale slaughter of babies.

You need to understand something about me. I am ready to die right now if the good Lord sees fit to take me; no regrets, no fret and no worries. I have done everything the Lord has asked of me to include leading my children to the Lord. I have a moral obligation to take care of those who can't take care of themselves. And unless I put that first, unless this country puts THAT first, all the security in the world isn't gonna save us! In my ever humblest of opinions, when I vote pro-life I am voting for security!

[LadyHawke]

I have a moral obligation to take care of those who can't take care of themselves. And unless I put that first, unless this country puts THAT first, all the security in the world isn't gonna save us!

I'm in complete agreement with you on the issue of abortion. But my late dad used to say "You cannot legislate morality." To live morally - or immorally - is an individual choice. You're saying that unless this country - our society - our people as a whole - put Sanctity of Life first, then God won't protect us. And I'm inclined to think you're correct.

But the change you're looking for won't come from a Presidential Election. It is not the President's job to shape or guard our personal morality - that is strictly the responsibility of the individual. And since the President cannot make or rescind Law, the most that the President can do to affect Roe vs Wade is to select Supreme Court Justices - when and IF there is an opening - who might one day vote to overturn it.

The Bible says the hearts of the People must "turn from their evil ways and seek God's <GOD'S><HIS>face" before He will heal their land. So selecting a Presidential candidate based on his personal stance on that single moral issue is an exercise in futility. It does not accomplish what you want - and it might actually keep America from having an otherwise strong and capable President.

It doesn't make a lot of sense to reject an otherwise good candidate because he can't do a job that isn't his to do in the first place. When the people are moral, they will elect moral leaders - but selecting "moral" leaders won't make the people moral.

I'd suggest that we need to vote for a good President - and pray for a spiritual revival.

[dPrasse]

Good lookin wife though. :evilgrin:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/27/Seven_of_nine.jpg
Wrong Ryan ....

http://img.viacomlocalnetworks.com/images_sizedimage_107123706/lg

the Ryan you are thinking of was a Gov hopeful with the same last name ...

[Rhino]

Well, crap!!!

At least I got the good lookin part right!!!!

[Nutrider99]

But the change you're looking for won't come from a Presidential Election.
Aboslutely correct!!!

It is not the President's job to shape or guard our personal morality - that is strictly the responsibility of the individual.
Yes, thank you!

And since the President cannot make or rescind Law, the most that the President can do to affect Roe vs Wade is to select Supreme Court Justices - when and IF there is an opening - who might one day vote to overturn it.
My point exactly. Many Republican candidates are pro-choice for a number of reasons, but most of them see it as an issue of personal freedom. Regardless, laws are made by the Legislative Branch, which means that we need conservatives in Congress. Laws are interpreted by the Judicial Branch, which is why we need constructionist judges. You have ABSOLUTELY NO CHANCE of getting either of these with the traitor-crat party. A president is sworn to uphold the law, and if CONGRESS makes tax funded abortions or ALL abortions illegal, he is duty bound to enforce those laws regardless of his personal beliefs. Likewise, the same with border enforcement.

...So selecting a Presidential candidate based on his personal stance on that single moral issue is an exercise in futility.
And more so when refusing to support that candidate empowers the greater enemies.

It doesn't make a lot of sense to reject an otherwise good candidate because he can't do a job that isn't his to do in the first place.
Absolutely correct. We need a Congressional landslide. Let's get the RINO's out IN THE PRIMARIES so that we can feel good about rebuking the traitor-crats.

... I completely and whole heartedly disagree with you on security taking precedence over morality when it comes to determining a candidate.... as a Christian, and knowing God's view on lukewarm Christians, I can't in good conscience support someone who openly supports the wholesale slaughter of babies.
Only traitor-crats openly support the slaughter of babies. Conservatives respect the law of the land and work to change laws they feel are unjust. Not everyone will agree that the government should interfere in the issue of abortion, but get the issue of taxpayer funding to the forefront and I'll bet you get action. Further, the erosion of taxpayer funds will do more to limit abortions than all the speeches in the world. Failure to support the Republicans in the election empowers the traitor-crats. Which party more closely represents YOUR viewpoint?

