Well this is my first post in the woodshed. Yikes kinda scary in here. The people I would like to call out are the ones that say they are going to stay home or vote for a third party.
Since I have different political views from from many of you, what I say is not biased. I have seen more infighting in this forum in the last two months that the year before that. It is always this guy is not conservative enough, or going to rase taxes and lots and lots of religious battles latley
And your point Oblio? Thanks Blonde:-) The people that are not voting next year because you don't think he is conservative enough, will lose this election. The Democrats have a shot at 30 Senate seats next yr, the Democratic base is unified and they will all support whoever gets the nominationHillary or Obama. They can taste victory. So if the Democrat nominee wins. For the people who did not vote you cannot complain about some of these scenarios when the Dems win
:Reinstating Partial birth abortion
: Free Medical for Ilegals
: Helen Thoma as Press Secretary
: Fainess Doctrine reinstated
: Liberals appointed to the SCOTUS
: Democat President with both chambers. They can pass any bills they want
:Universal Healthcare "yah"
So If you do not vote please do not complain.













Comments Policy
my first woodshed post
December 22, 2007 - 00:52 ET by shawn228Ok Shawn, I'll play...
December 22, 2007 - 00:59 ET by Clear thinkerI am one of those people you talk about. I will vote for a true Conservative in the primary. If my candidate loses the primary, I have said in the past that I won't vote in the general. I have changed my mind.
If my candidate is not on the ballot for the general, I will write him in!
Satisfied now?
Rush Limbaugh stated that of the top 5 Republicans running for the presidency, only one was a true conservative. http://www.fred08.com/
Clear thinker
December 22, 2007 - 14:37 ET by shawn228"If my candidate is not on the ballot for the general, I will write him in!"
Hmmm and what good will that do when the GOP nominee is already settled?
Satisfied now?
This is not about my satisfaction clear thinker, It was a reminder of your civic duty to vote, brave men in our country died for this privlidge. Even though the chances are very high of me voting for a party opposite of yours, it dissapoints me that people like you are wanting to take your ball and go home.
When Hillary is sworn in there is nobody you can blame except for yourself because you could have stopped her. And don't go with the how does my one vote count route either, remember Florida?
shawn...
December 22, 2007 - 22:48 ET by Clear thinkerFirst of all, I have voted in every election since I was 21 years old (I'm now 51 yrs old), and I will vote in this election. And I do mean every election. Off-year elections, local elections, etc. But don't think for a moment that you can force, embarass, or cajole me into what you want me to do. I pay my taxes (good lord knows I pay), I vote, send money to candidates, and work very hard during Presidential elections to get a GOP in the WH.
I worked my tail off for GWB because I thought he was a true Conservative. He even had me fooled with "compassionate conservatism", but I learn my lessons well.
Because I have decided to never vote for a RINO again you seem to think it's your job to clobber me over the head. I have news for you, I don't give a rats behind what you say or what you think of me I'm going to stick to my principles. Why am I being so stubborn? Because I am a Conservative first, Republican second (yes, just like Rush) and voting for a RINO is NOT the Conservative thing to do.
I only wish more people would stick to what they really believe in. As the song goes "If you don't stand up for something you'll fall for anything".
With that behind us, I would like to wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas!
Rush Limbaugh stated that of the top 5 Republicans running for the presidency, only one was a true conservative. http://www.fred08.com/
clear thinker
December 22, 2007 - 23:05 ET by shawn228"and I will vote in this election"
I'm glad CT. For the GOP nominee or filling out Fred Thompson or third party?
I was just telling Gary Jackson in another thread that there are many voters that do not know who Condi is but know that Britney Spears does not wear underwear. Many of them will will not vote. I do not blame them that much because they do not understand politics and does not know how it can change their lives.
People like you on the other hand, know how government runs, What the issues are, what the stakes are. Again it is Republican voters that are deciding the nominee. I did not like it when Bush beat Kerry in 04, but too bad so sad, Bush got more votes. So if the nominee is not Fred and it is Mike Huckabee. The majority has spoken.
Also I hope your horse gets well and you have a better day tomorrow.
Merry Christmas to you and and your family as well
:-)
shawn...
December 22, 2007 - 23:11 ET by Clear thinkerI'm not 100% sure you understood my decision, so I will clarify one last time.
I will vote in the primary. If my candidate does not win the primary, I will write him in for the general election.
Thank you for the Christmas wishes.
Rush Limbaugh stated that of the top 5 Republicans running for the presidency, only one was a true conservative. http://www.fred08.com/
Understood Clear, that is
December 22, 2007 - 23:20 ET by shawn228Understood Clear, that is what I meant by filling out Fred Thompson
}}---> Sorry, Shawn
December 22, 2007 - 01:01 ET by Cool ArrowPeople who shirk their right and duty to vote have the same right to open their mouths as anybody.
Certainly there's a large degree of hypocrisy when non voters complain, but just because they don't practice one American tradition doesn't mean they're barred from other practices.
Besides, how are you gonna know whether they voted?
I ♣ My Seal
Cool Arrow
December 22, 2007 - 15:03 ET by shawn228If the person in question had the power to stop something they really hate by compromising on something else, but decided to not to, they do not have the right to complain. I am not a fan of HRC at all. She is selfish and she all she wants is more political power. I also do not like Mitt Romney, I do not feel he is trustworthy. If it came down to these 2, I would vote for Hillary even though she is not the person I wanted for the Democratic nomination.
