Posted on 05/08/2006 7:04:26 PM PDT by mwfsu84
If I had told you on 9/11/2001 that we'd go four and half years and counting without another terrorist attack on US soil, would you have believed me?
If I had told you that US-led forces would secure Afghanistan in just a few months...something the Soviets couldn't accomplish in ten years...would you have thought I was crazy?
If I had told you that Saddam was gone, that Khadaffy had renounced terrorism, and that Iraq was on the verge of becoming the second democracy in the Middle East, would have thought I was on medication?
Sometimes in our disappointment of this administration, we often forget some of the positives. The economy is strong. More Americans are homeowners. With tax cuts, we're spending less time working for Uncle Sam.
And if you take those benefits for granted, just imagine how much different things would be under a President Al Gore.
So if the president's stance on immigration and spending upset you - and they do upset me - what are you going to do about it? Stay at home? Nothing could be worse for conservativism. Your non-support will usher in more immigrants, higher taxes, and weaker national security.
If the GOP loses Congress, George W. Bush will be removed from office. Nothing would embolden terrorists more. How can we be counted on to wage an effective war when we can't even decide who our enemy is?
George W. Bush isn't the enemy. But that's exactly the message conservatives will send to the world if they stay at home this November.
If you're upset with W. on immigration - write him, write a Republican Congressman, let him know how you feel. It was conservatives who got Bush to change his mind on Harriet Meirs.
I promise you, a Democratic Congress won't be nearly as responsive to your needs.
"It's about integrity."
I couldn't agree more. Standing on principle is paramount to character. If illegal immigration were abortion Bush never would have been elected. I don't support abortion and I don't support illegal immigration.
Don't speak common sense! There are too many people who are enjoying being angry.
There are more important things to worry about, like if I go to a restaurant and the waiter can't understand me.
Now THAT'S serious! :P
Nor do I.
Which is why it is of paramount importance to keep the pro-death, pro-open border Dems out of control.
Anyone who stands on principle understands how critical this is.
Thank you. I was aware that Mr. Robinson supported the party despite the fact it is working at cross purposes with his stated goals for the country.
Lord, Have Mercy!
Well done!
Here's my list that I compiled the other day!
Robert Byrd -- Appropriations
Carl Levin -- Armed Services
Joe Biden - Foreign Relations
Ted Kennedy - Health, Education, Labor & Pensions
Joe Liebermann - Homeland Security
Patrick Leahy - Judiciary
Chris Dodd -- Rules and Administration
---
Tom Lantos - International Relations
John Conyers - Judiciary
Charles Rangel - Ways & Means
Jane Harman - Intelligence
Barney Frank - Financial Services
Henry Waxman - Government Reform
Great post....mind if I steal it?
Where exactly did I say anything close to that?
We will all wait for you to find a post where I said something that can be even remotely interpreted like that.
Tick tock...
And if John Conyers becomes chair of Judiciary there will be reparations proceedings. That's what's at stake for conservatives.
Sometimes personalities do matter. Perot attracted more libertarians than conservatives, and he did it to spite Bush. Or have you forgotten that little stunt he pulled after Bill Clinton was nominated and then showed he might be too weak to win. He had about a third of the vote at the first of July and might actually have run a serious campaign. Instead he dropped out for awhile and then jumped back in to keep Bush from tromping Clinton. I agree that Bush rath a pathetic campaign, but he would have won if Perot has stayed out.
The time to oppose the liberal Republicans is in the primary. Allowing the pro-death, pro-open border, anti-American, anti-military, tax raising, lying Dem party to regain power again is completely irresponsible and harmful to conservatism at all levels.
No one who cares about conservative principles.......especially one who is pro-life....... would advocate that position. .
Do you have a retention problem?
Well, there is the Republican party with some conservative members and some not so conservative and then there's the evil Marxist liberal socialist Democrat Party. I'd rather have a conservative Republican in office, but I'll take a not so conservative Republican over any evil Marxist liberal socialist Democrat any day of the week. And I might express my unhappiness with some of his policies but I think I've learned my lesson about irreversibly trashing the Republican office holder or the Republican base or the party itself (at least not too much trashing). As they say, the alternative is unthinkable.
Once again, you are misstaken or ill-informed:
It was The John Birch Society, or, as they're known in their current manifestation, The Constitution Party.
Why did Senator Leahy come to mind when you asked that question, Howlin?
You think Spiff is Leaky in disguise. ;)
Every candidate will have to earn my vote. I will no longer pull a straight party ticket. Vote out all RINOs.
No one here is advocating illegal alien executions, and very few are even demanding the forced deportation of all 20+ million of them. What most of us do want is for the anchor baby laws to be repealed, welfare to illegals to be cut off, and for employers who hire illegals to be heavily fined. ....far from a "fringe" point of view.
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.