There is a reason we have primaries. Dump the RINO's and elect true conservatives.
In my ever humblest of opinions, when I vote pro-life I am voting for security!
And since there are no pro-life traitor-crats, I presume you'll be supporting the Republican Party by first helping to select conservative candidates and then by helping to get them elected.

[Longhorn_Platinum]

LadyHawke:
But the change you're looking for won't come from a Presidential Election. It is not the President's job to shape or guard our personal morality - that is strictly the responsibility of the individual. And since the President cannot make or rescind Law, the most that the President can do to affect Roe vs Wade is to select Supreme Court Justices - when and IF there is an opening - who might one day vote to overturn it.

:unsmile: That's why the next election is crucial to the abortion issue.

The Bible says the hearts of the People must "turn from their evil ways and seek God's <GOD'S><HIS>face" before He will heal their land. So selecting a Presidential candidate based on his personal stance on that single moral issue is an exercise in futility. It does not accomplish what you want - and it might actually keep America from having an otherwise strong and capable President.

It doesn't make a lot of sense to reject an otherwise good candidate because he can't do a job that isn't his to do in the first place. When the people are moral, they will elect moral leaders - but selecting "moral" leaders won't make the people moral.

I'd suggest that we need to vote for a good President - and pray for a spiritual revival.

:unsmile: So we should settle for a pro-abortion wacko like Ghouliani, & hope for a revival? And even if that revival comes, while Ghouliani appoints Souter clones to the Supreme Court, abortion is still legal & will be for another fifty years. Color me unimpressed.

[Longhorn_Platinum]

Nutrider99:
We need a Congressional landslide. Let's get the RINOs out IN THE PRIMARIES so that we can feel good about rebuking the traitor-crats.

:moo: I'll feel good about getting RINO Rudy out of the race in the primaries.

[Rhino]

Ditto.

[dPrasse]

This Republican revolution took forty years to come about.

Too bad the Repubs had no idea what to do with the Revolution ...

If you and others hand the WH to the 'rats the way you did the '06 election,

If I hand the commies the WH ???

I was a big W supporter in the beginning ... I voted straight party almost every year since I first voted in '81 ...

No , the RINO's will hand the WH to the 'rats ... the RINO's are willing to "talk nice" and "be friends" with the 'rats ... The RINO's make the 'rats seem like viable , sane people ... that includes W with all of his overtures across the aisle , "can't we get along and watch movies and eat weenies " stunts ...

Look what social security became. It started out sixty-five years ago as a small stipend to help elderly retirees and it was a tiny little tax.

Yes , it was a small stipend that RINO Repubs just went along with for years ... allowing it to grow and grow ... just to buy votes , the same as the 'rats ... puts them in the same boat ..

all of thye older generation voters are giving us younger generations a pile of crap to deal with ... This country was in a heap of trouble before my first vote in '81 ... it was the older generation that gave things away ...

Look at it now. Look at Medi-care and Medicaid. If you hand any more power to the 'rats, kiss adequate health care goodbye and plan on paying for treating half the effing third world grown south of the border because we WILL have socialized medicine and open borders in this country. Research, drug development? Kaput. Got cancer? Take a number, get in line - we'll get to your chemo in about six months. Got an elderly relative in poor health? Tell them to get their affairs in order because Hillary ain't gonna spend much on them - they're useless, old, and have no future, so they'll all become "futile care" cases.

great points ... and when a Repub has the convictions to say those things and actually attack the 'rats and stop this little 2 step "slide down-hill, although at a slower pace than the 'rats" dance , I'll support him ....

If the Repub wants to just move this country more slowly towards Socialized Hell than the 'rat ... what is the difference ... both RINO's and Liberal Dims want the US in Socialized Hell ...

It is an absolutely absurd belief that power can be wrested from the 'rats as easily as you say just by teaching those RINOs and lazy 'pubs a lesson, by God.