Besides, how are you gonna know whether they voted?
I don't, but the government does. Being honest with me does nothing to help his party.
Hrm, it would seem you are
December 26, 2007 - 12:48 ET by BinxlyHrm, it would seem you are arguing the principle of voting for what we see as the 'lesser evil.' I have to agree with you on this issue Shawn. I don't think someone forfeits their right to complain simply because they didn't vote or chose to vote down a route that they know was basically tossing their vote away, yet while they are indeed still free to bit*h and bemoan the case of a liberal, most likely HRC, their argument and complaint is transparent and it functions much like a person who complains about crime and violence in their neighborhoods but won't alert the police when they DO see a crime committed.
There is definately alot of pride in our personal politics as evidenced by the many fights and spats you mentioned on here, however, even as a supporter of Dr. Paul in this election, I am aware that if it comes down to *any* of the conservatives against HRC, I'm voting for anyone but her. It may not cause her to lose, but it's one more vote toward the majority for the opposing party. I gotta agree too, I am mortified of the idea of HRC back in the house and it certainly makes me queasy about dealing with Willie again, regardless of how much the moderate left to the far left seem to love the man. If Obama got the nod, the game would be different, however, with HRC poised to take the DNC nod, I for one believe you are correct. Not every scenario ends with flowers and a happy ending, in many cases we must simply make the personal sacrafice for the better case scenario, even if both are less than ideal or even bad. I know, at least for myself, that if Paul doesn't get the nomination, instead of showing my support by writing him in, I'm going to show my compassion for my nation and vote for whomever has the best chance to stop HRC.
binxly
December 26, 2007 - 21:52 ET by shawn228Exactly binxly, If the Liberals win, they will gloat and gloat and some on this board will say, I won a moral victory by sticking to my priniciples. Moral victory vs bringing back partial birth abortion....hmmm,
Shawn
February 23, 2008 - 06:57 ET by well99The right to complain,bitch or throw a fit is our God given right!I would like to lodge a complain on this blog.Last time I voted for someone I really respected was Ford and he lost to Obama..I mean Jimmy Carter.I get those two mixed up all the time.It is getting pretty old voteing for least of two evils or candidates you really dont think should be in.Still that is your right.If Hillary is running I know I will vote for McCann even if I am one of those "They" people.
well99
February 23, 2008 - 09:57 ET by shawn228Long time no see buddy. Looks like blu-ray will win the next generation dvd battle, so I am going to buy PS3 very shortly. I am kind of poor lately because I spent most of my savings to buy a new car, so it might have to wait a few months.
The PS3 looks like it has some great RPG's you should check out. Anyways, you voted and did you civic duty. I know I was the one that created this thread but taking everything in perspective, I actually see Clear Thinkers POV. If he wants to stick to his principals that is fine. The thing is, if writes in Fred Thompson and not John McCain, I can see the Dems tilting things to left for many many years to come.
Shawn
February 23, 2008 - 16:01 ET by well99PS3 well I am pc faithful pc gamer.My younger brother is into the consoles but I refuse to budge.I imagine the graphics are awesome.Have you seen the info on Mass Effect?Dont know if it can be used by PS3 but it is put out by Bioware.As far as the left takeing over for years that is scary.One of the problems with the left is they have no comprehension of how real people live.The right can be that way also but on whole the left takes it a step further.I really like this by Bernie Sanders.Dont agree with his political views but this was a gem about Dems “It’s also a cultural thing,” Sanders says. “A lot of these folks really don’t have a lot of contact with working-class people. They’re not comfortable with working-class people. They’re more comfortable with environmentalists, with well-educated people. And it’s their issues that matter to them.” Here is a link http://adbusters.org... Anyhow we are stuck with cliche cliche lesser of two evils so I will hold my nose again and vote.
well99
February 23, 2008 - 16:05 ET by shawn228I am suggesting a PS3 because most blue ray players are 500-800 bucks. A PS3 cost 399, it has a blue ray player and the games are just an added bonus.
I'm glad you are voting for your nominee, I guess I can see some peoples pov. I might feel the same if Joe Liebermann got the Dem nomination
Real Freedom
Shawn
February 23, 2008 - 16:29 ET by well99500-800 for a DVD?Wow I think the P3 would be a much better deal.Oh by the way Mass Effect is for Xbox.Dont know if you can use it.Actually Shawn I am independent.I believe in voting for the best person but it will be the least of evils vote this year.
Me too well
February 23, 2008 - 17:05 ET by shawn228I am a Independent voter as well, a registered democrat yes, but a independent all the same
Shawn
February 23, 2008 - 17:26 ET by well99Well it will be lean pickings on voting in Nov.I really cant stand McCann but there is no choice.To be truthful the congressional races will be the key.
So If you do not vote please do not complain
December 22, 2007 - 19:40 ET by Free StinkerSo If you do not vote please do not complain
Yes!
I love the look on someone's face when they complain about the corruption in New Jersy and I them "Did you vote?"
Priceless.
Now if they would vote, maybe we could throw the bums out.
Newsbusters. Log on and find out What the heck is so yummy over here!
freestinker
December 22, 2007 - 19:56 ET by shawn228Kudos to you. This is pretty much as expanded version of your Hillary will be our next President unless thread.
I was not quite as nice about it though ;-)
You weren't nasty about it
December 22, 2007 - 19:59 ET by Free StinkerYou weren't nasty about it or anything.
Newsbusters. Log on and find out What the heck is so yummy over here!
