Posted on 09/18/2002 12:12:17 PM PDT by Sabertooth
YOU: Judgeships. RINOs will, at the very least, vote for qualified judges.
ME: That's the only reason, and it is why I am still registered GOP
YOU: If that alone isn't a good enough reason for you, then you're either (a) a Democrat shill trying to play-act at sounding like a conservative.
ME: However your A is an out and out lie [I would NEVER vote Democrat, I would vote third party if I left the GOP so your A is a total lie]
YOU: or (b) too stupid to be allowed to vote
ME: And B would be incorrect as some people expect more than just judges. Just because you have low expectations doesn't mean everyone does[some people expect more from a person than who they will choose for judgeship] .
So, their choice to move closer to the center is their prerogative, just as it is the prerogative of the disenchanted far right, to go vote elsewhere.
The problem is that you are describing a direct democracy here. We are supposed to be a Republic, where rights of minorities are protected. By minorities I don't mean only racial or ethnic minorities, but also cobbled together Democratic party majorities. In the classic example all the Christians in the USA can not vote to outlaw Judiasm, because our Constitution prohibits it.
However the evil Communist-influenced Democrats have virtually destroyed the Constitution, through the courts, to the point that ANYTHING the Dems want is Constitutional if a liberal appointed-for-life Dem. judge says it is. FDR started this with his court packing schemes and threats. And every D has continued it to the present day, where Hillary and Schumer shamelessly control the Judiciary committee on stark ideological lines.
More and more you see "majorities of convenience" appropriate for themselves the assetts of "targeted minorities" via either direct state initatives or Dem controlled legislative bodies.
We are rapidly approaching the point where the "takers" have a 51% lock on legislature and the conservatives are abused shamelessly by this majority. As an example look at cigarette taxes. Oregon just raised ours another $1 a pack to balance the budget by popular vote. What is the difference between making cigarettes illegal, which based on the Prohibition example would require a Constitutional Ammendment, and taxing them at a truley prohibitive and absurd level? Nothing, only one is possible to do with a fe corrupt judges and the other is (Ammendment) is probably not.
It is a "spoils" system that, in the long run, will result in catastrophe. Eventually the golden goose (the productive, overtaxed, hated minority that is conservative and votes "R") will either leave or expire from the exhaustion of being bled. Or rise up and smash things.
I'm going with you again this time Jim. If we give them the Senate (they already have the Whitehouse and Congress) and they screw us, we're going to have to change our "let's all vote for the RINO" strategy, especially around here.
God gave us only one life and we can't be wasting our time putting up with pop-socialism.
Sorry, we voluntarily yielded the driver's seat. Getting it back is going to be tough, and too many "conservatives" are allergic to the hard work involved.
It's more like the conservatives have been on extended sulk break since 1992.
Don't you have open primaries in your state? Here anyone can run, just file the papers.
What do you call 1994?
But, in the short term, I'll guarantee you that Bush will appoint much more conservative judges than any Democrat would. And seeing as how Daschle and Co are blocking most of Bush's appointments, I believe they see it that way too.
Vote out the RATS and give Bush a Congress that can out vote, out shout, and out shoot the liberals (from either party).
Send Congress a positive message. Send them an unmistakable conservative mandate! Send it with your vote and also by telegram. Spell it out. Tell your reps what we want them to do when they get up there. Tell them in unmistakable terms that we want them to dump LIBERALISM! Dump high taxes! Dump spending! Dump big government! Dump gun control! Dump Roe vs Wade! Dump the liberal activist judiciary! And tell them that we expect them to start doing their primary jobs: Defend our borders, defend the Constitution and defend our individual rights!
Considering the fact that we have a Republican President and House, do you think the record amount of spending taking place in Congress is incremental for the better?
Nonsense. The most active people I know on this forum and elsewhere are the most conservative. Most of the party people just come here to run their heads.
That's why it's called the "base". Pro-life, pro-gun, anti- government sprawl types are the ones who will go out and actually do things, because they hate what they see and go about trying to change it.