Easy ??? Never once have I said it was easy ...

At the very least, when 'pubs hold the reins of power they set the agenda,

ok , now I know you've been drinking cool aide ... the Repubs , for the most part , don't have balls enough or will , or at worse , the integrity , to set an agenda to straighten this country out ... It was Repubs that abandoned Newt , it was the Repub Party insiders fighting Reagan , it is Party insiders that fight against true Conservatives in State elections ...

The only differences in the parties are the candidates themselves ... The back room power brokers on both sides stink ...


If we had an icon for an upside-down American flag, this would be a rational time to post it.

And you would earn the drama queen icon ...

You're a bunch of quitters and spoiled little whiners. You don't want to do the work it takes to crack the whip on House and Senate representatives, so you just quit.

And you are an over-dramatizing know it all .... you know nothing about trhe work I've done for Conservative politics ...

I do know that by electing Liberal Butt-Kissing RINOs does NOTHING but legitimize the Socialist Lefties and does NOTHING for the Country . It does allow folks to say , "Gee , I voted (R) all my lkife ... I have no idea why we're in such a mess ...

You've illogically arrived at the conclusion that it's someone else's fault so you'll stay home and help the enemy by not only handing them control of congress, but the WH, too; damn the consequences.['quote]

I have concluded the problems in this country are caused by Socialist Commie lovers and their butt-kissing enabling RINO's ...

When it is time to vote , I'll be sure to ask you which one of the lefty appeasing , Liberal enabling RINO's to vote for ...

[quote]By the way, dprasse, the lines in your post I bolded are a couple of the most ignorant, ill-informed political conclusions I've ever read.

Please elaborate ...I'm sure you can enlighten me ...

A man of greatness such as Reagan would not have been elected if Carter had not been soooo bad ... A milk toast RINO would have been elected ...

W would not have been elected if he hadn't followed the KLintons and , at least before the election , sounded like a decent Conservative alternative to the Dims ...

The RINO's lost to Klinton the second time because the RINO's were playing "Lets play nice" while Clinton "Out Conservatived" the 'pubs before the election ...

And , please enlighten me on how this is wrong ...
"any mis step by a (R) person I do not support will taint all good (C-- Conservative ) candidates I do support ..."

Good Republicans running for IL offices were tainted beyond belief because of the crooked dealings of IL RINO Gov . George Ryan ... good folks didn't stand a chance .... because the party was too busy trying to defend the RINO ...

For your info ... I fought hard against Ryan in the Primaries , but , in the General election I played a good little "R" and held my nose and voted for "Lyin" Ryan ...

Just what did that get me ??

A damn crooked Repub , a politician that gave enough slime for the liberal press to slop all good Repubs in IL with and then a horrible Dim Gov Blago ...

The Repubs need to put forward and SUPPORT a true Republican , one that Conservatives can vote for , one RINO's can vote for , and ones that middle of the road Dems can vote for .... we need a Reagan ... not a Bush41 ...

If the power brokers running things behind the (R)doors want to stay in their power seats , they need to change their RINO ways . The only way to get their attention is to say "ENOUGH ALREADY !!"

The people will never get their attention or respect by continuing to rally behind milk toast candidates and spending the next 4-8 yrs defending bad moves and tell folks how "our" socialization" is better than "theirs"

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

dP,
:claps: :claps: :claps:

[Nutrider99]

A man of greatness such as Reagan would not have been elected if Carter had not been soooo bad ... A milk toast RINO would have been elected ...
True statement.

W would not have been elected if he hadn't followed the KLintons and , at least before the election , sounded like a decent Conservative alternative to the Dims ...
He was. Anyone who thinks Bush is less conservative than Gore or Kerry is quite simply an idiot. He was nominated because he was clean. After covering for every felony the clintoons committed for eight years, the traitor-crats and their media subjects have spent their entire time trying to find something-- anything Bush ever did that could be considered a crime or a scandal. They've come up with nothing. How many of us could withstand such scrutiny?