FS
December 22, 2007 - 20:14 ET by shawn228It is just funny when people say, well it is only four years, what is the big deal?. Hillary even putting one judge in her first term on the SCOTUS will shift the court to left for maybe the next few decades.
So If you do not vote
December 22, 2007 - 19:43 ET by bigtimerSo If you do not vote please do not complain.
What more is there to say?
Right, BT. The non-voters and the protest voters
December 22, 2007 - 19:51 ET by RJmay as well be leftists, Socialists or Marxists, because they help implement the secular far left policies just as much as those people.
Evening RJ... We, meaning
December 22, 2007 - 20:03 ET by bigtimerEvening RJ...
We, meaning this country as a whole has much to lose if we do not stick together in the end and vote....especially this year with the Senate and House like they are with vacancies, therefore SC Judges and all others that set the rules for the rest of us...that regards every single thing we do and move we make in all regards of our lives.
It goes without saying the protection of this country and I am including our borders here too.
We must unite more than ever that I have seen in my lifetime anyway.
Because it's a social
December 22, 2007 - 20:20 ET by tracheostomyBecause it's a social mandate disguised as a friendly request BT. >;)
If I "choose to vote for the winner" as they say (or if I'm becoming so rapidly disgusted with the more vocal rank and file conservatives that I have encountered as of late*), then what's wrong with me wanting to punish them by "voting for the winner"?
Because there are some out there that will cut off their nose to spite their face. Why? Because of threads like this one.
So now I am told to give up my right to free speech if I don't vote? MY HANDS ARE TIED! On the one hand, I don't want to endorse a liberal, but on the other hand my own party requires so much extensive reconstruction/reformation that to endorse any of them would be to endorse something less than my core principles.
The problem is that the majority of us used to agree on what a true conservative is. Now we're reduced to fighting over compromising what some judge as "the least important issues" in a candidate by power of vocal minority fiat.
- Abortion.
- Religion.
- Assimilation (borders, language, culture)
Your peers are telling you how and where to erode your own "ism". If you wish to let the chips fall where they may, then be my guest. And when you do complain, blame the so-called conservatives who were willing to compromise their core principles just to "win".
Because that's not the type of conservative I wish to associate with.
-PJ
*Sure, one could deny day and night that they don't speak for conservatives as a whole, but time is spent on the board, posts add up, and then eventually, you become a leading voice of the community.
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
trach... Thompson/Hunter
December 22, 2007 - 20:23 ET by bigtimertrach...
Thompson/Hunter '08!
I took numerous online
December 22, 2007 - 20:30 ET by tracheostomyI took numerous online quizzes and came up Duncan Hunter a lot. And I haven't seen very many "hit pieces" on Thompson either. Thus, I don't have any reason to oppose him.
But backing the longshot in the race is just as good as a "write-in vote" (see above). . .right?
Or am I drinking the MSM kool-aid? I sincerely do not believe a candidate can make it without extra-intense media attention.
And the work-a-day conservatives are not being told Thompson/Hunter on the radio.
So what the hell do I do now?
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
trach
December 22, 2007 - 20:36 ET by shawn228Don't forget trach, It is not like someone decides who is going to be the nominee, despite conspiricy theorys re the msm, it is the voters that ulitmately choose the nominee, not the msm or the government
If you vote for a true conservative that is your right. If your candidate does not win, it is not your fault or anybody elses.
Nobody believes in free speech more than me trach, but if you do not vote, you and people like you are reponsible for giving the opposite party the Presidency and I feel since you did nothing to stop it, you have no right to complain.
Shawn: ". . .you have no
December 22, 2007 - 20:39 ET by tracheostomyShawn: ". . .you have no right to complain."
Literally or figuratively?
:push:
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
trach
December 22, 2007 - 20:46 ET by shawn228Of course figuratively trach, nobody can force you to vote. I just feel when the possible Democratic congress sends a fillibuster proof bill to President Hillary to allow gay marriage, you might wonder "hmmm could i stopped this? As liberal as Huckabee is, I strongly doubt he would approve of gay marriage, Hillary on the other hand...............
Australia
December 24, 2007 - 00:54 ET by UnsaneIn Australia, voting is compulsory. If you don't vote you incur a fine.
Would you like to see something like that happen in the United States?
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
unsane
December 24, 2007 - 02:02 ET by shawn228absoloutly not, that would be an abuse of freedoms. I don't fault a staggering amount of people in the United States that do not vote. Lots of really uneducated people out there that have no idea what is going on an what is at stake.
I just have a problem with anyone that b*tches and mo*ns about something the Clintons did 7 yrs ago has the gaul to complain about them in White House again, because their inaction made it possible.
OK
December 24, 2007 - 02:27 ET by UnsaneJust curious. There is an awesome quote from Sam Ervin, former Senator of NC (he died some time ago), that even more concisely and a bit more harshly makes the point of your first paragraph.
I agree with the second paragraph. The problem with the Right is that there are too many one-issue voters on that side. (For example: "If you aren't anti-abortion enough I'll take my ball and go home! WAAAAAAAHHHHHHHH!!!")
I didn't vote for Dole in the 1996 primaries but that didn't stop me from voting for him for President.
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
Unsane!!!!
December 24, 2007 - 02:39 ET by shawn228"The problem with the Right is that there are too many one-issue voters
on that side. (For example: "If you aren't anti-abortion enough I'll
take my ball and go home! WAAAAAAAHHHHHHHH!!!")"
Bravo, Unsane. My thoughts exactly :-)
Having the same issue with
December 26, 2007 - 12:26 ET by dvdaughtryHaving the same issue with my mother.
