Posted on 03/26/2004 12:06:46 PM PST by Willie Green
Edited on 05/07/2004 9:06:02 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
In a recent letter to the president of the United States, I informed him of my resignation from the Republican Party in Greenville. I shall continue to be involved in the local political arena, but not as a Republican.
I am sick and tired of the Republicans selling us down the river. No matter how hard I try to institute positive change, Republicans and the Republican Party ignore my pleas. For this reason I have joined the U.S. Constitution Party and urge other conservatives to do the same.
(Excerpt) Read more at greenvilleonline.com ...
Per Bush's proposal:
- Illegal immigrants already in the USA and people still in their home countries would be matched with employers. Those in the USA illegally would have to pay an unspecified fee and prove they are employed.
— The matched workers would get "guest worker" cards allowing them to stay in the USA for three years. The cards would be renewable for three-year periods but not indefinitely.
So is it a fee or a fine? Looks like they are getting licensed to me. I know it says unspecified fee, but come on do you really think that it will be some large amount? These are low income wage earners, in general, so to impose a large fee would spark outrage. Of course to not would show that it is not a fine, so it is unspecified.
Well Luis, by your reasoning, America must have been a Communist Nation for better than 200 years because that describes most of our history, at least with respect to tariffs. But I'm curious, if neither the individual nor the government has any legitimate input to trade then who does?
Just to let you know, due to your tendency to define counter-arguments in the extreme, I’m not against U.S. companies investing in other countries. Where did you get that idea from?
What I am against is our government "encouraging" companies to offshore, outsouce with perverse tax & regulatory incentives and other assistance like the Ex/IM bank & OPIC. Further, you conveniently ignore the WTO, which is emerging as the ultimate authority on trade regulation around the world. Does this sound FREE? Do you have any idea of the regulatory powers that this unelected, unaccountable top heavy organization has over ALL world trade? To say nothing of how the WTO is usurping America’s sovereignty by over-riding our laws, courts, regulations, and constitutional guarantees.
With regard to tariffs, YES I am an advocate of raising tariffs on imports from countries that: 1) Block our exports with trade barriers. 2) Subsidize their industries giving their companies unnatural trade advantages over our companies. 3) Utilize slave labor and/or fix the price of their labor and currency to gain trade advantages. 4) Have little/no environmental regulations, labor laws, human rights, safety laws. 5) Show no interest in protecting IP, copyrights, trademarks, patents and allow pirating of such with no legal recourse. 6) Practice Dumping and Trade Mercantilism with the sole intention of damaging U.S. industry to take market share. More to the point, I especially have problems with One Way trade deals with nations that threaten to Nuke us and have nothing but contempt for basic human rights and freedoms.
Finally, I believe if a U.S. corporation really thinks of itself as a “Global” concern and demonstrates little regard for American interests then such company should be put on notice that it will receive no taxpayer funded financial guarantees, no diplomatic support, no implied or real military response in any way, shape or form from the U.S. government. None, Nada, Zip. If one day China decides to nationalize their assets and rip off their technology…Tough Rocks. They are on their own. After all, they are a “Global” not U.S. company.
Oh and of course I agree with your point that we do not have free trade with China. Free trade does not exist in the Real World---particularly as it relates to China and most of Asia. A better term for U.S. trade polices is Crony Trade. If I use the term free trade it is in the context of how the term is generally used in describing the popular, mythical objectives of our trade policies…which are anything but free.
You then have to either stay home or vote for some other 3rd party
Probably libertarian (Nolan?), maybe Petrouka, if Bush signs it. If he doesn't,(which is likely) then I vote Bush.
Either way, it doesn't help your cause.
Neither does voting for a gun grabber. If I'm slapped in the face on my top issue, why should I back them?
At least Bush is a pro-gun proponent. And I, like Bush, think there is middle ground on every issue.
1. Where's the middle ground? 2. The only thing in the middle of the road is roadkill or a yellow stripe. Going to the middle is oftentimes a recipe for disaster. Bush deserves credit for telling off the UN on small arms. He signed armed pilots kicking and screaming, but he did sign it and that's the important thing. He supports banning gun lawsuits, and pushed for a clean bill. He has a mixed record on judges that evens out.(One really bad one, one really good one)
But that AW ban and gun show ban is the reallly big one.
When you take the middle ground, you get the extreme left and the extreme right pissed off at you.
As happened in 98(a very republican year in Michigan) for a congressional candidate who ran in the middle and lost by 20% due to prolifers staying home. This was despite Geoff Fieger leading the dems.
In the end, Kerry still wins if you stay home or vote 3rd party.
If Kerry wins, I lose. If Bush wins, I have to figure out if I win or if I lose. The third parties won't win, but they are useful for a protest vote which sends a message to headquarters.
