Posted on 12/07/2009 9:02:46 PM PST by advance_copy
Bite me.
Just because I won't support a RINO doesn't mean I am supporting a Democrat.
I'll take "none of the above." No more RINOs!.
You're a frikin' idiot! Bush let your dumbass keep more of your paycheck. Do you even make a paycheck?
What part of
To: NoLibZone
A RINO is a Republican who either does not abide by the constitution or at a minimum is off the official Republican party platform more than he’s on it.
And, yes, Bush was a RINO. As is Romney, Rudy, McCain, Huckabee, Graham, Snowe, Collins, Arnold and many others.
I supported Bush even though he was a RINO and gave in to Arnold at the last minute, even went with McCain after he gave us Sarah (and ONLY because of Sarah). Never again!
It’s been proven over and over again that the two-faced lying liberal reach around RINO will screw you in the end every time!
That’s what the Tea Party rebellion is all about!
NO MORE BIG GOVERNMENT!! NO MORE SOCIALISTS!! And NO MORE RINOS!!
2,034 posted on Saturday, November 28, 2009 7:45:25 pm by Jim Robinson (Join the TEA Party Rebellion!! God save this great Republic!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2022 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
didn't you get?
Courtesy ping to NoLibZone and JR.
And for reference, the link to the quoted post is:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2395256/posts?page=2034#2034
Nice one. Thanks for that ;-)
Not only do you have the same foreign policy views as the far left, you have same debate tactics as well.
You’re very welcome.
“Bush let your dumbass keep more of your paycheck.”
While spending our great-grandchildren into the poor house.
I’m sure they’ll thank him.
The foreign policy of the "far left" includes nation-building, wars fought under the flag of a proto-one world Government (i.e., the United Nations), and illegal wars, none of which I support and all of which were supported by the Bush administration and many "conservative" Republicans, despite their opposition to similar actions by Clinton in places such as Kosovo (in which the United States allied itself with the Albanian affiliate of bin Laden's al Qaeda).
I support the development and maintenance of strong defensive capabilities on the Federal level, as is proper under the Constitution, including a strong and capable Navy and Air Force, the Coast Guard, the Border Patrol, and a North American missile defense shield. That's it.
No more nation building...at home or abroad. No more entangling foreign alliances. And, if some one does dare to attack us, their prompt destruction using all means available, including a nuclear strike, if necessary.
you have same debate tactics as well.
Your continued ad hominem attacks on my person are signs of non-existent debate tactics on your part.
Furthermore, simultaneously refusing to support either McCain or Obama, under your logic, would imply that one could simultaneously support both McCain and Obama, which is obviously impossible to do. This logical contradiction completely invalidates your implicit argument that I, as a Ron Paul supporter, supported Obama over McCain, and thus have no credibility.
I supported neither; in fact, that you--and I will go out on a limb here--supported McCain yet claim to be a conservative demonstrates that when the going gets tough, you'll pick the easy and "pragmatic" way out by abandoning your fellow conservatives when they need you most. If that sort of action isn't sufficiently damaging to your credibility, then I don't know what is.
The problem with avacado's statement is that it implicitly accepts the notion that the Government has first claim on the fruits of one's labor, above the individual's own claim.
It smacks of arrogance to say that the Government "let" an individual "keep more of [his] paycheck," as if that paycheck was the Government's to begin with. That sort of attitude is distinctly foreign to the American Republic and to the American values of individualism and respect for life, liberty, and property; in fact, it's the same sort of attitude that prevailed in Eastern Bloc societies (according to my dad, who grew up in such a society and finally got out nearly thirty years ago) where all property belonged to the State, and individuals were allowed to "keep" only certain amounts.
No it doesn't. The far left supports a blame-America-first isolationist view. They even run around making upsurd claims like America is engaging in 'illegal wars'. They are no different than those kooks who support Ron Paul's isolationism.
and illegal wars, none of which I support
See. You've made my point.
Then why did the "far left" back Clinton's illegal intervention in Kosovo?
They even run around making upsurd claims like America is engaging in 'illegal wars'.
So are you saying that Kosovo was a lawful war, even though Serbia did not commit any acts of war against the United States and her only transgression was to irritate the globalist United Nations?
Stand up to a few and the rest fall like dominoes.
SoConPubbie, you made me laugh... that was quite good, but here, let me help.
“Well rabscuttle, when you put it that way, you just may have a point... perhaps everything would have been much better had Gore or Kerry had been the president.”
You see, I am a bit more long winded. ;>)
Palin 2012
You trying to say rabs debates the way YOU do? He doesn’t, but neither does he suffer fools lightly. You come on this thread and your first post, you come across like the clymer you are.
When he ran in 2004 I viewed him as the lesser of two evils...and I still see it that way. John Kerry would have been a disaster...so would Al Gore. It would be nice if at some point the republican party stopped running candidates who are the lesser of two evils.
More than perhaps: a Republican congress would NOT have been so willing to give a Prez Goracle or Skerry every little thing he asked for and we’d not now have NCLB or CFA or that prescription drug abomination!
So you think President Bush was a “squish,” huh?
He had incredible balls, awesome resolve. His speech to Congress 9/20/01 was one of the greatest political speeches I have ever heard. The fact that he was able to change direction on the Iraq War, and back the surge when he was taking such heat from the media and all the usual suspects, still awes me. Not since Reagan have we been blessed with that kind of leadership.
History will rank Bush 43 very highly. A great Christian, a great American and a great President.
No they didn't. That's the partisan left. The far left unconditionally opposes all American military intervention abroad. They even claim that our efforts in Iraq are 'illegal'. Aren't you one of those people who agrees with Ron Paul and the far left that our military intervention in Iraq is an 'illegal war'?
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.