It's far too black/white with many religous right. We lost in baby steps, we must regain in baby steps.
Well, for once, the rich white man is in control. --Montgomery Burns
dvd...
December 26, 2007 - 12:32 ET by Clear thinkerI'm curious as to what you mean by the last sentence in your post (baby steps)?
Rush Limbaugh stated that of the top 5 Republicans running for the presidency, only one was a true conservative. http://www.fred08.com/
Incrementalism
December 29, 2007 - 02:01 ET by UnsaneAt the extreme risk of speaking for dvd, baby steps = incrementalism.
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
also these
December 29, 2007 - 10:32 ET by botglil ole steps
"how would i know? if i knew everything i'd run for God" ----crpl Klinger
botg
December 29, 2007 - 12:37 ET by shawn228I could not get your link to work botg, but maybe ct won't vote because he knows something we don't. lol just kidding.
shawm
December 29, 2007 - 12:46 ET by botgi'd fix my link but it works fine for me
your link is a hoot do you think they are serious or spoofing?
"how would i know? if i knew everything i'd run for God" ----crpl Klinger
botg
December 29, 2007 - 12:53 ET by shawn228lol, i'm not sure if they are joking but everyone knows that the true antichrist is Costco. It says at the end of times there will be no money, hence the Costco card which unknowing to people use the mark of the beast 666 as the bar code and I was just in the hot dog section the other day and I saw the word "Hebrew" ROFL. :-)
and it probally
December 29, 2007 - 13:03 ET by botgwas a 'National' movement?
"how would i know? if i knew everything i'd run for God" ----crpl Klinger
Sorry, been on
January 2, 2008 - 11:37 ET by dvdaughtrySorry, been on vacation.
Correct. Conservatives might not get their ideal candidate in 2008. My opinion is if the conservative does not get the nomination, we must play defense and keep the liberal out of office.
"but they are all liberal." Maybe but you (you in general)know the candidates on the other side of the ballot are far more dangerous than the RINO's on this side.
You can stick to your princliples and take the high road and vote for the conservative as a write-in with no chance of winning if you want.
It's just a high price to pay.
Well, for once, the rich white man is in control. --Montgomery Burns
Clarification: So because
December 22, 2007 - 20:40 ET by tracheostomyClarification: So because of this, I saw my options to the front-runners only and chose to back Giuliani thus far.
I admit this compromises my pro-life stance, but I'm giving new medical technology a lick and a promise to cover that gap. >:^p
It's like I said, what can you do? Endorse a partial conservative and they become the nail in the coffin of conservatism itself. Fail to vote, and your peers think you endorse a lib.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
Trach
December 22, 2007 - 20:51 ET by Free StinkerFail to vote, and your peers think you endorse a lib
It isn't that anyone thinks you are endorsing a lib, but you would be - through inaction - assisting them.
We may have to choose between bad and worse.
Newsbusters. Log on and find out What the heck is so yummy over here!
You win a battle, but lose
December 22, 2007 - 20:52 ET by tracheostomyYou win a battle, but lose the war in the process. Sure, you're arguing SCOTUS and a few decades on, but what about the death of conservatism itself?
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
I'm worried about the death
December 22, 2007 - 20:56 ET by Free StinkerI'm worried about the death of a country.
Maybe I'm being overly concerned, but Hillary could be a lot more damaging for the USA than Clinton ever was.
He just wanted to be the guy in charge. She really believes that Liberal crapola.
Newsbusters. Log on and find out What the heck is so yummy over here!
trach
December 22, 2007 - 20:56 ET by shawn228Dubya's record on fiscal spending and his immigration debacle was not exactly conservative.
Nobody is giving conservatism a death blow, again if Huckabee gets the nomination, it is by conservative voters, not the evil democrats.
>>Dubya's record on fiscal
December 23, 2007 - 07:58 ET by tracheostomy>>Dubya's record on fiscal spending and his
>>immigration debacle was not exactly conservative.
1. Are you saying he did nothing on the immigration issue?
2. Are you including fiscal spending on homeland security or the war on terror?
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
trach
December 23, 2007 - 13:07 ET by shawn228The subject is not George Bushes performance, if you want to talk about this, you can ask me in the open thread.
I only brought this up because you mentioned death to conservatism.
trach...I don't know
December 22, 2007 - 20:38 ET by bigtimertrach...
I don't know what you do now...
Time will tell what we all do as far as I can see.
It is going to be interesting, plus I do think Thompson has a good chance yet...I am not ready to write him off in the least...Hunter isn't getting any traction either I know..
Patience is all I can say at this point...and prayer for some.
I have voted for the loser in the past to stick to my principles, may again, who knows, if it is Huckabee I really don't know what I would do....at least I already knew where Rudy or Mitt stood.
We are all different I know...that's what makes the world go 'round as they say...we just have so much to lose if the dems get in filibuster proof Senate and carry the House and win the Presidency...that is all I am trying to say.
edit...I meant to say Veto proof Senate...filibuster is bad enough.
Dunno Trach
December 22, 2007 - 20:41 ET by botgbut i'm voting for Duncan and if he doesn't win the primary i'll re-evaluate. I most likely will, in the general election, vote for someone who can win and stands the best chance of nominating SCOTUS appointments who are constructionists. The Supreme Court does more to effect the society than the POTUS and is thus of more concern to me.
"how would i know? if i knew everything i'd run for God" ----crpl Klinger
My 50+-year-old
December 22, 2007 - 20:44 ET by tracheostomyMy 50+-year-old father-in-law is a Christian conservative IT guy with a degree in physics. He practically lives on the internet.
And last I spoke with him, he endorsed Huckabee!
That's my litmus test. Abandon ship. Conservatives and children first.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
Edit: Not panicking
December 22, 2007 - 20:47 ET by tracheostomyEdit: Not panicking yet. Thanks Botg.
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
Okay, that's something I
December 22, 2007 - 20:46 ET by tracheostomyOkay, that's something I can get ahold of. Thanks B.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
Shawn et al
December 22, 2007 - 20:54 ET by Noel SheppardNBers,
I'm with Shawn on this. Elections aren't like finding a spouse; one shouldn't hold out for the perfect candidate, or one will often end up with a disaster.
This seems all the more important in times of war. Right now, there are more clear and present dangers facing our nation than likely at any time since most of us were born. I see terrorism and Islamofascism as a much greater threat today than communism and the Soviet Union were in the '50s and '60s, even at the height of the Cold War.
Furthermore, the growing entitlements of SS and Medicare, just as baby boomers approach retirement, could result in a depression, a growing socialist state, or both if not properly addressed in the next five to ten years.
As such, the Party in power during this period might be almost as important as the personalities. Anyone not recognizing that, and willing to cede his or her moral responsibility in this fight for the future of freedom, democracy, and capitalism, should also cede his or her right to complain if and when such are lost as the direct result of elections he or she chose to abstain from.
There are times in one's life to make a point by sitting on the sidelines. Now is NOT one of them. JMHO. ns
Couldn't agree more
December 22, 2007 - 21:06 ET by bigtimerCouldn't agree more Noel...
It is precarious more than ever the situation this country is in IMHO.
I feel we must stick together and vote.
Period.
I'm off to the game...
Shawn...good forum thread...bet we are going to see/need more of these the closer we get to the election.
Just a question. Since the
December 22, 2007 - 21:49 ET by tracheostomyJust a question.
Since the war on terror is showing progress, is it enough progress to focus more on domestic policy right now? Have we "won enough" to look more closely at domestic conservative issues?
Just weighing the options here.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
domestic policies
December 22, 2007 - 22:14 ET by shawn228Off topic trach, but what domestic conservative issues you mean? Social Security and Securing the border, or Prayer in School and Abstinence only progams.
Oh, but that's off topic,
December 23, 2007 - 13:57 ET by tracheostomyOh, but that's off topic, isn't it? Why don't you chase me down in the open thread like you asked w/me above? Fair is fair.
You don't get to take it OT at least twice in one thread and then get to jerk others around. At least that's how I feel. Just asking honest questions.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
Ok trach
December 23, 2007 - 14:15 ET by shawn228Fair enough, I will answer some of your questions then we can move it elsewhere k?
Bush has not done nearly enough with illigal immigration, and his idea to give a path to citizenship to illegals was a terrible idea.
Yes some of the funds for the budget went to WOT and homeland security, but somethings I find a waste of money, like abstinence only programs which some States will not even accept.
I appreciate it Shawn.
December 23, 2007 - 14:22 ET by tracheostomyI appreciate it Shawn. Thank you.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
*BURP*
December 23, 2007 - 14:25 ET by RJ:^)
Noel
December 23, 2007 - 14:20 ET by shawn228Thx Noel. There is a lot at stake on both sides of the isle. People that don't really follow politics, I forgive their ignorance for not voting. When someone spends most of their time on message boards like this one complaining about how the horrible the left is, I do not see how they can justify not helping their party vote in someone their own party elected and decide to complain about how horrible the adminstration sworn in is.
The perfect candidate does not exist
December 24, 2007 - 00:59 ET by UnsaneNoel, this is absolutely true. My perfect candidate is Unsane of the Unsane Party. :-) But as Unsane does not qualify to run for the Presidency until 2012, he has to make do with what's out there.
And so it goes for all other voters.
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
"Yikes kinda scary in here."
December 23, 2007 - 13:35 ET by RJIt's kinda like those realistic "babys" teenage girls are sometimes given. Sometimes your baby whines, gets gas and drools. Don't forget to feed, burp and change it, shawn. :^)
RJ
December 23, 2007 - 14:10 ET by shawn228I actually like the grown up version of those dolls.......ooops I've overshared :-)
I agree with everyone
December 23, 2007 - 15:03 ET by FranksamOkay, some of you think that it will have to get worse before it gets better. I agree.
Some of you want to vote on principle. I agree.
Some of you think it can get so bad that we can't rebound once we go off the cliff. I agree with that, too.
I have voted 'Libertarian" since Jerry and Jimma were the players in 1976, but voted for GWB last time because the stakes were raised on 911.
For all anti-liberals, anti-socialists, anti-globalists, I urge you to give up your precious pinciples, hold your nose and pull the lever for the one who come closest to your ideals and get over it. The stakes are too high for idealism this time.
Liberals don't care what you do, as long as it's mandatory. -Franksam
Your Argument Would Be Valid...
December 24, 2007 - 02:03 ET by Winghunter...IF three of the most liberal candidates who ever dared sign a republican ticket wasn't leading or at one time led in the polls.
The only possible excuse for this is that the voters have no idea what they are supposed to be looking for in a candidate and/or merely listen to what the candidate is saying since they began their run for the presidency. Yet, never checking records for comparison on any of it.