There's Bush's team. There's Kerry's team. There's Petrouka's team. There's Nolan's team. Then there's me. I'm a free agent that is coming off a 4 year contract with Bush's team in 2000. All want to sign this free agent. I specialize in 2nd amendment issues and county grassroots politics.
Now I have to decide if Bush's offer is good enough for me, or if one of the other teams has a better offer. As of now, I'm still on Bush's team.
The United States is far from having been a nation with traditionally high, protectionist tariffs, quite the contrary actually. The periods with the highest tariffs on imports in US history are those leading to the Civil War, and the Great Depression; as tariffs fell in both instances, the national economy rebounded.
"Just to let you know, due to your tendency to define counter-arguments in the extreme, I’m not against U.S. companies investing in other countries."
I've come to believe the contrary from your arguments against outsourcing.
You continually offer instances of governments interfering with trade as examples of what's wrong with the idea of free trade. Here's a clue...the WTO is the antithesis of free trade, the WTO is government controlled, one world crap.
"With regard to tariffs, YES I am an advocate of raising tariffs on imports from countries that:
So, you advocate our government behaving just like those other country's governments.
Why on Earth would anyone make the argument that the best economic policy for the US would be to mirror itself after the failed economic policies of other nations?
If in fact free trade does not exist in the real world, then it's only because people such as yourself do not allow it.
Alright, smarta$$.....don't be a coward.
What non-action?!!!
You were brave. You were bold. You were lieing.
Can you be brave & bold, and tell the truth?
What non-action?!!
So now I'm not only a weirdo, for having the audacity to have reasons not to vote for the RINO-in-Chief, but I'm pathetic as well. Ahhhh, how liberal of you...don't address the substance of my argument, but simply resort to name calling. I guess its yet another example of a liberal tactic co-opted by Pubbies. So sad. Once upon a time the GOP was the conservative party. Now its just the "not as liberal" party.
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
If there is anything else I can be of help with....
times up!!!
It's because it was never there to begin with.
times up!!!
It's because it was never there to begin with
Whatever laot, declare your victory of one. I guess it helps your self-esteem, while everybody else ignores you.
But, I have you.
Sounds like the choice is made then. Better to have to 'figure out' if you've lost than to know you lost.
Ah yes...yet another liberal tactic, the "Pee-Wee Herman" defense. Why not just type "I know you are, but what am I?", 'cause that's the long and short of it.
Now, I may be wrong, but Bush is not a participant in our conversation here, it's just you and me. He's a public figure, and therefore is fair game for name calling. You, OTOH, seem incapable of addressing any of the substantive parts of my posts, and instead seem to get increasingly upset that I don't like your president. Because of this, you resort to the same tactic that all liberals that can't think of anything else to do, insulting those who don't see things the same as you. That's incredibly sad.
"I've already addressed the substance of your argument."
No you haven't, but I see you again call me names (hard headed, eh?). The substance of my argument is that:
1) in the last three elections, I held my nose and voted for the lesser of two evils RINO, and was completely unhappy with the result,
2) because of this, I "wasted" those votes,
3) this year, I intend to write in a candidate that more closely represents my views than the Coke and Pepsi candidates that the major parties will nominate,
4) because of this, it will be the first time since 1988 that I will be satisfied with the vote I cast. Furthermore, I assert
5) my vote for the RINO-in-Chief in 2000 only got us bigger and more intrusive government, more errosion of our freedoms, and has moved us that much closer to Socialism, and therefore
6) the Pubbies are taking us over the same cliff the 'Rats are, only slightly slower. Because of this,
7) I stated that we might as well elect a 'Rat, and therefore get to the eventual bottom of the ravine sooner, so we can get started cleaning up the mess that much sooner, and not simply prolong the agony by electing slower moving Socialist Pubbies.
This is the substance of my argument, and you've yet to address any of it. You might want to stop getting mad every time someone dares to say something you don't like about your president, and start thinking about your responses before you post them. You're only hurting yourself.
"And in the end I've concluded that you are too hard headed and set in your ways."
Hehehehehe...you're making this waaaaaay too easy!
"So take your vote and do one of the following:
Don't use it
Vote for 3rd party
Vote for Kerry
Vote for Bush"
Uh...yeah, and? What else is there to do with it? Take it out and toss it like a football? Use it for a bookmark? Shine up the ol' penny loafers with it? Really now, newbie...you starting to lose it.
"I'll be watching this Web site after November if Kerry wins to see if you whine about all the bad things he is doing for the country. And every time you do, I'll be there to remind you about this conversation."
