Skip to comments.What the “conservative” useful idiots have brought us: Week one.
Posted on 01/08/2007 8:42:14 AM PST by jmaroneps37
click here to read article
I voted for Kean, Jr. The hardest vote I have ever made in my life.
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.
I hear you!
Wait! Here's a photo of a "Democrat Boogeyman" after looking over her large "WALL" of justice
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.
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.
Great vanity post. Detailing all the moonbat things Pelosi & Co. do. Please, keep Freeperville updated.
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.
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.
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."
The liberal Julie-annie won't get my vote under any circumstance.
"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.
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.
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.
OH OK --- Islamofascists are "boogeymen". Thanks for clearing that up!