Do we pray they come to their senses and accept their responsibility in using the easiest and quickest form of acquiring information mankind has ever known? Would this be expecting too much from citizens of America?
Do we ask the Huckster to make the call on his bat phone for Divine Intervention which would certainly take him out of the race also?? This would be plan...'Z' I think but, we may reach it if things continue as they are.
For Records, Past Actions and Other Information on Rudolph, Willard and The Huckster;
http://www.candidateresearch.blogspot.com
http://candidateresearch.townhall.com/Default.aspx?mode=post&g=d2169475-50e5-4500-92ce-b172b916b4fa
winghunter
December 24, 2007 - 02:12 ET by shawn228i'm not endorsing Huckabee, i'm just saying he would not do anything more extreme as Hillary Clinton on shifting America to the left . She is one of the most polarizing figures I have seen. I do not fear her because she is Democrat, but I fear her because she is so much to the left that our country will be competely divided. So me as a independent voter would pick Huckabee over Hillary, but no way do I pick Romney over Hillary.
If you decide to not give your vote to Huckabee you are handing the Presidency over to the dems.
Understood
December 24, 2007 - 02:36 ET by WinghunterAND I apologize if I gave the impression my response was directed specifically at you, it wasn't.
In looking slightly ahead of your point, have you considered that a liberal republican could do much more damage than a socialist democrat that went by the name of Stalin could ever possibly think of doing? ( or Hillary if you prefer. ) On the other hand, if Hillary ( and god forbid she didn't divorce Bill before he was allowed back into the White House ) took the oath, how quickly and violently would the republican base 'rediscover' their fundamental values they've apparently misplaced for this nomination process once she started the many abuses of power, dictating of socialism and soaking our income as if it were their own again?
I remember someone commenting on this so, I didn't come up with this highly probable scenario but, if you stop and think just how far left we could be led by such a "leader", the thought actually sends shivers down my spine.
BTW, have you made the time to search all records of all the candidates you're considering yet?
http://candidateresearch.townhall.com/g/d2169475-50e5-4500-92ce-b172b916b4fa
winghunter
December 24, 2007 - 02:43 ET by shawn228There is no way a Huckabee could turn this country more left than a Hillary.
Please, Give The Thought More Time...
December 24, 2007 - 03:01 ET by Winghunter...to ferment.
To help you grasp this theory, look at Bush's stance on illegal immigration, the Shamnesty bill. Although the vast majority of our entire country was shaking the foundations of Congress until we actually crashed the senates phone system, Bush mindnumbingly offered that he would see it pushed through in spite of our outrage.
He's supposed to be on our side of salvaging what sovereignty we might have left and there he was, our faith based republican telling us we have no say in our own country.
Since the Huckster is exactly the same or worse than Bush on this issue, am I making this clearer for you?
winghunter
December 24, 2007 - 03:19 ET by shawn228I know exactly what you saying. What Bush did with the shamesty bill as awful. His fiscal spending, his bungling with the attorneys, scooter libby, the national debt. Hell... ya this President has caused huge damage.
I am not disputing that. I am just saying that Huckabee can give free health care or be easy on illegal immigrants. Can you imagine the althernative. President Hillary with maybe a comfortabe lead in senate seats as well as congress seats. Hillary and the Democrat majority can nominate George Clooney to the SCOTUS and there is nothing anybody can do about it.
Gay marriage, fairness dotrine, all of it is on the table, drivers licenses to illegals. No a Liberal Repubican will condone these things.
Shawn
December 24, 2007 - 04:33 ET by WinghunterUhh, I'm going to bypass your aspersions of the presidents "damage" to stay on topic because we're having a enough difficulty as it is. However, if you think Bush is bad you obviously haven't had time to study the Hucksters record and past.
If our sovereignty is allowed to decay anymore than it already has only a full scale revolution will would return it and our freedom.
If Hillary were to be throned, we would see no democrats take more seats on the Hill.
Republicans would stop Hillary from nominating any activist justice by the same tactics liberals used on Bush for the last seven years.
Homosexual marriage is still the impossible amendment which would never pass the super majority whether that amendment would be for it or against it...it will never happen.
The Fairness Doctrine, if attempted again would go before SCOTUS and be struck down as they defined in their last decision...this is not a problem either.
On licenses for illegals; The Huckster has many clear records of his pro amnesty position prior to his miracle reinvention of himself and his policies:
Immigration group: Huckabee a 'disaster'
http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20071130/NATION/111300094
Huckabee Liberal on Immigration
http://www.standardnewswire.com/news/742931899.html
Huckabee Exposed in Iowa Next Week for Lies about Amnesty!
by ALIPAC http://www.alipac.us/
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/22/us/politics/22huckabee.html?pagewanted=1&hp
Illegals Foes Reject Nod to Huckabee
http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20071213/NATION/112130052/1002
Huckabee defends societal cost of illegal aliens http://www.arkansasnews.com/archive/2004/07/07/News/252305.html
While Gov. of Arkansas, Huckabee was AGAINST proving citizenship in order to register to vote. He called those who were in favor of this "racists"; http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20050218/news_lz1e18perkins.html
Threatened to sue the federal government over the "REAL ID" act... http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-05-10-id-rules_x.htm
Huckabee calls anyone who objects to the Dream Act a "racist"... http://vdare.com/bevens/050205_huckabee.htm
Mexican consulate deal dogs Huckabee campaign
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=58430
Huckabee aid plan for illegal aliens draws 'venom, anger'
http://www.arkansasnews.com/archive/2005/01/17/News/315406.html
winghunter
December 24, 2007 - 12:11 ET by shawn228"
If Hillary were to be throned, we would see no democrats take more seats on the Hill."
You are right Winghunter, Maybe I am just not getting you. Do you mean will not pick up seats in the next cogressional elections or the general election next November? The way I see it, Seats in house will still have a Democrat majority, more or less the same as now, but since the GOP has to defend 30 seats in the senate and the "Dems about 9, Unless there is a miracle for the GOP, the Dems have at least a small possibility of having over 60 seats or at least more than the razer thin lead right now which is being held by a DINO. :-)
"Republicans would stop Hillary from nominating any activist justice by
the same tactics liberals used on Bush for the last seven years. "
From what I recall, after all was said and done, Roberts and Alito still got appointed didn't they? You could be right about the Homsexual marriage and fairness doctrine not getting through the SCOTUS, but passing it through the house and senante and Hillary signing the bill is pretty scary in itself woudn't it?
Winghunter...
December 24, 2007 - 13:20 ET by Clear thinkerYour "Understood" post is along the lines of my thinking.
If we so-called Conservatives end up voting the lesser of two evils I fear we are voting for a slower slide to Socialism. Voting for one of the leading Dems would be out of the question for me, but if one does get elected we slide towards Socialism at hyper-speed. Your scenario is what scares me, yet gives me hope. The slow slide, voting for a RINO, leads people down a slow and less painful path, thereby allowing citizens to get comfortable with it. This would be the best way to introduce our country to Socialism because this way it sticks! I beleive this is what our RINO's have already started.
If a liberal Dem wins, the changes come fast and furious, and will be so foriegn to the citizens, that there would be an outcry to stop the abomination in it's tracks. And with Gods help, possibly bury the Dems and their love of Socialism for many years to come.
People keep thinking that I'm being a selfish snob concerning this issue because I refuse to vote for anymore RINO's. That's not the case at all. I beleive I have very valid reasons to stick to my core principles, and I hope people would understand that I'm doing this for the good of our country.
Rush Limbaugh stated that of the top 5 Republicans running for the presidency, only one was a true conservative. http://www.fred08.com/
clear thinker
December 24, 2007 - 13:29 ET by shawn228"If a liberal Dem wins, the changes come fast and furious, and will be
so foriegn to the citizens, that there would be an outcry to stop the
abomination in it's tracks"
As fast and furious as 8 yrs of Bill Clinton?
No!
December 24, 2007 - 13:31 ET by Clear thinkerBill was different, he went with the (popular) flow.
His wife and others will blow up the dam!
Rush Limbaugh stated that of the top 5 Republicans running for the presidency, only one was a true conservative. http://www.fred08.com/
"'I hope people would
December 24, 2007 - 19:45 ET by shawn228"'I hope people would understand that I'm doing this for the good of our country. "
I hope you remember that if a newly appointed Liberal Judge on the SCOTUS stays on the bench for about 20 yrs. Overturning Roe V Wade in the next 4-8 yrs will just be a pipe dream.
}}---> Shawn
December 24, 2007 - 13:50 ET by Cool ArrowActually, I thought the first 4 years of the Clinton Presidency worked pretty well with Newt's posse and the Contract with America and Bill standing up to the Hildebeast on Welfare Reform.
If he hadn't decided to prove to the American people just how he believed women should be treated, and if he'd responded to at least a couple of terrorist attacks, he might've even been a great President.
I ♣ My Seal
cool arrow
December 24, 2007 - 13:57 ET by shawn228Thx cool arrow, I am glad you give credit where credit is due. Despite what many here say about olive branches by the President, Bill Clinton did something Bush does not do. Work very well with both chambers of congress even though they are the opposition party.
Cool...I agree with you
December 24, 2007 - 14:50 ET by JerCool...I agree with you about Bill and his zipper problem--indefensible. But regarding terrorism, I think the judgment of history will ultimately be much kinder to Clinton than Bush [although Bush's post-9/11 response was virtually flawless, i.e. until he got entangled in Iraq].
The Al-Quaeda threat was a gathering storm. Clinton was late in fully recognizing the threat, but he eventually came to understand its gravity. Bush never did, even though he was repeatedly and explicitly warned.
As far as Clinton's responses, I suggest launching scores of cruise missiles in an effort to blow someone to bits would qualify as a serious response by most definitions. Of course, many on the right "suppported" this action with taunts, ridicule, and "wag the dog" nonsense. After the Cole attack, Bush would have been in a much better position to react militarily than Clinton, but he chose to keep his head buried in the sands of Iraqi democratization fantasies rather than focusing on bin Laden.
Jer
Aargh!!!
December 27, 2007 - 00:25 ET by UnsaneAgain with your neurotic obsession with bin Laden!
I know this will sound redundant, but as long as Leftists keep bringing it up...
My first point is a simple one. We aren't looking for OBL? I'll be sure to tell some friends of mine currently deployed to Bagram, Kandahar, and Bishkek this. They sure would be surprised to hear this.
Second point: what specifically will finding OBL SOLVE beyond bloodlust? You DO realize that someone else who hates America as much as he does WILL take his place, correct? No, you don't. You want OBL caught so that you and your Leftist fellow travelers (perhaps?) can loudly declare "WORLD PEACE! Rose gardens are spontaneously bloming EVERYWHERE! I guess we don't need a military now! Let's build the biggest, nicest Nanny State the world has ever known!!!"