Great. I'll be here, bitching and moaning just like I am now with Bush and the Pubbies in charge. You don't seem capable of grasping that we're screwed one way or the other. It doesn't matter if your idol Bush or Herman Munster wins this November...we get bigger government and more Socialism either way. Now maybe you don't mind prolonging the agony, maybe you like seeing our nation going to hell in a handbasket. But I'm sick of the encroaching Socialism and perversion, and sick of the American sheeple sitting idly by and letting it happen, while they're kept fat, dumb and happy on government bread and Hollyweird circuses. I want my country back, and I want it back while I'm young enough to do something about it.
I don't expect you'll understand where I'm coming from, but then again I remember back in 1988, when I was young, dumb, and thought anyone with an (R) behind his name could do no wrong. I drank a lot of Pubbie Punch back then, but eventually I came to realize that it tased exactly the same as 'Rat Raspberry. Maybe you will open your eyes one day, newbie. But don't wait too long, 'cause time's running out...the cliff's right in front of us.
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
Now that's the only thing you have said that makes sense.
For your knowledge, I'm not a Pubbie. I'm a Bush supporter and a Clinton/Gore hater. Only within the last months did my money go to the RNC because I want to get Bush re-elected.
You seem to dislike every candidate that doesn't agree 100% with you. In some ways, it makes me happy that you aren't agreeing with Bush or Bush isn't agreeing with you. I can see that Bush is a very intelligent man to have a viewpoint different than yours.
I understand your problems with the Republican Party...a Party I left a few years ago for many of the same reasons you state.
Last election I voted (Proudly) for the Constitution Party Candidate.
But there is a large difference between this election and the last one.
We are at War. At war with people (and I use the term v-e-r-y loosely) who would attack Americans who wanted nothing more than to help provide food and aid...and then drag their burned bodies thru the streets.
We are at War with a group of terrorists who have rammed aircraft into buildings..killing 3,000 of our countrymen.
Make NO mistake...where I believe President Bush is wrong...I will say so just as you have the chance to do.(and the obligation to do)
There are some areas I disagree with President Bush.But he is the ONLY President in my life time that seems to understand that there is NO chance of working out any other solution to the terrorist problem...other than to kill every one of them.
...and for that, and if need be, that alone...I will vote for him.
redrock
You have yet to deal with any of the substantive points I laid out for you clearly in my previous post, newbie. I kind of hate to point it out, and I'm really starting to feel like I'm kicking a puppy, but to simply drop your head and keep repeating "you're wrong, you're wrong, you're wrong" is yet another liberal debating tactic. It's their last resort actually, when they've been thoroughly beaten on the facts, common sense and logic, and they have nothing left to fire back with. Since liberals just can't bring themselves to admit they've been beaten, they simply fold their arms, close their eyes and scream the "you're wrong" mantra. I hate to say it, newbie, but you've pulled yet another play from the liberal book. This is the point at which the conservative claims victory, as I do now.
Therefore, either deal with the meat of my argument, with specifics, and tell me what exactly you find wrong about my assertion that:
1)Bush and Kerry are Socialists, taking us down the exact same path to ruin, only Bush a little slower than Kerry would, and
2) to not vote one's conscience, but to hold one's nose and vote for the lesser of two evils, is wasting one's vote, rather that voting for someone in whom you believe.
If you can't address these points, and tell me how I'm wrong, please do not bother posting to me again, because I've already claimed victory.
PS...I read in one of your earlier posts to another FReeper that you like Bush because he can always find "the middle ground". A leader doesn't lead from the middle...he leads from the front. Bush's biggest failings have been because he's tried to please everyone, and you just can't do that...it doesn't work. You have to pick a side and work from there. All he's done is pick up a few middle ground voters, like you, while alienating a whole slew of conservative voters, like me. Maggie Thatcher said it best when she said "Consensus is the negation of leadership." We need a leader, not just someone who, with the best of intentions, is paving our way down the road to hell.
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
I believe I said his opinion is in the middle between the extreme left and the extreme right.
Your opinion is that Bush is a SOB and a Socialist. Does it do any good to discuss anything with extremists from the far right or the far left? Don't bother answering, the answer is no.
By definition, the middle is the middle no matter if its between the fringe left and right, or simply the left and right. On a scale of 1 to 10, the middle is still 5. A conservative leader should be a solid 7.5 to 8. So again, Bush is wrong to take the mushy middle ground...he needs to pick a side and go from there.
"Your opinion is that Bush is a SOB and a Socialist. Does it do any good to discuss anything with extremists from the far right or the far left? Don't bother answering, the answer is no."
Oh man, this is too easy!!! There you go again! Another liberal tactic!!! When you've been thoroughly trashed in a debate, and you have embarrassed yourself in front of God and everyone, fake some righteous indignation and hide behind it as you duck out the back door.
