Bush decries border project

Washington Times ^ | March 24, 2005 | James G. Lakely

[sheana]

thread please if u have it ;)

[StoneColdGOP]

Well I guess we know whose side Bush is on.

[hushpad]

I'll try, here goes:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1369732/posts

If this does not work perhaps you could search by title, it is "Boycott the Republican Party".

[spodefly]

Watch how long it takes for a vigilante drunkard to commit a felonious assault and false imprisonment upon a citizen whose crime is "walking while brown."

I had forgotten how much I missed your "Suzy One Note" race card flinging uber-righteous Meocratic predictability.

Good to see you again, CJ.

[sheana]

thanks

[Stu Cohen]

Really? All enough third party votes do is hand a win to the other team. Remember Perot?

Maybe, but the team who lost to Perot, or any other third party candidate, would have to change their platform to be more in line with that third party candidat to have a shot. No?

They will realize the will of their voter-base, and have to gravitate toward that will. It make take some time, but do you really want another two years of voting "the lessor of two evils"?

A vote for a third party is not a wasted vote. It's a friggin message. And they either get the message, or continue to lose. It won't be easy, you'll have to endure a few adminsitrations of the opposition (which aren't that different, BTW).

But rarely are things worth doing .... easy.

A vote for one of the two major parties, IS a vote wasted, and further erodes the country. It's also intellectually lazy. You get the government you deserve.

[hushpad]

You'll note, there is some in opposition, but they aren't leaving the thread. It takes longer to convince some than it does others.

Like I said, I'll still do my small part. The Republican Party has lost at least $1,000.00 of my dollars, considering past donations.

Several higher donating friends have joined me in this effort locally. If we cant get support on-line, we can use face-to-face - we can still talk to each other, after all.

[jackbenimble]

All enough third party votes do is hand a win to the other team. Remember Perot?

Like President Bush is on our team?

People vote third party exactly because neither of the two main parties are on their team. If I vote third party it will because I don't give a damn if the Republicans win or not because whether they do or not they won't represent me. As far as I can tell the Republicans and the Democrats are both the other team.

[hushpad]

It won't be easy, you'll have to endure a few adminsitrations of the opposition (which aren't that different, BTW).<<<<

True. Unless we can get someone like Tancredo on the Repub ticket. He is interested an active in Border Control issues.

[speed_addiction]

A vote for a third party is not a wasted vote. It's a friggin message.

Four years of Kerry because I wanted to send a message is not something I am willing to risk or pallette. Bush is far from perfect, but beats the hell out of anything the Democrats have been putting up.

[Stu Cohen]

Four years of Kerry because I wanted to send a message is not something I am willing to risk or pallette. Bush is far from perfect, but beats the hell out of anything the Democrats have been putting up.

Well, if you aren't willing to sacrifice, they you will ensure that the system continues as-is in perpetuity. Somewhat cowardly, IMHO ... but do what you think is right.

And if Kerry happened to win, dare I say you would notice very little that is different right now. Maybe a few things here and there, but for the most part - your life would continue as it has for the last 4 years or so.

Let's not go nuts. The two major parties have few practical differences. Currently, we just vote in the people who take the bribes. Elected officials don't make laws. Lobbyists do.

[eskimo]

Well, then maybe we can get a boycott to work.

What would we boycott?

[speed_addiction]

And if Kerry happened to win, dare I say you would notice very little that is different right now. Maybe a few things here and there, but for the most part - your life would continue as it has for the last 4 years or so.

We are being a bit myopic here. While I do not support how Bush is mishandling this issue, I do feel that a Kerry Presidency would have been disasterous.

What would be the state of the War on Terror? What would be the state of the economy with the tax cuts that would have quickly come about under Kerry. The entire Middle East would be in a state of jihad.

I am not willing to toss the baby out with the bathwater over one issue I may disagree with the President on.

[hushpad]

What would we boycott?

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1369732/posts

[hushpad]

sorry, I'll try again:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1369732/posts

[djreece]

Bush: "I'm for enforcing the law in a rational way."

Translation? I will only protect the lives and property of Americans and the sovereignty of the United States when it fits my political agenda.

I'm sickened.

[eskimo]

sorry, I'll try again:

I understand what you are saying. I just don't see any point to boycotting one company of a corporate entity and throwing the business to another company owned by the same corporate entity. Those in control do not give a damn. Seems as though you have to boycott the corporate entity or the monopoly product before anything will change.

[Euro-American Scum]

All enough third party votes do is hand a win to the other team. Remember Perot?

So. . . what are you saying? Open borders are just fine, so long as a Republican president throws the gates open?

[kittymyrib]

So Pres. Bush is for enforcing the immigration laws? You could've fooled me. He's done an even worse job than Bill Clinton and seems oblivious to the invasion of our country. Is there a picture of him kissing Fox's brown butt?

[lodwick]

That's a great idea - thanks.