For your info ... I fought hard against Ryan in the Primaries , but , in the General election I played a good little "R" and held my nose and voted for "Lyin" Ryan ...
Just what did that get me ??
It lessened a traitor-crat landslide.

The Repubs need to put forward and SUPPORT a true Republican , one that Conservatives can vote for , one RINO's can vote for , and ones that middle of the road Dems can vote for .... we need a Reagan ... not a Bush41 ...
Amen. And we the people need to keep reminding them that CONSERVATIVE democreeps beat them in the last election.

If the power brokers running things behind the (R)doors want to stay in their power seats , they need to change their RINO ways . The only way to get their attention is to say "ENOUGH ALREADY !!"
Absolutely.

The people will never get their attention or respect by continuing to rally behind milk toast candidates and spending the next 4-8 yrs defending bad moves and tell folks how "our" socialization" is better than "theirs"
No, we must do our jobs and hold them accountable for every drift from conservatism, no matter how slight. The time to send them calls and letters is now. We WILL NOT support liberals in the primaries, regardless of party affiliation. The primaries are where we need to make our stand. Once the team is chosen, we need to destroy the traitor-crats.

[dPrasse]

It lessened a traitor-crat landslide.

There was nothing (R) about Ryan , other than the (R) ...

after his scandals we (the state of IL )went into a full fledged traitor crat landslide ....

And we the people need to keep reminding them that CONSERVATIVE democreeps beat them in the last election.

That is what is so frustrating in the arguments .... we run RINO's and they beat us with slightly right-talking "D"'s ...



No, we must do our jobs and hold them accountable for every drift from conservatism, no matter how slight.

I agree 100% Unfortunately there are those that wear "R" underwear and blinkers and consider Conservatives the traitors any time we bring up the drifts and pound "our guy" for it"

I was opposed to Meyers early on , yet , I was attacked by the "R's do no wrong" folks ... which is fine and dandy , I have thick skin :D... I just get tired of the accusations if I don't do my best in defending RINO's , it is my fault the country takes a dump ...

W was by far the best candidate for the Prez we had at the time ... I knew full well he wasn't a Reagan ... but he sure wasn't a traitor Kerry !!

But , along the way he has taken some serious "drifts" that I feel my duty to point out , then I get accused of helping the "D's" by not lock-step marching to the W is Great band ...
sorry ...
W is human and can be wrong just as easily as you or I ...

I agree that the slow road to socialized Hell is better than the fast track trip to Hell , but , I'd just as soon be 100% behind folks trying to gewt us OFF the road to Socialized Hell ,not one looking for side roads along the way to distract us ...

The time to send them calls and letters is now. We WILL NOT support liberals in the primaries, regardless of party affiliation. The primaries are where we need to make our stand. Once the team is chosen, we need to destroy the traitor-crats.

Just depends if the team is chosen by the electorate or by the "behind the scenes" brokers ... I've been on the inside and I have seen first hand and know just how dirty inside the party politics are when it comes to party backed RINO vs an Independent Conservative Repub ...

The year I was elected to the local County Board , a majority of the members on the board were Conservative and we installed a Believing Christian Conservative as Chairman for 2 yrs ... the biggest attacks in the newspaper and the following 2 yrs was from RINO's NOT Democrats ...

The Election was labeled that day in the newspaper as a "Coup" and a "take over" by the RINO party head ...

Folks think our biggest battles are against Liberal Dems ... they are wrong ... Conservatives beat Liberals all day long ... our biggest battles are inside the party vs RINO's ...

[Lazarus]

Folks think our biggest battles are against Liberal Dems ... they are wrong ... Conservatives beat Liberals all day long ... our biggest battles are inside the party vs RINO's ...That appears to be the fight we are facing now for sure... Liberal conmen in our own party are trying to drive the Reaganites back into the closet... Oh they want our votes - They NEED our votes... But after WE guarantee their comfy cushy power-jobs for another term, they want us to dutifully go back in our shoebox till they need us again...

Im finished with this way of doing business... :flame:

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

Folks think our biggest battles are against Liberal Dems ... they are wrong ...