Look, you might want to re-think your participation on FReep. Not everyone on here is as nice and easy going as I am, and frankly, would have chewed you up and spit you out had they been debating you instead of yours truly. In order to survive, you need to have a better argument than, in essence, "Bush is great and you're stupid. If you're not going to vote for him, you're weird, even if you have plenty of reasons not to vote for him", repeated over and over again, with slight variations. You need to, for instance, ask me why I believe Bush is a Socialist, then pick my answers to pieces with what you believe is the truth. You need to ask me why I believe there isn't a nickel's worth of difference between Bush and Kerry, then shoot my argument full of holes with your beliefs. You can't just simply say "if you don't vote for him you're weird". That works in the sand box, but not on the soap box. It works on the playground, but not the battleground. In short, your debating skills need to graduate from third grade to at least high school level. Just a little free advice. It's worth what it cost you. See you in the funny pages.
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
You're sarcasm is noted as is you're point. The Republicans have obviously let him and many of us down, too many times, and the Democrats are worse.
Seems to me you are suggesting a third party.
Amen! A voice of reason!
Though as a conservative I can think of MANY MORE reasons to vote for Bush as well.
If he is so hard on terrorism, why did he not reform our out of control immigration policies, and close and secure out national borders within 24 hours of the 911 attack? Most all the terrorist in 911 were in this country illegally, and we all know, that our borders are an *extreme* security risk to all of us.
With hundereds of thousands of people entering illegally, routinely, bringing in TONS of illegal drugs, well, it doesn't take a security expert to realize that these open borders are a security time bomb, not to mention the domestic nightmare is causing this country.
So why the broken chain in security? You know as well as I, anyone can enter this country with little effort. Osama could put on a NY Yankees cap, and walk right.
Do you not see a glaring discrepancy here?
How can he be tough on terrorism, yet leave the doors and windows wide open to our house? If there was a pack of murderers roaming the neighborhood, would you leave your doors and windows wide open?
Well?
Then again, you cannot predict the future, and the two party cartel will do everything possible to remain the only two parties in the beltway.
You ever notice how the rich and the major corporations routinely contribute to both of the beltway partys.
Will do.
And if you actually understood conservative principles,
you'd also realize that Kerry is automaticly excluded from consideration.
But, even tho I disagree with President Bush's approach to the border 'mess', I do NOT find it reason enough NOT to vote for him.
But it IS something that I believe we need to work on.
redrock
Taxes happen when any politician gets a taste of power and contemplates reelection.
As a responsible citizen, I view my right to vote as a civic duty.
I have voted in every election and referendum (primaries and general, federal, state and local) in which I was an eligible voter over the last ~33 years.
If an acceptable candidate is not on the ballot, I have no qualms about writing in the name of an alternative whom I admire. Or writing in "none of the above" if necessary.
A candidate must EARN my vote by best representing my positions on issues.
I won't be conned into voting against my principles or interests by some snow-job argument that it'll "help" some boogeyman who's supposedly worse. I hold politicians accountable for their own positions, regardless of whom they're running against.
That's why I switched from the Dem party during the Clinton regime.
Yes, It was during the same period that the GOP clearly began to abandon its principles and embark on its leftward odyssey. Oh, there was a brief resurgence of grass roots conservatism with the "Contract with America" which I fully supported. But the powers-that-be quickly scuttled and back-burnered that at their earliest convenience. And I began to consider more principled alternatives in the Reform Party.
What do the candidates talk about? The children have no books.
Look at the fancy gymnasium, the concert-grade auditorium, and the 8 soccer fields where all the hitlerjugend are becoming so healthy in their bodies, and don't look in the library--no one is there.
What politician can tell the truth and have a prayer of winning the election?
Amen, bro! Couldn't agree more.
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
"Time will prove me right and you wrong."
I guess next time you'll tell me your daddy can beat up my daddy? Or you're rubber and I'm glue, and whatever I say bounces off you and sticks to me? How 'bout the good old standby, "Nanny-nanny, boo-boo, stick your head in doo-doo"? Are you completely incapable of adult debate? Or are are you just embarrassed because you've gotten your clock cleaned several dozens of times in this thread, and you just can't bring yourself to give up?
P.S...of course I have a job. Haven't you heard Bush's unemployment numbers? I thought you Bushbots had all the talking points memorized.
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
This might have had at least an iota of impact, had you bothered to proofread before you posted, but I guess they don't teach proofreading until the fifth grade, eh? I assume you meant to say "You're" sounding like Dick Clarke, right? Or maybe you're speaking in Ebonics?
This is getting very boring, and I guess you're in full liberal battle mode, so I'll do an O'Reilly and let you have the last word. I'll just leave you with a last bit of free advice...in addition to learning some debating skills, you might want to learn how to proofread before posting, and use that handy-dandy little Spell Check thingy to the left of the Preview button. Folks might take you a little more seriously if you didn't come across as a third grader throwing a temper tantrum because no one liked her. See ya, Chuckles...go ahead and finish your tantrum, and I'll see ya in the funny pages.
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
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.