Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

What the “conservative” useful idiots have brought us: Week one.
January 8, 2007 | self

Posted on 01/08/2007 8:42:14 AM PST by jmaroneps37

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 301-320321-340341-360361-366 next last
To: defconw
And NJ has Menendez, under federal investigation for corruption.

I voted for Kean, Jr. The hardest vote I have ever made in my life.

341 posted on 01/09/2007 5:05:18 AM PST by OldFriend (THE PRESS IS AN EVIL FOR WHICH THERE IS NO REMEDY)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 338 | View Replies]

To: OldFriend
I know it was. Kean was a rather shall we say, dim candidate. But he was one of ours.
342 posted on 01/09/2007 5:06:33 AM PST by defconw (Soon to be Mrs. Cibco in 110 days! Woo Hoo!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 341 | View Replies]

To: defconw
bebe Kean was a Bush hater, thanks to his odious father. When Cheney came to NJ for a fundraiser for Kean, he didn't show up, leaving Cheney embarrassed.

He never missed a chance to criticize the President and was generally his father's puppet.

Conservatives in NJ haven't forgotten the 9/11 Commission and the hoax that was. A blame Bush bash with Kean at the head.

343 posted on 01/09/2007 5:11:12 AM PST by OldFriend (THE PRESS IS AN EVIL FOR WHICH THERE IS NO REMEDY)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 342 | View Replies]

To: OldFriend

I hear you!


344 posted on 01/09/2007 5:31:16 AM PST by defconw (Soon to be Mrs. Cibco in 109 days! Woo Hoo!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 343 | View Replies]

To: mugs99
you're right. there is no such thing as a a Democrat "boogeyman" :

Wait! Here's a photo of a "Democrat Boogeyman" after looking over her large "WALL" of justice

345 posted on 01/09/2007 5:46:48 AM PST by paltz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 314 | View Replies]

To: Pelham
Do you write that stuff with a straight face?

You wanted the GOP out. You got what you wanted. Now, to get anything else, you have to curry favor with Pelosi and Reid. Don't like that part of the deal? Too bad! You can either deal with the reality you worked to bring about, or you can STFU.

346 posted on 01/09/2007 7:01:32 AM PST by BeHoldAPaleHorse (Dyslexics of the world, UNTIE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 322 | View Replies]

To: Princip. Conservative
... I think his point is that we need to make sure this situation does not repeat itself. We have to learn from our mistakes.

Thats part of why all the anger. Few seemed to learn the lesson. These same chumps used Ross Perot to give us xlinton, and der ober-fueror buchanan helped keep him in office. Fascist buchanan tried to sink us again in 2000, and the chumps tried to sabotage us again in '4.

The 1% fringe on the right side does more to damage the middlegrouds' perception of the right than images of every dirty hippie holding whackjob peace signs. If we must carry a 'lesson learned' let it to expose and neutralize these fringe whackjobs. If the useful idiot fringers are real conservatives, (not fifth columnists or statist tools), they would be well served to read their words before they post them and judge how close to the fringe they are. The closer they are the more damaging their caricature.

347 posted on 01/09/2007 8:08:11 AM PST by 68 grunt (3/1 India, 3rd, 68-69, 0311)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 335 | View Replies]

To: jmaroneps37

Great vanity post. Detailing all the moonbat things Pelosi & Co. do. Please, keep Freeperville updated.


348 posted on 01/09/2007 10:03:09 AM PST by Kuksool (I learned more about political science on FR than in college)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
If that's the case, then why doesn't the U.S. just bomb Iraqi city to the ground?

How does that follow from what I said? Frankly, you seem unable to discuss this without jerking up your knees, so I will quietly disengage from our discussion while you go hide your head in the sand.

349 posted on 01/09/2007 11:05:54 AM PST by Lakeshark (Thank a member of the US armed forces for their sacrifice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 264 | View Replies]

To: michigander

I've thought the same thing when someone says, "I just can't vote for Guiliani." They are often met with, "Well, THANKS FOR HILLARY, MORON!" I guess they never heard the old adage about flies, honey and vinegar.

Full disclosure: I voted in the last election. It's the old "hate Congress/love my Congressman" situation.


350 posted on 01/09/2007 11:15:20 AM PST by Rastus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Dane
It was millions of swing voters who went Dem because of Iraq and corruption that put nancy in power. But you knew that.
351 posted on 01/09/2007 2:02:47 PM PST by mthom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: soccermom
"Forget Giuliani. Let's hope you "Conservatives" don't have us confronting the choice of voting for Mullah Omar or getting a beheading in the next election."

Now I understand how the 'soccermoms' put Clinton in office for eight years. As Ben Franklin once said: "Those who would give up essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither."

352 posted on 01/09/2007 2:05:12 PM PST by Godebert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 269 | View Replies]

To: jmaroneps37
If you have any numbers to prove that conservatives stayed home in significant numbers please post them or retract your statements. Swing voters voted Dem over Iraq and corruption. They cost us the election. Not the 2 or 3 conservatives that didnt vote.
353 posted on 01/09/2007 2:05:59 PM PST by mthom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 68 grunt
"Ah, because (hypothetically) he won the primary? (He won't have my primary vote)"

The liberal Julie-annie won't get my vote under any circumstance.