Preach on, brudder dP, preach on!! :thumb:

Conservatives beat Liberals all day long ... (and twice on Sundays, :smirky:) our biggest battles are inside the party vs RINO's ...

Words that should be memorized and repeated until well understood.

[Venus de Smilo]

Ditto that.

Major change requires major resistance. The dems can get away with the incremental ca-ca, but Conservatives cannot. We must do things in big ways to show we mean business. Conservatives (real ones, anyway) don't pussyfoot around, they follow their principles and do what needs to be done. Until we collectively as a group rise up and push the RINO's out, we will forever be compromising our principles, values, and standards away.

I don't care if there are those who think me crazy for not accepting the lesser-of-two-evils anymore. I was on your side in the last presidential election, and remember having this very same argument with Samcat (pretty sure that's who that was). I have now come to the realization if we do not forcefully draw that line in the sand and STICK TO IT, we will forever be traveling that slow road to you-know-where. Perhaps it is too late, perhaps all there is left is to RINO-up, but I won't be a party to it and I won't be responsible for it, my hands will be clean, for I WILL stand by what's right and I WON'T compromise anymore.

It is true, united we stand, divided we fall, but it is all of those who wish to compromise our country away that need to unite with those of us who are not going to take it anymore. We are at an American Revolution moment in this country, in that, the government has become as England was to the colonists, and NOW is the time to say we are not going to go down THAT road anymore. We can't appease anymore, we can't compromise anymore, we can't. I won't.



And for me, it will be, Tom Tancredo.

It's not about compromising. It's about doing your job as a conservative by riding herd on elected officials we CAN have an impact on. Vote as you wish in the primaries.

We are not the 'rat base, so we can have little or no impact on the voting and bill initiation actions of elected 'rats. We are the 'pub base, and it is on ELECTED 'pubs whom we can have an impact because WE ARE THEIR BASE.

It's not a difficult concept.

Read Lady's post. It's clear as a bell what the right course is.

[Lazarus]

I am used to battling against Lefty Democrats... Its the nature of the game... But these RINOs really raise my blood pressure... A bigger bunch of lying, deceiptful, hypocritical bastards never lived... They love to invoke the name of Reagan and sing the praises of the Reagan revolution in an attempt to garner the conservative vote... Then they proceed to undermine everything that Reagan ever built...

A word to the RINOs who are trying to bring about their own internal coup: You are not part of the Reagan revolution - Oh you benefited from the umbrella effect - The blessings by association... But you are NOT wart on Reagan... You are parasites...

WE, the conservative voters, are the Reagan revolution... And since you were totally deaf to our thunderous demands during your attempt to flood our nation with millions of illegals in your attempt to graft your lips to King George's ass, we are destined to make the point so clear that even your black hearts can understand it at the next election... :flame:

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

Others are free to view this as they see fit, as am I. As I see it, this most certainly IS about compromising -- compromising principles, values and standards; compromising what is RIGHT with/for what is RINO (right in name only). I will "compromise" no more.

I have read every single post in this thread. The right course is clear as a bell, which is why my position remains the same (the Right one). Until we return to what is Right, we are stuck with the leftovers (otherwise known as RINO's).

[Lazarus]

...But the change you're looking for won't come from a Presidential Election. It is not the President's job to shape or guard our personal morality - that is strictly the responsibility of the individual. And since the President cannot make or rescind Law, the most that the President can do to affect Roe vs Wade is to select Supreme Court Justices - when and IF there is an opening - who might one day vote to overturn it.

The Bible says the hearts of the People must "turn from their evil ways and seek God's <GOD'S><HIS>face" before He will heal their land. So selecting a Presidential candidate based on his personal stance on that single moral issue is an exercise in futility. It does not accomplish what you want - and it might actually keep America from having an otherwise strong and capable President.

It doesn't make a lot of sense to reject an otherwise good candidate because he can't do a job that isn't his to do in the first place. When the people are moral, they will elect moral leaders - but selecting "moral" leaders won't make the people moral.

I'd suggest that we need to vote for a good Pre