Third point: Where were all the Leftists in the 1980s when Abu Nidal was out and about? Were you guys all demanding we stop the Cold War, withdraw from Europe, and invade the Middle East to find Abu Nidal? (Nah. But you WERE demanding we unilaterally withdraw from Europe to show the Soviets just how super-nice we were in the United States.)
I wait with baited breath as you address these issues.
"Iraqi democratization fantasies"? Hmmm, where were you in January 2005? People there have voted for themselves a constitution and a government. Besides, what could be wrong with having a representative democracy right smack dab in the Middle East?
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
Dr. Unsane
December 29, 2007 - 01:57 ET by JerAgain with your neurotic obsession with bin Laden!
Really? And on what evidence do you base your diagnosis, Dr. Unsane? Specifics, please, because I find it particularly troubling that you would make a statement such as this. Troubling, because I generally look forward to your commentary, and have indulged a considerable respect for your opinions--particularly when addressing issues of foreign policy [due to your knowledge and expertise concerning a subject in which I share an interest]. In fact, I recently explicitly praised your well-articulated, soundly-reasoned analyses. [Speaking of which, I was always taught to thank someone who complimented me...but then we are from different generations.] In any event, if your quoted remark about me is indicative of your abilities as an armchair "shrink", I would suggest you confine yourself to areas where you have demonstrated at least a modicum of competence.
Moreover, Dr. Unsane, an accusation such as yours raises the presumption that you possess at least a reasonable familiarity with my recent posts on the topic--especially where you have participated in the discussion. I wonder if you even superficially skimmed the relevant threads before lobbing your rather tasteless and baseless insult. [Your intelligence would seem to negate comprehension difficulties.] For example, regarding the exchanges among botg, RJ, you, and me on December 21, you should have noted in my response to botg's comment about Obama's alleged support for attacking Pakistan, I simply quoted applicable portions of Obama's speech which included his reference to bin Laden. After you 'riposte' stating your discomfiture with the "get bin Laden" monomania, I remarked that I didn't "necessarily disagree" with your view...that OBL, as an individual, was not of paramount importance. But, apparently, my merely suggesting that the question was "open" was sufficiently symptomatic of a neurotic obsession.
If you took the time to engage in a more thorough search, I think you would find my past references to bin Laden are usually in response to a previous post in which the issue was first raised...or, in some cases, my reaction to the political Right's persistent fixation on Clinton's efforts (or lack thereof) in the pursuit and neutralization of bin Laden. [For example, I have previously noted my displeasure with various conservative talk show hosts who, within hours of the WTC attacks, were bellowing that "it was all Clinton's fault" because he "didn't have the balls to go after bin Laden". If you're really concerned with bin Laden obsession behaviour, you should catalogue the number of times over the past six years that Sean Hannity has peddled the 'Sudanese-offer-of-OBL-rejected-by-Clinton' allegation. You would have Sean in a straight jacket by now. I likewise objected to O'Reilly's relentless campaign, launched shortly after 9/11, to blame Clinton for the failure to nail bin Laden. You may disagree with my perspective, but how does my criticism of their behavior, or my attempt to present a more balanced assessment of the Clinton and Bush administrations' records vis a vis Al Quaeda translate to a "neurotic obsession" with OBL. [By the way, you may want to e-mail an admonishment to the Guiliani campaign inasmuch as, in the immediate aftermath of the Bhutto assassination, he has called for intensified efforts to find and capture bin Laden.]
We aren't looking for OBL?
Huh? From what orifice did you pull that query, Dr.? Maybe it's a junior debate team tactic: stuffing words in my mouth which I never uttered and trying to make me eat them. Well, try again...but this time stick to facts instead of knocking over straw men.
You DO realize that someone else who hates America as much as he does WILL take his place, correct? No, you don't.
Have you started debating with yourself? I suppose that's one way to win--ask a simple-minded "duh" question and answer it yourself. Unfortunately, you still managed to blow it. My response is, "of course, child." And based on that question, my advice is to stop your frequent bragging about the various periodicals and foreign policy journals you supposedly read...it adds to your embarrassment. [And to amplify my answer, the issue is not whether someone would take the place of OBL--that's a gimme--but whether his successor would be as influential, as powerful and wealthy; and, would he enjoy anything close to the iconic status which OBL occupies with the Arab "street" and among the Islamic militants.
Finally, if you want to debate Leftists about their world view (as you have defined it) then be my guest. But leave me out of it. Do you honestly think that I, having declared on several occasions that I considered Reagan to be the best president in my lifetime, would agree with the claptrap philosophy you attribute to "my fellow traveler" Leftists? Here's a thought: Why don't you expend just a minimal effort to ascertain the views of the person with whom you choose to debate. If you would then be interested in challenging perceivable differences over the details, and would do so in a respectful manner, I would be happy to oblige.
Don't forget to remove the bait from your mouth.
Jer
BTW re Iraq...I was referring to the period prior to 9/11 when the Bush administration had bought into the Ahmad Chalabi scam projecting a relatively smooth road to Iraqi political stability, so that the new nation would serve as a shining model portending the general democratization of the Middle East. I do want us to succeed in Iraq [and am encouraged by recent progress] but that was a pipe dream.
I'm no doctor (I just play one)
December 29, 2007 - 02:05 ET by UnsaneAbbreviated response: I hate to generalize as much as I have. However, I just go apopleptic at the notion that we have to "focus on bin Laden", we have to "capture Osama bin Laden", etc.
Much more later. I only skimmed your response.
And I'm no doctor. I just play one on NB. :-)
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.