If they're not exited they quit doing things, like breaking down doors in Broward County, like standing out in the freezing cold (Kristinn) chanting "get out of Cheney's house", like running Jesse Jackson out of West Palm Beach.
It's nothing personal, they just lose interest. Ever hear that expression "dance with the ones who brung ya" Turns out it's an anchient Chinese lesson.
"Rewards are necessary in order to make the soldiers see the advantage of beating the enemy; thus, when you capture spoils from the enemy, they must be used as rewards, so that all your men may have a keen desire to fight, each on his own account." Sun Tzu - The Art of War (500 BC)
The liberal's sulk break. That's why they lost.
At least the Dems learned that 90% of success is in showing up, and they've gone back to their usual turnout.
The 1994 elections had SOME increase by conservatives, but we've never recovered from 1992.
So, decreasing or even eliminating competition would bring costs down?
I don't think so. In fact, it would have the exact opposite effect.
"Also, many foreign countries don't recognize our pharmaceutical patents, thereby cutting into the fair profits of our companies."
Now, you want American patent laws enforced in other countries? I thought you were against the whole NWO thing?
"The patent infringement of these countries ought to be considered in future trade agreements."
So, extending the monopoly on a new drug here, while eliminating foreign competition would help bring down the cost of a drug?
What you're saying is that if we give a manufacturer a monopoly to make my heart medication, and eliminate outside competition, they would be so grateful that they would bring the cost down to the end-user?
Riiiiiiight!!!!!
That's what I mean about people who don't dwell in the realm of the real.
"Believing that a new prescription drug entitlement can be kept to a Republican version of fiscal irresponsibility ignores the reality that Democrats will ultimately expand social programs at the first opportunity."
So, they will expand it regardless, and in the meanwhile, they'll play to the rapidly increasing senior citizen population, demonizing the right as calloused, and uncaring.
We lose anyway.
BTW, you keep misisng the point...the people get to chose HOW they're governed.
"Just how high do you want your children's taxes to be?"
Borrowing a few lines from Hillary?
They also said that all men are created equal. Luckily, we've been able to correct that discrepancy over the years.
With the exception of Iraq?
You have to be joking, right?
The fact that you see no signs of the GOP doing that, is more a product of your own bias than anything which has basis in reality.
Well, maybe in your neck of the woods, they bother to show up--they expect to have everything catered to them in Southern CA. (I was considered a VERY ODD person in 1994 and 1996 because I volunteered--most conservatives didn't bother. In 1995, they left Newt and company hanging with no support--they couldn't be bothered to participate in a letter-writing campaign to support Newt during the shutdown.)
That's why it's called the "base". Pro-life, pro-gun, anti- government sprawl types are the ones who will go out and actually do things, because they hate what they see and go about trying to change it.
My experience is that they will do things--so long as it doesn't involve actually showing up on election day, helping others to show up on election day, or doing anything besides sitting around being told how wonderful they are.
They will also do things like back-stab a fiscally conservative candidate because she disagrees with one issue with the self-anointed arbiter of all things conservative. They will then vote just enough to split the vote, most will stay home, and then the GOP finds out that even if they'd gotten all of them, they would have lost 1.6 votes for every conservative one gained.
If they're not exited they quit doing things, like breaking down doors in Broward County, like standing out in the freezing cold (Kristinn) chanting "get out of Cheney's house", like running Jesse Jackson out of West Palm Beach.
They weren't "exited" enough to show up out here in CA, they weren't interested enough to show up in west FL, they didn't care enough to do what was needed to make the whole Florida exercise moot.
It's nothing personal, they just lose interest.
What a way to fight a war. "I'm not happy with how things are going, I quit."
Ever hear that expression "dance with the ones who brung ya" Turns out it's an anchient Chinese lesson.
Yup. Conservatives bolted to Perot, and they've been on the outside ever since. Maybe the conservatives need to learn the truth of that expression.
Being created equal doesn't mean are always equal. When you let people who are slack, dont want to work and will always vote to take other's people money away in a position to vote, what you will get is more socialism.
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.