Posted on 06/04/2002 6:54:36 AM PDT by MeekOneGOP
Heck, I wish Jeffords was still a RINO and would welcome him back. Be fun to control the senate.
I'm sure that Archer Daniels Midland agrees with you, as it counts the new billions that the Republican "free market supporters" in Congress just gave it in ethanol subsidies.
Klintoon supported NAFTA and "free" trade with China.
Free Traitors = RINOs
Go Pat Go!!!
There are two different world-views here, the secular-humanism of the "lock-step" Democrats, and the Biblical-world-view of the Christian Conservatives.
Sure, there are a lot of grey areas, not many things are black-and-white (although some things must be in a Biblical world-view).
If one has no belief in God, and/or thinks the Bible is gibberish, than you would feel more comfortable as a Dem or a Libertarian.
Why is it intolerant when those with a Biblical world-view would prefer the candidates that they give thier money and time to, to be like in mindset?
Setting standards IS NOT hypocritical - it is realistic, unless you're a member of the NEA.
Say something smart or at least show me you can get past a one-liner that misrepresents what I wrote.
The GOP, since at least Reagan, has been a strong supporter of free trade. I hardly think Reagan was a RINO. And if we really want to play the RINO game, then I'd suggest those who oppose free markets and free trade who are the RINOs.
Go Pat Go!!!
Indeed, Pat left the GOP and is no longer a Republican. Which demonstrates the point.
Let's divide and conquer ourselves!!!!!!!!!!!!
This is genius!!!!!!!!
They should start with McCain the Insane, then.
Tuor
Have you noticed that we're told that the GOP is "exclusive" on abortion yet we have ten times more pro-choice politicians elected than the Democrats have pro-life politicians? We're told that because the GOP core is against bilingual education we're anti-Hispanic while ignoring the fact that the majority of Hispanics are against bilingual education as well.
There are so many other things and I could go on but the point is that while anti-RINOs want to remove the less than loyal Party members I seriously doubt they want to remove all dissenters from the platform. But that doesn't mean there are NO basic beliefs that ALL Republicans should agree on.
Make no mistake, the people complaining about the party not being "inclusive enough" or "moderate enough" in the media are not friends of the GOP and they should be given no credibility by any Republican. What they really want is for Republicans to abandon their basic principles; whether it be low taxes, our dedication to a color blind society, our dedication to all the articles (including the Second Amendment) in the Constitution, our belief in the free-market, our belief in limited government, our belief that good science, not emotionalism, should guide environmental policy, our belief in strong national defenses and our insistence on individual rights and responsibility.
There's no point in having a tent if it is so inclusive that it doesn't stand for anything anymore. Imagine this; "Republicans For High Taxes" ... ugh!
Of course Reagan wasn't a RINO.
Here are a few of his many accomplishments:
-- Forced Japan to accept restraints on auto exports. The agreement set total Japanese auto exports at 1.68 million vehicles in 1981-82, 8 percent below 1980 exports.-- Tightened up considerably the quotas on imported sugar. Imports fell from an annual average of 4.85 million tons in 1979-81 to an annual average of 2.86 million tons in 1982-86.
-- Negotiated to increase restrictiveness of the Multi-fiber Arrangement and extended restrictions to previously unrestricted textiles. The administration unilaterally changed the rule of origin in order to restrict textile and apparel imports further and imposed a special ceiling on textiles from the People's Republic of China. Finally, it pressured Hong Kong, Taiwan, and South Korea, the largest exporters of textiles and apparel to the United States, into highly restrictive bilateral agreements. The Reagan administration has stated several times that textile and apparel imports should grow no faster than the domestic market.
-- Required 18 countries--including Brazil, Spain, South Korea, Japan, Mexico, South Africa, Finland, and Australia, as well as the European Community--to accept "voluntary restraint agreements" to reduce steel imports, guaranteeing domestic producers a share of the American market. When 3 countries not included in the 18--Canada, Sweden, and Taiwan--increased steel exports to the United States, the administration demanded talks to check the increase. The administration also imposed tariffs and quotas on specialty steel.
-- Imposed a five-year duty, beginning at 45 percent, on Japanese motorcycles for the benefit of Harley Davidson.
-- Raised tariffs on Canadian lumber and cedar shingles.
-- Forced the Japanese into an agreement to control the price of computer memory-chip exports and increase Japanese purchases of American-made chips. When the agreement was broken, the administration imposed a 100 percent tariff on $300 million worth of electronics goods.
-- Removed Third World countries from the duty-free import program for developing nations on several occasions.
-- Pressed Japan to force its automakers to buy more American-made parts.
-- Demanded that Taiwan, West Germany, Japan, and Switzerland restrain their exports of machine tools, with some market shares rolled back to 1981 levels. Other countries were warned not to increase their shares of the U.S. market.
-- Accused the Japanese of dumping roller bearings, because the price did not rise to cover a fall in the value of the yen. The U.S. Customs Service was ordered to collect duties equal to the dumping margins.
-- Accused the Japanese of dumping forklift trucks and color picture tubes.
-- Refused to ask Congress to end the ban on the export of Alaskan oil and of timber cut from federal lands.
-- Redefined "dumping" in order to make it easier to bring charges of unfair trade practices against certain violators.
-- Extended quotas on imported clothespins.
I have disagreements, sometimes serious ones, with some conservatives. We disagree on what exactly what our liberty allows and how we may best protect it, but we agree that there are baseline, inalienable freedoms. The far left does not destroy this and would destroy our liberty and this country. The more moderate Democrats do not recognize this aspect of the left.
That baseline support of liberty and recognition of what the left stands for is what unites the GOP, including most of those, who some would call RINOs.
If (just for example)75% of a Political party are pro-life, than why is it wrong to demand that candidates who use the name, money, and energy of that party to agree with that? If not, they can join another, or start thier own.
And finding commonality with other views is fine, but that is not applicable to ALL views.
If I am pro-2nd amndmt, should I bend my way to agree with candidates who think that it's OK for me to own a shotgun, but not a semi-auto, just so we can have a "commonality with other views"?
Remember: "Only road kill and yellow streaks straddle the middle of the road"
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.