354 posted on 01/09/2007 2:08:57 PM PST by Godebert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 331 | View Replies]

To: jmaroneps37
Let's see. The GOP loses an election and many people say it's because part of that party's base stayed home in protest of that party's failure to lead or follow-through on some major issues of concern.

In response to this, a self-appointed cadre of "a few" so-called Republicans berates the base for not showing up and "letting" the Democrats win.

To you lurkers out there--does this make any sense to you? If a party fails and loses an election, you don't berate the people who didn't come out and vote for you. You try to fix what's wrong and patch up your differences with the segment of your voter base that's disaffected.

Some within the GOP have decided that what's wrong with the party is that it spends too much time working on issues that matter to the people who put them in power in the first place. If that sounds counter-intuitive, it is.

The GOP leadership is the reason we're called "The Stupid Party."

The GOP can either get conservative, or get wiped out.
355 posted on 01/09/2007 2:19:16 PM PST by Antoninus ( Rudy McRomney as the GOP nominee = President Hillary. Why else do you think the media loves them?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Godebert
LOL! Uhhhhhh....no.....it is so-called "conservatives" who voted 3rd party that put Clinton in office. And you don't have ANY liberty if your country is controlled by Islamofascists.
356 posted on 01/09/2007 3:27:08 PM PST by soccermom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 352 | View Replies]

To: soccermom

"No you don't get it. He makes a demand for "Reagan conservatives" in the very same breath as he is blasting Republicans for the deficit spending and immigration."

And why not??

Reagan would be signing vetoes on spending bills, instead of simply letting excess spending add to the deficit (as GWB and high-spending RINOs are doing). You must be making the erroneous assumption that Reagan approved of the deficits during his term, when in fact he did everything he could to avoid them, on the spending side, while trying not to weaken defense spending or make tax increases. He could have approved bigger tax increases, which he knew would do nothing to halt the spending of the Dims and he rightly saw them (tax increases) as bad on principal to begin with. He knew that every dime he gave back on defense the Dims would just add to entitlements, doing nothing for "deficits", while he also knew his campaign to weaken the Soviets demanded a defense buildup. It was not that he wanted bigger deficits, he did not want to give the Dims more of our money to play with on entitlements, by raising taxes to accomodate them.

Reagan would not be approving the Senate amnesty and non-reform give-aways in their immigration bill. He would find it excessively over "compassionate" to people who came here illegally, while economically, socially and politically excessively taxing to all current citizens, legal residents and current legal immigrants. The "amnesty" would now include 12-20 million as opposed to the 2.5 million in his day, and the new immigration levels in the bill open an immigration floodgate for a 33% increase in the U.S. population in twenty years, by immigration alone. Reagan would also be recognizing the enforcement failures, both currently and in the Senate's proposals, as his intentions for stronger enforcement were part of his demand on a compromise over the amnesty.

Hannity is criticizing spendthrift Republicans, just as Reagan tried to hold back the spending of the Dimorats. Hannity wants any immigration "reform" to include demands and assurances that the type of enforcement that Reagan asked for was actually going to happen.

What Reagan tried to get and what Hannity is criticizing some Republicans for are not inconsistent.

The fact that Reagan did not get the lower deficits he wanted or the execution of tougher immigration enforcement that he thought he obtained the law for does not displace the fact that he wanted them.


357 posted on 01/09/2007 3:59:18 PM PST by Wuli
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 309 | View Replies]

To: taxed2death
It was the Republicans who lost it. They (we) strayed too far into Dumocrat territory. Only time will tell if they (we) actually learned anything. I tend to doubt it.

Absolutely correct. I voted, but to tell the truth, Bush sat on his ass for the last year not bothering to make the conservative pitch or defend himself against the ceaseless attacks against him and the GOP - and considering that he has the bully pulpit and the Dems offered nothing, this last election was a situation that should have been but another rout same as the last election.

358 posted on 01/09/2007 4:22:42 PM PST by Smedley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: soccermom
"Uhhhhhh....no.....it is so-called "conservatives" who voted 3rd party that put Clinton in office. And you don't have ANY liberty if your country is controlled by Islamofascists."

I'm way more concerned about ILLEGAL immigration than some Muslim boogeyman. The Islamofascists aren't crossing our border at the rate of millions per year or packing twenty people in the house across the street. Of course Jorge Bush doesn't have to live next door to El Salvadorans blasting Salsa music from their Toyotas at all hours of the night.

359 posted on 01/09/2007 5:15:29 PM PST by Godebert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 356 | View Replies]

To: Godebert

OH OK --- Islamofascists are "boogeymen". Thanks for clearing that up!


360 posted on 01/09/2007 7:44:39 PM PST by soccermom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 359 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 301-320321-340341-360361-366 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson