Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
Login | What's Hot
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons

Comment on: "one eighty"

Suicide Voters

180 Comments
Thursday, April, 12, 2007 2:59 PM Virginia Daddy writes:

Shiela

I tend to agree, though it is a tough call if conservatives are becoming less conservative. Is being the victor in an election always worth the price? That is the question that muct be answered, but be assured, I will always vote for the good guys...
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, April, 12, 2007 3:29 PM Sheila writes:

Virginia Daddy

I think there will always be strong conservatives, and the not so strong. We were accomplishing a lot and could have gotten more conservatives on board but we kicked even the strong conservatives out! Now look where we are...

I believe the only way to advance our cause is to work hard, and win, not give it to the enemy...we're in a precarious situation, and if we don't take things seriously we may lose everything. Only God knows where we're headed, but I pray we still have time to recover from this situation we're in...
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, April, 12, 2007 3:33 PM Sheila writes:

BTW, V Daddy

I appreciate your comments.I know it's a tough one to think through...but we all need to face the potential chaos we could be in if the dems were in complete power. It's not a pretty picture...

Good job on your latest post...I'm heading over.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, April, 12, 2007 4:04 PM BrianR writes:

Sheila, you crack me up!

I mean that in a good way.

As the author of the "other blog" to which you refer (and how come no credit by name? I pay for referrals!), I feel honor-bound to respond.

You: "I have never been one to give the dems the vote by default by not voting for my candidate".

Me neither. The problem is I'm a conservative first and a Rep a distant second. My "candidate" isn't in the race yet. I despise Giuliani and McCrazy just as much as I do Hillary.

You: "terrorists had a plan to destroy our government and our economy, by hitting the WH, the Capitol, the pentagon and major cities in the US"

Again from our discussion on my blog:

"I think you're buying into the hyperbole as far as terrorist capability. There's no nation -- NATION -- on earth that can defeat us, only a couple with the nuclear weapon and delivery technology to have that kind of impact that could truly destroy our infrastructure. The terrs don't fall into that category.

"Don't forget: they hit the Pentagon. Effect on our military capability? Zero, not even for a day. No, they're a non-issue. Even a gnat biting the butt of an elephant has some impact, but the elephant doesn't roll over dead."

I'm sure this discussion will continue, but hey! Don't forget to come by MY blog, for the other side of the coin. And in more depth and detail than the snippets here can convey.

And Sheila, don't feel shy about quoting me by name. I'll take my publicity where I can get it.

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, April, 12, 2007 4:40 PM Sheila writes:

BrianR

Funny, I mentioned that on several blogs, not just yours, but I'll gladly give you credit for your blog! LOL

You say that the terrorists didn't do much damage to the pentagon...of course, it wasn't as bad as it could have been...my point was IF they had accomplished their goal, to hit th WH, the Capitol and the pentagon...it would have been devastating. And if the Dems are in control, and we hand everything over to them, we will certainly encourage more attacks here on our soil, that could be much worse.

I think you are taking the WOT way too lightly...this is a serious matter...look at Iran...what do you think will happen if the dems like Pelosi are in control? They think they can sweet talk people who want to nuke us.

It's a matter of working hard for the conservatives we want and voting for our side, not for the dems by default. If Thompson decides to run, I'll definitely work for him! But I won't vote for the dems by default.


EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, April, 12, 2007 4:42 PM Sheila writes:

And Brian

Let me know if you decide to run! You're my #1 man!:)

Btw, who would be your VP?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, April, 12, 2007 4:54 PM Jimmy Carter writes:

Question:

What's the difference between Rudy(D) and Rudy(R)?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, April, 12, 2007 5:00 PM BrianR writes:

Sheila

In order, I guess. "IF" is the big word you use. First of all, you've named too many targets for the number of planes hijacked. More importantly, "if" I had a million bucks, I wouldn't be sitting here. "If" is almost meaningless.

Even if they had hit the WH, so what? Bush wasn't even there. The Congress? So what? That might even be a good thing. LOL

I don't take the WOT lightly, but I do keep it in perspective as only ONE of the issues we as a nation need to address. Not even the most important, frankly (yeah, yeah, heresy, I'm sure. I can hear it now), IMO.

Franklin on a couple of things. At the end of the Constitutional Convention, when leaving the building, a lady asked Franklin what they had made. "A republic, madam, if you can keep it."

Also Franklin: those who would sacrifice liberty for security shall enjoy neither liberty nor security.


Hmmm.... my VP? Want the job?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, April, 12, 2007 5:01 PM BrianR writes:

Jimmy :-D

If that's a riddle, here's my answer:

Rudy (D) is running in the correct party.

So, what's my prize?

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, April, 12, 2007 5:04 PM davecatbone writes:

Impact

Sheila, I happen to agree with your viewpoint. BrianR may be correct that the physical damage to the infrastructure by an attack may not be insurmountable to survive. But what I'm voting for, is the party that will prevent the loss of one more life than the other. That life would be the one of someone I love. And remember what happened to the airline industry after 9/11? It's still not the same. Only a Republican govt. was able to revive the economy. Next time?
But there's more to say. And that's about the entire issue of what voting is all about. And I'm going to publish a post shortly about that, and why I'll never quit trying to win.
Great Stuff for conversation, thanks.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, April, 12, 2007 5:30 PM Sheila writes:

davecatbone

You said it exactly on the mark. Thanks for that comment. It's a matter of not voting for the party that would be the worst thing for America by default...thanks for that. I will look forward to your post!
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, April, 12, 2007 5:35 PM Sheila writes:

Jimmy :-)

Answer:

Rudy R...pro America

Rudy D...anti-America

Rudy R...commander in chief of military keeping America safe.

Rudy D...can't we all just get along in this global village in chief...

BTW, there are other candidates...it may not be Rudy...LOL
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, April, 12, 2007 5:42 PM Snooper writes:

Emotional pawns

That is what the Leftinistra are comprised of and they have been successful at recruiting fellow emotional pawns in their quest for total dominance of the American political structure.

The Jihadists are using the emotional pawns within both main parties to promote the Jihadist message and the Leftinistra do not or will not see it.

The Leftinistra are a danger to this country and have been for years. They are socialist in nature and so are the Leftinistra. The Jihadists and the Leftinista are birds of a feather.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, April, 12, 2007 5:59 PM davecatbone writes:

Snooper

Good viewpoints, I differ in that I don't believe the Jihadists to be Socialist in nature at all. They are totalitarian fascists, the Leftinistra are failed Socialists who really don't have a grip on reality. Bad news for us.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, April, 12, 2007 6:00 PM Sheila writes:

BrianR

Just lost the post in response to you... will try again...LOL

"If" is a big word when dealing with terror. There are a lot of "if" scenarios we want to avoid, by having a strong Commander in Chief...and there isn't one on the Left.

As far as our slow slouch toward where we don't want to be, I believe it's the D party that has gotten us there, and the only way to gain back territory, is to work through the GOP...though not a perfect party... What chance do you think we have of implementing our conservative agenda,changing the culture, and protecting the country with the DemocRats in charge? LOL

As far as considering the VP slot...if you run for president I might consider it...:)
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, April, 12, 2007 6:06 PM Sheila writes:

Snooper

Not up on the "lefttinistras"...socialists, communists, Marxists I understand, jihadists, I also understand...who are the leftinistras?...sorry:)

As far as I'm concerned the Left is socialist/on the verge of communist with dictator wannabes in the hiarchy.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, April, 12, 2007 6:08 PM Sheila writes:

davecatbone

Your comment to Snooper makes sense...don't know the "leftinistra" term...

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, April, 12, 2007 6:10 PM BrianR writes:

Davecat

Better tell your family to avoid the freeways, then.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, April, 12, 2007 7:53 PM Scatbug writes:

It's a bit early

for me to get heavily invested in this argument. Sheila, in principle I agree with your position. However, I can't say that I would never not vote for a Republican. (Is that sentence a triple negative??) We'll see what happens in '08.

I was struck by the comment above that the WOT should not be the focus of our government, but merely take its place next to other myriad issues facing the nation. The example of 9/11 was used to bolster that argument: So what if the White House and/or Capitol were hit that day? Bush wasn't there, etc... I suppose I should point out that other people were there. Quite a lot of them actually. I'm having a hard time believing that their lives rank lower than a better tax system, or whatever.

And as for Franklin...What happens to liberty when you sacrifice security? In fact, the Consitution was written and adopted in response to a foreign threat. For me that quote is one that sounds profound, but really isn't.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, April, 12, 2007 9:23 PM BrianR writes:

Scatbug, Sheila

Scat, you took my comment out of its proper context. I didn't say their lives weren't important, I said it wouldn't cripple our country. That's a huge difference, wouldn't you agree?

And you're discounting Franklin? Oh. Okay. Your right to do so. I always thought he was pretty wise. But then, that's only my opinion.

However, he meant his quote as precautionary; take it as you will.

_____________________________________

Sheila, I know in our exchanges on both our blogs I keep referring to my essay about a nuke det on our soil, "City of Glass". In order to make it easy for you and others, here's the link directly to that essay:

http://viewfromtheisland.townhall.com/g/9b526fc0-f958-473a-9710-271574232bc7

It's not very long. You should check it out.

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, April, 12, 2007 9:26 PM BrianR writes:

PS

If you do read it, I think you'll see that I reach a very different conclusion from yours as to the result.

I just re-read it myself.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, April, 13, 2007 12:13 AM Jimmy Carter writes:

Hey Brian...

..I just reread it and after rereading the comments I see Sheila has read it already too!
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, April, 13, 2007 12:52 AM BrianR writes:

JimmyC: Huh?

Then how did we reach such different conclusions? I'm not sure I follow.

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, April, 13, 2007 12:58 AM Jimmy Carter writes:

She commented on it...

...back in September after you wrote it (read the comments to "City of Glass).
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, April, 13, 2007 1:15 AM BrianR writes:

Jimmy - Okay, got it

I thought you meant here, not there.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, April, 13, 2007 2:43 AM Sanity102 writes:

We'll find out in the next 6 years

if there really is no difference between the Democrats and the not quite conservative enough GOPs.

Maybe the absolutists are right. Maybe we won't lose any of those great tax cuts that created the best economy in near 4 decades. Maybe Queen Hill won't stack the aging courts with judges who will find the right to gay marriage in the constitution or a state's right to ban guns. Maybe the Islamics won't use another plane to attack us--or Fed Ex the elements of a dirty bomb so that some terrorist cell can take out downtown L.A.

Who knows?

Except.

One sure thing.

No funding for a wall and zip border control.

And the ONLY ones that benefits is the Liberals.



EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, April, 13, 2007 8:45 AM Virginia Daddy writes:

The choice

Is not easy, sure. But as long as we focus on solid conservative ideals, all should take of itself.

But we need to be aware of the consequences of voting folks in our party who move too far to the left just because they are in our party.

I think most here realize that, but the scary part is that most in the country do not.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, April, 13, 2007 9:03 AM Scatbug writes:

BrianR

Your context was completely understood. I just found it poorly thought out and not very well expressed.

I wasn't aware that pronouncements from Franklin were infallible, even when they don't make sense. Yes, it is a precaution. So is the reverse. Perhaps if the quote was transcribed accurately I'd see your point:

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

Yep...hard to argue with that. But then again, since historical research cannot attribute this quote to Franklin, perhaps the issue is moot. (Maybe it was written by the same guy who gave us, "Dissent is the highest form of patriotism.")
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, April, 13, 2007 2:32 PM Jimmy Carter writes:

That's it.

"But we need to be aware of the consequences of voting folks in our party who move too far to the left just because they are in our party."

Just because someone has an (R) next to their name does not mean: security, tax cuts, judges who interpret the Constitution, controlled borders, etc... Rudy was used as an example, but the answer is he's still the same person. His stance does not change because of party affiliation.

President Bush has an (R) next to his name and We almost got Miers on the court and still have a southern border issue to name two.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, April, 13, 2007 8:31 PM Peppermint writes:

Sheila

All I have had to do is witness the last several months of the dims in control of Congress and that tells me all I need to know. I don't need to quote some guys from the past.

With the dims in control, already they are proposing the largest tax bill in history. That surely will ruin the economy. All of the Bush tax cuts down the drain. The roaring economy screeching to a halt.

There absolutely will be NO conservative judges with a dim POTUS.

The gamble one takes in allowing the dims to take control is too high for me.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, April, 13, 2007 8:41 PM Peppermint writes:

Sheila

Today at work, one of the women I ate lunch with started talking politics. I stayed quiet, because at work politics can be a bundle of TNT. Anyway, this woman says to me, "I've been a registered democrat all my life, but with what they have been doing lately, I am going to become an independent".

She said they are making her very unhappy.

My reply was that my one concern was that, if nothing else, I want our troops to get the support they need. She shook her head adamantly and said yes, by all means.

So, this is only one person, but I found it interesting that she, for the first time in her life, is now very unhappy with democrats and doesn't want to be one any longer.

Common sense goes a long way.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, April, 13, 2007 9:42 PM davecatbone writes:

Peppermint

It's totally possible the Dems will blow it. They can't hide who they are forever. And people will notice when they start to go over the edge. Pelosi to Syria. Reid defunding the troops. Radicals like Sharpton attacking free speech. Al Gore's ideas slowing becoming debunked. 2008 is no slam dunk for the Dems, but if they can divide and suppress the GOP base, they've got a chance.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, April, 13, 2007 10:19 PM Peppermint writes:

davecatbone

Yes, the dems are imploding on a daily basis.
I, for one cannot tolerate a Hillary, a true socialist in every meaning of the word, or an Obama who doesn't seem to have a clue.

I cannot be an absolutist when it comes to this.
No dem for me. Not pulling that lever is a vote for a dem and I know exactly where that will lead.
Even if there may be a rhino for a candidate, I have yet to see a rhino do as many destructive things as the dems.

Now, I am well aware that the repubs have not been doing their job Constitutionally on the borders and I fight that every week religiously by faxing my reps.

But, I will never vote or allow a dem who can once again control the choices for SOTUS. To me that is where so many of our problems have developed over the last 35 years.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, April, 13, 2007 10:20 PM Snooper writes:

Leftinistra Definition

I have been asked to define what a Leftinistra is.

I have "battled" the Sandinistas in Central America. They were the communist rebels that were trying to take over down there.

The Leftinistra are the Armies of the Socialist Liberals in the United States. They have taken over the Democratic Party entirely and are working on the Republican Party as we live and breath.

I have a post at my place called The List of 45. You go there or google it. You will see what I mean.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, April, 13, 2007 10:33 PM Peppermint writes:

Snooper

I'll be over to take a look in a little while.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, April, 14, 2007 12:25 AM jevica writes:

I have been over

and over this in my blog and in comments that I write.

Yes some may feel that the Republican pick is not "pure" enough, not good enough on immigration, etc., if we let the Dems take the White House by default, and they keep Congress [esp the Senate] forget conservative judges, and any part of the conservative agenda.

Just look at what is going on with the Dems in Congress, if you want total liberal control [and then complaining about how they are messing things up] don't pull the Republican lever for President.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, April, 14, 2007 8:11 AM Peppermint writes:

jevica

I totally agree with you. Those who stayed away from the 06 election have no right to bit*ch as far as I am concerned. They allowed this liberal dimocrap congress to take over. Now they want to complain.
Well, you got what you asked for. They either go vote or don't complain.

I get mad as he11 hearing these complaints when certain individuals thought they were punishing the repubs. The only ones who get punished are us.
Now, we have to live with this fiasco of liberal control and a congress who "thinks" the majority told them they "want" what they are doing. Not voting and letting them get their way (the libs) was a huge mistake in my opinion.

Not one single dim pol got the so called msg that the right wing thought they were sending. To me it was outright stupid.

I, for one, will not vote for a dim and I sure as he11 am not going to sit out the election because there is no pure candidate.

At least the Republican congress was fighting to keep the illegals out of our country. Now, we don't have a majority to fight for even that.

I also stated in my post above about the conservative judges. With the dims in control we can kiss that off. And, supreme court judges last for a life time. How anyone can miss that little nugget is beyond me. The SOTUS has been a big bugaboo for us on the right for over 35 years. WE don't need another liberal judge on that court. With the dims in control that is sure to happen.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, April, 14, 2007 10:28 AM BrianR writes:

JimmyC, Scatbug

We seem to be bailing against the tide here.

__________________________

Scat: Thanks for correcting the quote accurately. Simply proves my point, IMO. But people will take from it what they want. The wisdom is persuasive, I think, but hey; of course you can discount it. People discount all kinds of things, including even the Bible.

But I also included the "if you can keep it" quote for a reason; that one is much more dire. And applicable today.



EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, April, 14, 2007 10:30 AM BrianR writes:

Jev: LOL

If you pull a lever that says "Giuliani", rest assured you're not pulling a Republican lever.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, April, 14, 2007 12:10 PM davecatbone writes:

BrianR

Giuliani has not been crowned yet. I'd love to vote for someone else. And if a third party was strong enough to garner enough votes from BOTH parties, and the candidate was more in tune with my beliefs, I'd seriously consider it. I think it's still a ways out to think Rudy's going to be the guy.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, April, 14, 2007 12:14 PM Sheila writes:

Hey guys!

Looks like there's quite a discussion going on here...thanks for all the comments!

I had a little emergency, and couldn't be online.

Looks like the subject has created a stir, and
I'll try to respond to each comment as I catch up on the conversation.

Great to hear from all of you!:)
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, April, 14, 2007 1:07 PM Sheila writes:

Scatbug

Thanks for stopping by...you are right it's early in the game, and much can happen. We may wind up having a perfect candidate, and that would be exciting.

Fred Thompson, even with the cancer announcement, could get an overwhelming landslide, and his VP pick would be interesting also. However, as seems to be the consensus, from a quick glance of the comments, voting for a dem by default isn't the way to go...

Also, 9-11 was a serious matter, and should be taken as such...it was not an insignificant matter in my mind.

As to the quote you mention,I agree with you.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, April, 14, 2007 1:14 PM Sheila writes:

Sanity 102

In my mind there is no question about the difference...it's night and day.

I think from what's been happening since the election, it's clear as a bell...:)
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, April, 14, 2007 1:16 PM Sheila writes:

BrianR

I'll get over to your place and read that again, though from Jimmy's comment seems I did.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, April, 14, 2007 1:26 PM Sheila writes:

V Daddy

I know what you're saying. We need to work to get more conservatives! My point is that there are NO qualities I would vote for in a dem and the only way we can work to get anything done is with the majority GOP, and the president as well. We see what we're getting without that now, and it won't get better with the dems in power. They are going to push the envelope and go as far left as they can while they are in power...uhg.

A lot can happen before the election...and we will have plenty of reasons to pull the lever for our side, along with other sane dems and independents...

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, April, 14, 2007 1:40 PM Sheila writes:

Hey Jimmy!

With a majority and the president it would be a tad different than having the dems in total control! Notice what's happening right now? :)
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, April, 14, 2007 1:56 PM Jimmy Carter writes:

Who was the majority...

....from '01 to '06?

Rudy was a bad example. I should have asked,"What's the difference between John Doe (R) and John Doe (D)? It's still the same person with the same positions.

My point is Our parties are becoming so indistiguishable that they are almost one in the same. So, instead of looking just at that (R) look at the candidate's position and history.

By the way, two minor points:
1) I have never stated I would not vote.
2) I don't believe I (or many others) would commit "suicide" after the elections if Our candidate of choice did not run and win thus encouraging staying home.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, April, 14, 2007 2:56 PM Peppermint writes:

Sheila

One thing is for certain, with the dims in control we are not going to get anything we want. Nada, zilch. Why do so many people want the country turned over completely to the socialist party? I don't get it. Principle in this matter only gets us deeper socialism.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, April, 14, 2007 5:16 PM jevica writes:

BrianR and anyone else

I guess you would rather pull a lever marked Clinton or Obama or some other liberal socialist Democrat? Or let them get elected by default?

With Rudy we might get a chance to sit at the table but with the Dems we will not get in the door.

As I have commented before get out and work for your candidate but vote for tne nominee.

Sit this one out then don't start complaining when the Dems really F--k up things.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, April, 14, 2007 5:18 PM Sanity102 writes:

Jimmy Carter

If you see no difference between the parties, then the latest pork heavy bill was just business as usual, right? And when they take away the tax cuts that fueled this economy...again no difference. Or how about when they find the right to gay marriages or ban guns in the constitution? Or when they cut and run and go back to the policy of appeasement and kissing the butt of Europe?

Oh well, at least now when you complain about the government, you'll be partially attacking the opposite side.

And just think, in less than two years, you'll actually be bashing a president that won't make you appear disloyal.

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, April, 14, 2007 5:34 PM Sheila writes:

Hey Pep

Had to run out, but wanted to respond to your comment about the lady at work...sounds like some on the left (sane dems) that I mentioned earlier are still potential for seeing the light! Now that's a good thing!
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, April, 14, 2007 5:42 PM Sheila writes:

Jevic

I'm with you totally, and my point is always what on earth can we accomplish if we are excluded from the political process! the dems aren't about to do anything we want, as you say!

They will attempt to reverse everything we accomplished in the few short years we were the majority!

My point before the last election, when we were going through this discussion before all our guys got thrown out, (the good with the bad) when we were in the middle of getting things done(though not as fast as I would have liked in some cases)we gave it all up! We "threw the baby out with the bath water", and now we're heading in the wrong direction again! It drives me nuts how we think we have to have everyhting now, rather than having a long range plan that is doable!
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, April, 14, 2007 5:44 PM Pasadena Phil writes:

Ok, what's with all the pessimism?

Conservatives are going to win in 2008. If you doubt it, read my blog. (Better go there soon though. BrianR is suing me for stealing his material and I don't know if they allow blogging at Pelican Bay). Conservatives account for 30% of registered voters, Republicans are down to 28% (and sinking) of which only about 14-15% are non-conservative while the GOP continues to insult us. Conservatives are bigger than either the Reps or Dems. With GOTV so critical and both parties shrinking, a conservative 3rd party candidate could actually win. Conservatives and those who "lean conservative" account for more than half of all voters. Much bigger base to start with than either of the liberal major parties.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, April, 14, 2007 5:46 PM Sheila writes:

Sorry Jevica

I was writing so fast I missed the "a"...
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, April, 14, 2007 6:13 PM Sheila writes:

Jimmy :-)

I know what you're saying...(here comes the but)BUT...I think our party has done a great job in most areas! I don't agree that the parties are becoming indistinguishable...some members may be lefties, but that's why we need time to get rid of them, and continue to build on the base of the good ones! How can we get all we want, if we let ourselves get impatient because we can't have our every issue immediately? Politics doesn't work like that...

We have to stay focused on what we want until we get it through our party, not let the dems destroy the country and then hope we can recover...in this day and age, that is a perilous decision to make...

and btw...if the candidate you picked didn't win the nomination, not voting for the nominee is voting for a dem by default, to me. I couldn't do that. I still think we've got the best chance for a better America with our guys.:)
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, April, 14, 2007 6:21 PM Sheila writes:

Pasadena Phil

Our chances are looking good to a degree, based on the nightmare we now have in the majority, if we can survive that long...but I disagree with your assessment of the parties. An interesting thought, though...

A lot can happen between now and the elections, so almost anything is possible!

I'll check out your blog after I visit around townhall to previous commentors...haven't had time!

Thanks for checking in...

BTW,Brian is suing?????
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, April, 14, 2007 6:44 PM jevica writes:

just left a comment

at Pasadena Phil's blog on the post "The New GOP's 'Hole To Deep' (updated)" on why a third party candidate being elected [president] is not a good idea.

His idea may sound good being conservative but I don't think it will, or should fly
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, April, 14, 2007 7:02 PM Pasadena Phil writes:

jevica: just left a response

Think it through. Conservatives are already abandoning the GOP which means they are headed for a landslide defeat. We are not heading to a 3-party system. The GOP is putting itself out of business. Conservatives are a majority in the GOP and all we get is a kick in the teeth. So we are leaving. There IS no GOP without us. Representing the 14-15% of the registered voters is a minor party. The ideas people, people who vote in droves, are leaving. Don't forget to turn off the light if you are the last one to leave.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, April, 14, 2007 7:18 PM Jimmy Carter writes:

Alright Sanity....

...I'll address you here:

I didn't state that I don't see a difference between the parties, I stated "becoming."

I, for one, have not surrendered my individualism to a political party or any group mentality for that matter.

If you are a party loyalist, would you vote for Lincoln Chafee(R) over Zell Miller(D) for President?

"And just think, in less than two years, you'll actually be bashing a president that won't make you appear disloyal."

You appear to see statements that just are not there. I have never "bash[ed]" President Bush and I am probably one of a handfull that refers to President Bush as President Bush and not just his surname. My love, respect, and admiration for him and his family runs deeper than you can imagine. Now, clinton, klinton, klintoon, al-Gore, al bore, jimmy karter, jimmah cahtah is another story.

This is The United States of America. We are the Beacon of Liberty for billions around the entire planet. America goes so goes the world. I am not a pessimist. The fact that y'all are acting as tho the world would end after the next election tells me the size of the government has surpassed what was originally intended.

Take a moment and think about the trials and tribulations America has gone through in Her short time. Practically some in every generation thought it was the end and yet here We are.

I'm an optimist because I believe Our Creator is an Optimist. Our Nation has routinely corrected Herself since Her birth and will always. If you need reminding of it, check into some of the websites of Our Mighty Armed Forces and the millions Who join and re-enlist.

"Rejoice!"

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, April, 14, 2007 8:02 PM Sanity102 writes:

JC

Most of my comments take more time than I've got so I tend to shorten things like JC for Jimmy Carter and Bush/Nan/Queen Hil/Obama/Newt...WOT...WH...I'm sure you get it.

And "respect" doesn't necessarily have anything to do with how one addresses someone. If I met the real Jimmy Carter, I would address him as "President Carter" because I have respect for the office he once held, but I loathe the man I ceased to have any respect for the day he turned to his 9 year old daughter for counsel on what to do with our men being held hostage.

As for keeping one's "individuality"...that depends on whether or not an individual has a tendency to do stupid things, doesn't it? If you are constantly making foolish errors, it may be prudent to learn from not just your own mistakes but others. This cannot happen if you are closed to any but your own wisdom.

But you were talking about being an Independent in politics...which I am, so no, I wouldn't vote for Chaffee over Miller...I'm not even sure I'd vote for Miller.

Ok, so to make YOURSELF perfectly clear, do you believe that a Democrat run Congress AND White House would be no different than one run and occupied by the GOP.

No subtitles: "Conservative", "RINO", "Liberal",
"Hard Right", "Absolutist", "Hard Left",
"Moderate Right/Left"...just DEMOCRAT OR REPUBLICAN.

CHOOSE.

Because THOSE ARE THE ONLY CHOICES YOU GET JC.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, April, 14, 2007 8:10 PM Sheila writes:

Sorry Pasadena Phyl, also Jevica

By "anything could happen", I didn't mean a third party candidate could win...sorry...if there were a conservative that's that attractive, he would run as a Repub, and win. I'm just not into the idea of a third party...

Jevica, I haven't gone to PasPhyl's yet, I'll go over there and see what's going on. Thanks for that heads up.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, April, 14, 2007 8:17 PM Sanity102 writes:

Jevica

One way to find out if Pas Phil is correct or the political gurus (Morris and Rove) who maintain that there are only 20% GOP, 20% Dems, 3% Hard Liners (Left or Right and 3rd party wannabes) and the rest (near 60%) are Independents...

Is for his "Conservatives" to go out and form their own party and leave the GOP alone.

Of course if his math is correct, his 30% STILL doesn't make up a majority and would split the vote on the Right, leaving the Dems to take it all...but that's not what he had in mind right? .
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, April, 14, 2007 8:34 PM Sanity102 writes:

Word games

Alot of things "sound" good to the Conservative...such as "standing on principles"...except if those principles may cost you the ability to feed your family--then you swallow your "principles" and don't engage in political talk at work or with a Liberal boss.

The amazing thing is that "Conservatives" don't seem to recognize the "stench of Liberal word manipulation". Liberals are masters of the word game aka "pro-choice" instead of "pro-abortion" and "I didn't inhale" instead of "I was an idiot kid".

Every time someone calling himself a conservative tries to minimize the WOT, to push an issue that hasn't produced at the polls or a 3rd party split...ask yourself just WHO benefits from any of these actions?

If the answer is Democrats, then ask yourself one more question...why is this "conservative" pushing an agenda that will benefit Liberals?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, April, 14, 2007 9:05 PM Jimmy Carter writes:

Sanity..

My explanation to how I refer to President Bush was a defense because you claimed I "bash" him. Now, the opening to your reply makes me think you inferred something I did not imply, namely how you address people, which I did not.

"And 'respect' doesn't necessarily have anything to do with how one addresses someone." Yes, it does I would be happy to give examples if need be: I'll begin with Imus (hahahaha). And We could All give great carter examples. Although, I could disrespect any President without disrespecting the Office. No man is greater than the Office.

Also, one could keep one's individuality no matter how stupid they are for how ever long they want. It may not be prudent, but it's freedom.

"But you were talking about being an Independent in politics.." Show me where and I'll eat my words. I have never, as far as I can remember, stated anything about being an Independent. I know We read a lot comments here and can get some of Us confused with one another, but could you be inferring something again?

I will make myself perfectly clear: the GOP is closer to my political ideals. Which also means they disappoint me the most. I know what We get with the dems, but We are routinely overpromised and underdelivered with the GOP.

Now, answer please answer my question. Who would you vote for: Adolf Hitler(R) or Santa Claus(D)?

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, April, 14, 2007 9:49 PM Sanity102 writes:

JC

I am NOT a Republican or a Conservative. I am an Independent. So the answer is AGAIN, NO.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, April, 14, 2007 9:50 PM Sanity102 writes:

I have to go but I'll be back to explain

further...no I would not vote for Hilter OR Santa Claus and no I would not vote for Chaffee or whatever. Being an Independent allows me to do that.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, April, 15, 2007 12:24 AM Peppermint writes:

Sheila

I have chapter 13 of my diary posted tonight. Come on over when you get the chance.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, April, 15, 2007 1:35 AM BrianR writes:

Jev

You wrote: "With Rudy we might get a chance to sit at the table but with the Dems we will not get in the door."

Sit at the table? Is that what you're willing to settle for?

Pathetic.

How about setting the frigging agenda?!?


EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, April, 15, 2007 1:43 AM BrianR writes:

JimmyC, a caveat and an LOL

Do not waste your time with (In)Sanity102.

He/She has all of three, count 'em, three talking points. You, like me when I made the same mistake you are in the midst of, can go from being an "inflexible absolutist" to a "liberal plant", all in about a day or two.

I think (In)Sanity 102 is actually some kid in a class like PoliSci 102 -- hence the "102" handle -- and logs in here from time to time to fill class credit.

Believe me, Jimmy, you've got much better things to do with your time and intellect.

This is a total waste of time. Makes "Phylo out" look rational.

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, April, 15, 2007 1:56 AM BrianR writes:

Sheila, I'm taking the liberty

of posting here a comment you made on my blog, and my response:

You to Pepp and me: "Pep, Brian
Finally made it back...haven't had a chance to repond...

"Pep, I agree, I will not be a suicide voter. I will not vote for a democrat by default...Brian, I don't trust Hillarious, Obama Hussein, the Breck Girl, or any dem as far as I can throw THEM...our guys can be trusted on the war like Pep said, and they can be persuaded by a strong conservative majority.LOL"

And my response here, as well as there: "Sheila. *sigh*
"Suicide voter"

Hmmmm......

Let me see, which do I like better? "Suicide voter"? "Absolutist"? "Liberal plant"?

I suppose next I'll be accused of being an agent for Al-Qaieda. Or even worse, a Democrat "operative".

________________________

God! I really have to laugh at the names, philosophies, motives, ideologies, and every other thing under the Sun that's been ascribed to me.


How about THIS one: "principled conservative consturctionist"?

____________________________

Naaaaah!

Too simple.

_________________________________-
_________________________________

The one other thing you said of note, Sheila, and I quote: "our guys can be trusted on the war"

Which cuts to the crux: What in the world makes you think Giuliani is one of "our guys"?"

_______________________


Yeah, I think that kinda sums it up.




Your turn!







EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, April, 15, 2007 2:34 AM Sheila writes:

Hey Brian

Glad you stopped by...hey, I can only speak for myself, and I just think you're wrong. I don't subscribe to any other idea about you, but others have the right to inquire... you and I are having an exchange of ideas here, that's all. We simply don't agree. I guess we'll see who wins this debate in 08. I don't want to do the dems job for them,though.

I don't see any evidence that any of our candidates would cut and run from the war, and put our national security at risk.

We won't be able to accomplish anything if the dems are in power except go down the tubes in every aspect of our national life.

I believe the best thing for our country is for us to unite and vote the dems out or lose big time.

I will work hard to get conservatives elected, and a conservative in the White House, but I simply can't in good conscience vote for a dem by default if my candidate isn't the nominee. Sorry Brian. I just don't see it the way you do. A divided party doesn't aid the country, only the dems.

All of our candidates are far superior to any on the Left.

I still say the GOP is the best hope for America, and I won't be a suicide voter.LOL
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, April, 15, 2007 2:41 AM Sheila writes:

Pep

I'll be over to check it out.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, April, 15, 2007 2:45 AM BrianR writes:

Sheila, lemme ask you this

Do you really think Hillary would "cut and run" from the war?

The first woman Prez, who would have battled her way to the top of her party, then to the top job in the country, who also prides herself on being ballsy?

Do you really think she would cut and run, so that when something horrible happened history could look back on her Presidency as being the one where a clear line could be drawn beyond which America became some Third-World banana republic.

Do you REALLY believe she would allow that to happen? To allow herself to become the President who led our country to defeat in the history books?

If so, you've lost all rational perspective.



EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, April, 15, 2007 2:48 AM Sheila writes:

Jimmy

Don't listen to Brian...I'm enjoying reading you and Sanity!:)I can tell you guys are having some fun...

Lighten up Brian!:)
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, April, 15, 2007 2:57 AM Sheila writes:

Brian

As soon as Hillarious places her hand on the Bible to take her presidential oath, she will be plotting how to be loved by her "soul mates" in the Marxist base of the dem party, are you kidding? She'll cut and run for sure. She has no alliegience to the forces, she, like her husband loathes them!

And she thinks she is far smarter than anyone on the face of the earth so she will believe whatever she does is "annointed". She is the ultimate elite, and believe me, she will not be a nice person when she doesn't get her way...:)
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, April, 15, 2007 2:58 AM BrianR writes:

Think about what I just wrote

You're so busy demonizing Dems and Clinton -- and God knows I despise both Clintons -- that you have lost any semblance of rationality. You are NO different than the Dems who demonize our side of the aisle, or the people on our side of the aisle who demonize conservatives as "absolutists" or whatever.

It's all a matter of degree.

So, in order to win at any cost, you're willing to do the sanme thing for RINO Rudy that the Dems did for Clinton in his first election, overlook all his flaws, including: character defects, lying about his record, misrepresenting his views, a sordid personal life and the moral paucity it indicates, major policy flip-flops, and on and on and on.

So don't talk to me about "suicide voters" and include me in that category. As far as this country is concerned, you've described yourselves.

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, April, 15, 2007 3:00 AM BrianR writes:

No, Sheila, I won't "lighten up"

.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, April, 15, 2007 3:29 AM Sanity102 writes:

ok , I'd better not lose my reply

this time...geez, I spent an hour (ok, between doing things for my family)on a reply and clicked and it couldn't "find" the site...(scream)

Ok JC, where were we?

"I know what We get with the dems, but We are routinely overpromised and underdelivered with the GOP."

But if you don't consider yourself a Republican, how can you be "overpromised and underdelivered with the GOP?" That's like not buying a Microsoft processor but being upset and disappointed with Microsoft for not delivering on Apple or Linux products.

Perhaps that is the difference between us, I don't complain about a product I haven't bought. I choose to support the GOP because it is the only VIABLE party that is serious about the WOT and will at least give my other issues some consideration. To split the vote and allow the Dems and their appeasement policy to retain Congress and take the WH, in these very serious times is to me, highly irresponsible and idiotic.

Besides, why on earth would anyone want to continue to frustrate themselves by holding Bush and the GOP to a standard not even Reagan and Newt's Congress lived up to? (Remember? Each blamed their failure to cut spending, cut government programs, solve the illegal immigration issue etc. on a Democratic Congress or a Democratic president). What possible purpose does it serve but to give aid and comfort to the Dems?

As for choosing between Hitler (is that what you think of Romney, Rudy, and McCain) and Santa Claus (Obama?)...actually, I haven't decided who I am supporting in the primary but in the General, I will vote for whomever is the strongest in the WOT. And no that's not necessarily the one claiming to be a Republican...Ron Paul comes to mind...

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, April, 15, 2007 3:45 AM Sanity102 writes:

JC is free to ignore me

as I am free (and choose to) ignore those that care more about their interest than America's.

And Sheila is free to not invite me again (she DID invite me btw) to comment on her blog.

Absolutely...I'm not into telling people what to do with their time or if they should or not waste it. Censorship and control seems to be a Liberal forte--and I'm an Independent.

As for some people being offended at being suspected of being a Liberal...well, I HAVE noticed that Conservatives aren't that touchy.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, April, 15, 2007 3:50 AM Sheila writes:

Brian

Demonizing Clinton...no, I think she will do what her base wants!

And sorry, I think my "suicide voter" describes perfectly the point I'm trying to make...

And about the "lighten up" comment...I was teasing you.:)
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, April, 15, 2007 3:55 AM Sheila writes:

Sanity

I'm enjoying this...it's fun!
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, April, 15, 2007 5:04 AM Sheila writes:

And Brian,

You said "you're so busy demonizing the dems and Clintons"...I could say the same about you, but you're demonizing the Republican party!

It's all a matter of degree, after all...

You say I want to win at any cost, I disagree, you are willing to lose no matter the cost...

As far as Giuliani, he's way better than any of the dems who are running.

But if I had my preference, it would be Thompson, anyway...let's not get ahead of ourselves here...Thompson is garnering a lot of interest.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, April, 15, 2007 5:13 AM ch47 jockey writes:

As far as primaries

Fred Thompson has my support, followed by Hunter/Tancredo/Newt but, if after the primaries happen and we have canidate Rudy/Rommney/Mcain I might start looking at a 3rd party alternative, depending on what values they hold. Perot showed it was possible to make a run on a non -R/D ticket and garner votes, however if there isn't an alternative to the two parties the R will get my vote, unless the D could field Zell Miller.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, April, 15, 2007 6:05 AM jevica writes:

BrianR

If you sit it out because the right person is not nominated, who sets the agenda?

Or he's not good enough, not conservative enough then as you say "How about setting the frigging agenda?!?" How can we do that if a Democrat liberal is elected?

You want to set the agenda then you have to get elected first.

If you [we, us] don't get someone elected then they [liberals, leftists, Democrats] will set the "frigging agenda" or has that not occurred to you.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, April, 15, 2007 6:41 AM Sanity102 writes:

Hey Sheila...

(that sounds like it should be a song) what happened to your sister? She hasn't replied to those who've written in her blog in a while--and she's usually quite good at acknowledging people who "stop by".
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, April, 15, 2007 10:01 AM Peppermint writes:

Hillary

Hillary will not worry about legacy because the libs always rewrite history anyway. Look at Bill, he did nothing basically about terrorism and the people still look at him and swoon. He has rewritten history for himself, had Sandy Burglar steal docs to cover up. Besides the dems are setting the agenda now and some deadline will be enforced to get the troops out before they take over in 2009. They have completely capitulated to their base, the far left. And, if you go by the so called polling 70% of America wants the troops out now anyway.

Carter got the Iran problem started, but how many people know it or even care. And, those on the left still think he is great stuff.

The MSM sets the agenda for the libs and gives them cover all the time. They don't have to worry about legacy.

With Hillary or BO the agenda will be set by the dems and we will have no say whatsoever. The new dem who is our senator never replies to any letters and emails I send him. I did not vote for this schmuck but now I've got this man who doesn't give a rats azz what a conservative thinks. He has his own agenda voted in by libs and upset repubs. Great! Now we cons in my state have to watch him go against everything we believe in because he doesn't care about us, we were not the ones who voted him in and he knows it. This schmuck is for open borders, amnesty, abortion, all the things cons hate, but he cares less. We are not his constituency.

Meahwhile I have a repub rep who listens to me, writes me back, and stays solid on cons. issues.

So am I to think that having a liberal in the WH is going to help our agenda. NO.

The conservative movement is going to be put back by years and years if Hill or BO become POTUS.
If another liberal judge gets put on the SOTUS that means probably another 30,40, 50 years of liberals getting what they want through the courts as they have done for the past 35. So now we have Roe vs.Wade that we cannot get rid of because of liberal activist judges. Recovery?
Nada. Right now the SOTUS has 4 con judges and 5 libs. When one of the libs goes, we need to get another con on the SOTUS. This is never going to happen under a Hillary or BO. There won't be any chance in hell of ever turning back Roe vs Wade in our lifetimes then.

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, April, 15, 2007 1:59 PM anti-socialist writes:

Wish I could agree..

The marxists that have taken over the Democrat party have infiltrated the Republican party. The GOP is made up of RINOs such as Rudi who will take us down quicker than Nikita Khrushchev's "promise" would have us believe.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, April, 15, 2007 2:05 PM Sheila writes:

ch47 jockey

Interesting comments...the prob with the 3rd party thing is it just splits the repub vote. The odds of a win are nill.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, April, 15, 2007 2:14 PM Sheila writes:

Jevica

Without the majority and the WH we can do nothing...

if enough sane dems are unhappy with their party we may see another landslide in our favor in 08, after two years of the Pelosi nightmare...

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, April, 15, 2007 2:18 PM Sheila writes:

Sanity

She has been busy and hasn't had a chance to respond...but will be back when things slow down. Hopefully today she can catch up!
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, April, 15, 2007 2:27 PM Sheila writes:

Pep

EXACTLY!

I simply don't understand why that isn't a major motivator for our side to get in gear and unite and work for victory...

it seems the dems have managed to divide and conquer...

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, April, 15, 2007 2:29 PM Pasadena Phil writes:

Absolutist purist con checking in

Sorry to leave you surrounded and by yourself BrianR! LOL. There's a good discussion going on at Ken Connor's column defending amnesty:

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/KenConnor/2007
/04/15/take_two_a_second_try_at_immigration_reform?page=full&comments=true#7a90702d-934b-44d5-bb12-317180bf93a2

and I couldn't tear myself away. And thanks Sheila and Jevica for dropping by my blog but
I really don't think the two of you are getting my point. Either you are a conservative or you are not. You can't be partly pregnant.

We conservatives are an unofficial party unto ourselves. It is how we sway elections. The so-called "two-party" system is a sham that is kept in place by squishy people who are willing to "compromise" their issues for the sake of the party. Both major parties are currently pushing for the same globalist, one-world agenda. It is documented in plain view for all to see in their party platforms and it is supported by the same money. If everybody can step back, drop the personality cult talk, and not be afraid to see what you see (as Reagan used to say), what other conclusion can you make? The sensible people, conservatives and other, are abandoning BOTH divisions of the liberal globalist one-world party, or the GVP (Global Village Party). The money is gravitating to the Dems right now because it really looks like the GOP is digging itself in a hole so deep that it will not be able to win. It's the same money financing both parties. The question for "the money" is how do you get behind someone who can actually govern in 2008 and deliver on "the deal"? The way it is going, no one will be able to govern.

McCain is almost done already and so will likely run independent and will probably collect a Perot-sized vote to the detriment of the GOP unless the conservatives run an independent conservative of their own. THAT conservative, maybe Duncan Hunter and his CA voters, would completely undermine any hope of an effective Dem/GOP win. It is very likely that someone will win with less than 38% of the vote. An independenct conservative could concievably win in that scenario. Even if he lost, whoever wins cannot foist the globalist agenda on a Congress that is almost certainly going to be even more conservative than it is now. So BrianR, don't sit it out. Don't be afraid to vote conservative, even if it means not voting "R".

Everyone else, just remember: us conservatives are going to win in 2008 even if the Republicans lose.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, April, 15, 2007 2:45 PM Sanity102 writes:

Peppermint

Good Lord Lady, you do have a way with words eh...BO for Obama? lol.

You're singing my song but your lyrics are priceless. You made some excellent points and the topic was serious as all get out--but I kept swallowing my coffee because I had to laugh.

We may not agree on everything but I like the political incorrectness way in which you state your opinion.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, April, 15, 2007 2:55 PM Sheila writes:

anti socialist

You're right about the Left, but I don't think it's as grim as you say on our side. We still have the best chance of moving our agenda in the GOP, we just have to work to get more conservatives in, rather than kick every one out like we did in 06!

We can't win if we don't work for the cause, and just throw in the towel!

It'll take working from a position of strength, not weakness to get what we want.

We aren't getting any of our agenda passed with the dems in the majority, and they will reverse everything we accomplished and take the country further to the Left. What have we gained by giving them the majority? We were moving forward, but now we're moving backward.




EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, April, 15, 2007 2:59 PM Sanity102 writes:

California Phil: ah huh

Now let me get this straight. If the conservative party loses somehow Conservatives win?

How does this work?

The Dems are going to be divided.

The GOP are going to be divided.

And maybe, some 3rd party wannabe is going to swoop down with it's extreme views that appeal to some 3% of the population and win?

Putting aside the fact that mathematically this doesn't even make sense, does anyone out there believe that a whole bunch of divisions in our nation is a good thing?

If this kind of logic is "Conservative"...all I can say is thank God, I'm an Independent.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, April, 15, 2007 3:08 PM Pasadena Phil writes:

Sanity102

Apparently, even though I have blogged about it and commented about it dozens of times, the words just don't register. It doesn't matter who wins if they can't govern. I don't know how to make it plainer. This Democratic Congress is more conservative than the Republican Congress they replaced AND THEY KNOW WHY. The next Congress is going to be even more conservative than this one which is why Bush is making a last gasp push for amnesty. Whether the next Congress is Republican or Democrat, it will be conservative. If the Republicans want to win Congress, they will have to run a CONSERVATIVE for president. A liberal like Rudy or and obnoxious opportunist like McCain will not have coattails. The winning candidate will be weak having been elected by barely more than 1/3 of registered voters and faced with a conservative Congress which will face re-election again on 2010. I can't make it any plainer. If your position is that you will vote for whoever wins the GOP primaries, you can leave the discussion now because no one who matters (I mean pollsters and polls) are listening. You are in the "automatic" column and they don't care. That is the price of blind loyalty. That is how lemmings all run over the cliff together. You would think that the cumulative intelligence added to eyesight would prevent the preventable but over the cliff they go.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, April, 15, 2007 3:21 PM Sheila writes:

Pasadena Phil

Liked your introduction...funny.

It's fantasy, I'm afraid to think a third party could win the WH, what you will have is another Perot scenario, splitting the vote, and the Left will really be strong then...and you can forget making any advances in our cause for 50 years, maybe never, in this current world we live in.

How about we get more conservatives in the GOP by working hard for the cause! Splitting the vote isn't the way to go!

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, April, 15, 2007 3:39 PM jevica writes:

Phil

how do you figure this Congress is more conservative then the one it replaced?

Raise taxes, set limits on the war, endless investigations of the Preasident and executive branch [to get even] opposition on President Bush nominees. That's just a quick list for the first 100 days.

You say elected by barely 1/3 registered voters, like that means something. If the registered voters can't get out and vote for a candidate sorry. You should work to get a candidate you can support on the ticket then support and vote for him.

Your saying a "conservative Congress" dosen't make it so, unless we get out and work for it.

BTW who gets elected can and will govern, it's up to us to insure that it's not a RINO, or liberal Democrat. Your dreams about this is a more conservative Congress [please show me how it is by what they have done.]

So if Hillary or Obama are elected they will have a conservative Congress?

I'm glad you fell that losing is the best thing for the party in the next president race if Rudy [or someone like him] is the next nominee. A Democrat with a Congress like this one will be disaster.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, April, 15, 2007 3:48 PM Sheila writes:

Jevica

EXACTLY!
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, April, 15, 2007 4:26 PM Peppermint writes:

Sanity

I don't believe in PC and I will go down fighting it inch by inch. It's way past due to get the PC police off our backs.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, April, 15, 2007 4:55 PM Jimmy Carter writes:

Alright Sanity..

...I'm not ignoring you. Your post was at 3:45 a.m. on a Saturday night/Sunday morning. My attention was elsewhere. Unless, once again, you were inferring something that just wasn't so.

Now, claiming to be an "Independent", judging by every single election, is like stating,"--and I'm a Loser."

I can state being "overpromised and underdelivered" when the GOP proclaims similar ideals as mine, I vote for them, and they fail to implement them.

"As for choosing between Hitler (is that what you think of Romney, Rudy, and McCain) and Santa Claus (Obama?)...actually, I haven't decided who I am supporting in the primary but in the General, I will vote for whomever is the strongest in the WOT. And no that's not necessarily the one claiming to be a Republican..."

Again, I stated nothing about Hitler being like anyone or Santa Claus being like anyone, you must be inferring again. But you answered my question the way it should have been: "I will vote for whomever is the strongest in the WOT. And no that's not necessarily the one claiming to be a Republican..." Exactly. (R) and (D) has almost become meaningless.

"Now let me get this straight. If the conservative party loses somehow Conservatives win?"

Now, let me set you straight: Conservative and Republican are not synonymous. Conservatism is a belief system whereas Republicanism is a party trying to appeal to the most voters.

As a matter of fact, I find this post almost contemptible. Blaming people who choose not to vote in a free society on Her destruction is asinine. Non-voters do not write legislation, pass laws, man the forces, etc... You are suppose to blame those who do. So far, y'all have given Us nothing to vote for and have told Us We may die if We don't vote against.

By the way, the potential song "Hey Sheila," that was funny. So, I googled it and found:

http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/masonjennings/balladofpaulandsheila.html





EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, April, 15, 2007 5:03 PM davecatbone writes:

Phil

Conservatives are not nearly as important as conservatives. I feel 9/11 shoved a lot of people who's eyes were opened over to a definitely principled way of thinking. But they are much more independent of any party or any unofficial party or any PC thinking. And these reasonable people actually think and weigh the ramifications of their actions. I feel they'll reject the Progressive Liberalism of the Anti War Democratic Party. I also think they will scream just as hard as the Move.org folks as a way of making changes from the bottom up. After all, what we're witnessing here is occurring across the internet, and lo and behold, Bush's amnesty plan is shifting. Not to what I want, but pressure is causing change. It's a truly great thing that people like you and I have the freedom to debate ideas and try to shape opinions, and I'm grateful that there are people like all of us here who want things to be better for the United
States. If you think a Democrat will be more conservative than a Republican, I'll reread your reasons and try to understand. But in the end, I'm going to vote, and try to convince the people I know to vote, for the candidate that will act on the few issues that are deal breakers. I don't think you can, or ever have been able to have it all. So what's important to you?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, April, 15, 2007 5:37 PM Sheila writes:

Hey Jimmy!

That was funny...a good song actually! You know what I love about our side? We have a sense of humor...

I think we can have opinions and be civil to one another as well!

Jimmy, it's always been fun to have you on townhall. I remember the early days...talk about a newbie on the blogs...that was me...and you'd show up and made me laugh.

Thanks for that...even if we don't always agree on everything.LOL

BTW, I saw you on some blog mentioning you didn't go to movies anymore...I don't either, unless I look it up online and know it's clean and uplifting...Miss Potter was such a movie...about Beatrice Potter, who wrote the famous children's books. I highly recommend it!
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, April, 15, 2007 5:55 PM Jimmy Carter writes:

Back at cha'..

..and Thank You.

You, Sheila, have been a treat to communicate with.

By the way, that was at BrianR's place. The last movie I've see was "Apollo 13." I'll stick with rewatching my favorites from the '80s.

Also, after Brian humbly posted his earlier post,"City of Glass" I reread all the comments. That's so interesting, to me anyway. Our opinions and suggestions become set in stone, so to speak.

Nice to know ya.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, April, 15, 2007 6:17 PM Sheila writes:

Thanks, friend :) it's been fun.

Apollo 13...great movie!

"After Brian humbly posted his earlier post"...ha...guess I'll have to go back and look.
Can't remember my comments on that.

I'll check it out. Thanks for the reminder...
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, April, 15, 2007 6:27 PM Jim writes:

Lemmings for Phil

The lemmings over a cliff is a moden myth, it is actually down to population statistics and less about mad film directors hurling lemmings off a cliff and filming it, but you knew that right?

This misunderstanding is a little like your position.

This is really a basic misunderstanding that the conservative base is the vocal minority with heavy libertarian leanings, which you agree with, its not.

The thirty percent conservatives that you keep referring, and I have no reason to doubt the ppoll, to are part of the "independants" that are conservative on some issues and liberal on others.

I am sorry but your basic assumption that by someone considering themselves to be conservative somehow are part of this vocal minority is simply wrong. Their definition of conservative and yours are poles apart

Strangely enough they won't be voting for a third party....ever.

They won't be voting for the vocal minority with heavy libertarian leanings, that you seem to agree with and like to call themselves the conservative base....ever.



EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, April, 15, 2007 6:48 PM Sanity102 writes:

ok, JC...

.I'm not ignoring you. Your post was at 3:45 a.m. on a Saturday night/Sunday morning. My attention was elsewhere. Unless, once again, you were inferring something that just wasn't so.

--The ignoring part was in reference to Brian, who told you to ignore me. I merely said you had the right to do so if you wished--talk about "inferring"...

Now, claiming to be an "Independent", judging by every single election, is like stating,"--and I'm a Loser."

--I’m not “claiming” to be anything. I AM an Independent with leanings towards the Right. This means I can and do support someone based on their views and their actions, not on their party affiliation. But I can see how you might see that as being a “loser” as Libertarians and 3rd party wannabes claiming to be non-party “Conservatives” are constantly pushing 3rd party loser issues and candidates.

I can state being "overpromised and underdelivered" when the GOP proclaims similar ideals as mine, I vote for them, and they fail to implement them.

--So you DID buy the product but failed to read the part that said…I am a Republican, not a Libertarian, Buchananite, Reaganite and I am NOT useable on generic political ideologues.

"As for choosing between Hitler (is that what you think of Romney, Rudy, and McCain) and Santa Claus (Obama?)...actually, I haven't decided who I am supporting in the primary but in the General, I will vote for whomever is the strongest in the WOT. And no that's not necessarily the one claiming to be a Republican..."

Again, I stated nothing about Hitler being like anyone or Santa Claus being like anyone, you must be inferring again. But you answered my question the way it should have been: "I will vote for whomever is the strongest in the WOT. And no that's not necessarily the one claiming to be a Republican..." Exactly. (R) and (D) has almost become meaningless.

--Ah, JC? We were talking about Republican and Democrat front runners…YOU were the one who gave me the choice between a non-American and a non-existing character…I think it makes sense to ask why you choose these two; otherwise it would have zip to do with our discussion and I believed that you wouldn’t use irrelevant analogies to make your point--you're right, I did jump to conclusions on that one.

"Now let me get this straight. If the conservative party loses somehow Conservatives win?"

Now, let me set you straight: Conservative and Republican are not synonymous. Conservatism is a belief system whereas Republicanism is a party trying to appeal to the most voters.

--Now JC, you don’t really buy that do you? The GOP IS the party of Conservatives as the Democratic Party is the party of Liberals. Yes, there are degrees of conservatism and liberalism, but if you are a conservative…your party is the GOP. If you are a 3rd party wannabe…it’s “other. I think the problem is that while "others" have used the "conservative" catch all term to excuse their disloyalty to the GOP, most Republicans (and Americans), like Jim said in his post, consider Conservatism and the party of Conservatives to be synonymous.

”As a matter of fact, I find this post almost contemptible. Blaming people who choose not to vote in a free society on Her destruction is asinine. Non-voters do not write legislation, pass laws, man the forces, etc... You are suppose to blame those who do. So far, y'all have given Us nothing to vote for and have told Us We may die if We don't vote against.

--JC, I hate to break this to you, but that “I’m offended” card is getting old. So a post that calls your views to task offends you…and? Your right to your opinion does NOT supercede MY right to disagree. And again, as I said in the very beginning of this post; you are free to ignore me.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, April, 15, 2007 8:49 PM Sheila writes:

Jim

Don't think I've seen you on my blog before...thanks for checking in on the discussion.

I guess we'll have a chance to test the theory in 08...

Good points.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, April, 15, 2007 8:52 PM Sheila writes:

Hey Sanity

There actually is a song with "hey Sheila" in it! Funny...:)
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, April, 15, 2007 9:14 PM Sheila writes:

Dave

Sorry, I seem to have missed your comment...

Thanks for checking in and adding to the discussion.

I think the conservative democrats will be sick of what's going on with the Pelosi syndrom in their party, and they will bail and vote republican, as the Reagan democrats did. If you add them to the numbers we could wind up with a lanslide.

They aren't as conservative as you and me, but they don't like what's happened with the advent of the moveon.org side of their party.


EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, April, 15, 2007 9:25 PM jevica writes:

Jim

Right; what someone calls themselves and how they will vote are poles apart.

In a poll when asked and someone says I'm conservative, without any way to find out what they mean by that is not an accurate gage to calulate a third party [or any other kind of] win.

The only poll that counts is on election day.

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, April, 15, 2007 11:14 PM Sanity102 writes:

Well it did sound as if there should be

a song...like Hey Donna. As for Jim, he was a regular on the old TH.

There was a regular Lib that told us once that whenever he wants to "prove" what zealots Conservatives are, he sends them to TH. Jim was one of those that burst the Lib's bubble because he came across as reasonable and thoughtful.

He also appears to have some Scientific background because he used to get into discussions with people about stem cells and genetics. That seems to be his forte so I'm not sure how often he'll be around but yes, I think you'll find him a kindred spirit.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, April, 15, 2007 11:22 PM Pappy Michael writes:

Sheila


I am currently right in the middle between you and BrianR.

I will say this for certain, if the (R) candidate doesn't at least court the Conservative core of the the GOP, they will not get elected. IMHO, Rudy ain't it. But if he does get the (R) nomination, then I will not only vote against him, but I will actively work against him as well.

At least the (D)s are up front about their socialist leanings, Rudy is not.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, April, 16, 2007 5:46 AM davecatbone writes:

The next year

The Pelosi congress will shoot itself in the foot continually over the next year. If Republicans are aggressive in fighting them and the media, the can take it away from the Libs. I have faith in the Democrat's values.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, April, 16, 2007 12:02 PM Sheila writes:

Jevica

Yeah, I think one thing we've learned is poll mean nothing, until the final one...the way the questions are worded, how honest people are in the answers...yup, right as usual Jevica.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, April, 16, 2007 12:26 PM Sheila writes:

Jevica

Yeah, I think one thing we've learned is poll mean nothing, until the final one...the way the questions are worded, how honest people are in the answers...yup, right as usual Jevica.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, April, 16, 2007 12:38 PM Sheila writes:

Sanity

Ha! That's funny...

Interesting about Jim, thanks. Hopefully overall here on TH we come accross as reasonable people who aren't hateful...just oppose the ideas of the Left...

we have some heated arguments even among ourselves, though...and the debate can be stimulating...:)
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, April, 16, 2007 12:55 PM Sheila writes:

Hey Pappy!

Thanks for checking in...interesting where you are in this discussion.

I just saw that Fred Thompson is coming to my county here on the Left Coast...he sure is generating a lot of excitement. If he jumps in the race, he'll probably be our guy.

As far as Rudy...if it came down to him or Hill, for me it's no contest...but we're not there yet...

Glad you stopped by! Don't think I've seen you at my place before!
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, April, 16, 2007 12:59 PM Sheila writes:

davecatbone

Yup,the dems aren't looking too warm and fuzzy...and I think reasonable people on the Left are getting scared about where they want to take the country...I think you're right...;)
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, April, 16, 2007 7:45 PM Peppermint writes:

Ah, I see the argument

continues among the absolutists and the rationalists. Fred will ride in and save the day.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, April, 16, 2007 10:54 PM Sheila writes:

Pep

Funny...

Hey, looks like you're a pretty popular writer...I see a movie in the making...starriing Bradford...:)
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, April, 17, 2007 3:52 AM Sanity102 writes:

The Virginia Tech Murderer

turned out to be a foreigner, but LEGAL and Chinese. So while they won't be able to use this to gain border control; they will use it to get gun control.

The really sad part is that the media is having a field day.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, April, 17, 2007 12:09 PM Sheila writes:

Sanity

It's a pathetic thing how the media operates to push their agenda...

If I had a kid in college today with the co-ed dorms, and all the brainwashing going on in the classes, I'd be a basket case.

Can you imagine the poor parents having to watch that on TV?

It's just awful.

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, April, 17, 2007 11:34 PM Peppermint writes:

Sheila

If you need a respite from all the sadness over the VATech shootings, I have Chapter 14 on my blog.
It is a funny one.

btw, Sheila, you and I are on the what's hot list.
Did you know that? I've never even looked at that and then Friday night I was just bored and cruising around and saw that. I was shocked my blog was on the list. I wasn't shocked you were, just me.

I sure agree with what Sanity said, this shooting will be used to take our guns away again. Pathetic.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, April, 17, 2007 11:36 PM Peppermint writes:

Sheila

I forgot to say that Bradford has a prominent role in Chapter 14.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, April, 18, 2007 12:26 AM Sheila writes:

Hey Pep

You've been on what's hot a lot! I think you had three up at the same time!

I think Bradford seems like a nice guy who's warming up to you. Maybe you could have him ralley the moderate m's, and join the patriots!:)
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, April, 18, 2007 12:31 AM Sheila writes:

And Pep,

The propaganda media will pursue their agenda with every piece of news that comes up.

They were probably ticked that Bush got a major ovation, and it was obvious he was so troubled for the folks there, and deeply touched...sincerely, not like Slick biting the lip...
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, April, 18, 2007 2:23 AM Peppermint writes:

Sheila

Ha!Ha! I sometimes think Brad is warming up and then he turns like a rattler. I don't know what to think.
I do think he is pleased he is in the story now.
It massages his ego that he has become such a star and I think he truly enjoys all the attention he gets from us on my blog. It is funny.

Yes, the media is crazy. Poor Bush. He cannot win no matter what he does. Today, Sheila, on Prager's column, which was about grief, these libs were on there bashing Bush. I thought to myself, what a bunch of morons. This article is about grief and not rushing grief, that it takes time, and these posters had to add Bush bashing to it. Is that all they ever think about? I wondered that to myself today. It's been a little over 6 years that we've had to listen to this constant whine and mewl over Bush. And, they are the first to scream about torture. What do they think that is?! I feel tortured for 6 years non stop!!
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, April, 18, 2007 12:36 PM Sanity102 writes:

The First Real Pro-Life Pres

in 35 years just got the partial birth abortion bill upheld!

Alito who took over swing vote Sandra Day O'Conner brought sanity back to the courts by upholding the constitutionality of banning that barbaric practice.

A little background here folks...the method was created because too many babies were being born alive. They had to make sure that the babies died in the womb, so they crushed the head and sucked out the brain BEFORE the baby left the mother's body.

When the RINO press went off because Bush didn't pick someone on THEIR wish list, Bush and Miers COULD have "taught them a lesson" and gave them exactly what they wanted. The "nuclear" option would have been used (which doesn't seem so bright now that the GOP doesn't have the majority huh?).

But Bush and company really WAS pro-life and really DID want to keep their word to their pro-life and Christian supporters and put in someone pro-life but not radioactive.

Now let's see how "conservative" the Bush Bashers are...will they give credit where credit is due?






EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, April, 18, 2007 8:24 PM Scottie writes:

As the Dems Have Moved Left

people of conviction have held onto their values and switched parties because the Republicans better reflected those values. People like Thomas Sowell, Dennis Prager, Evan Sayet, Ronald Reagan, and the list goes on. These people deserve our respect for holding their values above their party affiliation.

While you may disagree with those of us that will not compromise our core principles in the name of party affiliation, we're in pretty good company. We didn't leave the Republican Party, it left us. I side unabashedly with Brian on this one.

Why should we vote for anyone that supports gun control, abortion, and gay marriage? Because the big bad Democrat boogeymen will come and get us? Remember, it took Jimmy Carter to pave the way for Ronald Reagan.

If you settle for inferior goods when shopping, the shelves will soon fill with only inferior goods. The bad drives out the good.

Similarly, if you vote for non-conservatives, your future choices will be limited to non-conservatives, because you've communicated that it's acceptable, good enough, worthy of settling for; why would a serious candidate bother going any farther than that and risk losing from the center? As it is, Republicans have gone so far left, they're now losing votes on the right. Not voting for non-coservatives is the proper message to send; even if it costs us the election in the short run. If we don't draw a line somewhere, we will lose the entire country in the long run.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, April, 18, 2007 11:30 PM BrianR writes:

Scotti: Well said!

Excellent!
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, April, 19, 2007 1:33 AM Sanity102 writes:

Scottie

Then continue to move further to the Right and let the rest of the GOP move to where the rest of America is.

They'll get the abortion law over turned and protect the 2nd ammendment and fight the war and keep our economy going great. They'll make sure that the right to gay marriages aren't found in the constitution.

In other words they'll DO...while you guys go on whining, losing and getting zip done.

Nice and smart.

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, April, 19, 2007 5:45 AM davecatbone writes:

If Giuliani

If Rudy does get nominated, and does win the general election, Social Conservatives will be completely marginalized and irrelevant as a political bloc. It could mean the end of Conservatism and the affirmation of conservatism. But if Giuliani loses, and the Democrats win the White House, every cause the Conservatives believe in could be in peril of being lost for decades by SCOTUS appointments and legislations against every Social Conservative issue. But they will have their pride and dignity. Tough spot. And it seems this heated argument is largely revolving around candidates that haven't won anything yet. It is interesting.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, April, 19, 2007 9:13 AM Scottie writes:

(In)sanity (sorry, cheap shot)

"Then continue to move further to the Right and let the rest of the GOP move to where the rest of America is."
[America is a lot more conservative than the candidates thus far put forth]

"They'll get the abortion law over turned . . ."
[By campainging on the "right" to one?]

". . . and protect the 2nd ammendment . . .
[By advocating gun control?]

'. . . and fight the war . . ."
[One for four so far]

". . . and keep our economy going great."
[The president doesn't control the economy. But if he did, is it OK to do anything so long as there's a buck in it?]

"They'll make sure that the right to gay marriages aren't found in the constitution.'
[Not if they appoint judges like the ones they have so far]

'In other words they'll DO..."
[It's not THAT they'll do, it's WHAT they'll do]

"while you guys go on whining, losing and getting zip done."
[Standing on principle is now whining? How sad.]

Nice and smart.
[Agreed, that makes it what, two for seven?]
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, April, 19, 2007 11:33 AM Sheila writes:

Scottie, Brian

You had better enjoy your ability to argue your point in favor of the dems (by default) while you can, because if you get your way, there will be no more discussion...I love you guys, but you are wrong...there is a huge difference in the parties, and just in today's news it is clear as a bell!

You may wake up to find a different country, and one beyond recovery. We are not living in the old days where we had general security on our soil due to the oceans separating us from rogue nations. We are living in perilous times, and turning the country over to the blame America first crowd will be disaster.

You might as well go ahead and turn in your guns now, and maybe even set aside a part of your land for illegals to live on.

Sorry guys, I just don't get the idea of losing to then win. At that point there are no guarantees we WILL win. It makes no sense whatsoever! LOL

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, April, 19, 2007 11:48 AM Sheila writes:

Sanity and Davecatbone

Sanity:Thank goodness W's appointmens have saved the day for the most innocent among us. The femi-nazzis must be having a cow.

Davecatbone:When you boil it all down to the nitty gritty, I believe we will lose everything if the dems get what they want.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, April, 19, 2007 11:57 AM Sheila writes:

Our National Sovereighnty

will be at stake, and global warming will be the new religion, healthcare will be canadian style (for starters), if we don't unite and realize we're dealing with a bunch of fanatics on the Left who will stop at nothing to defeat America, and put us under international law. The true one-worlders are the dems, and we're going to hand them the country on a siver platter?

Now where's the logic in that?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, April, 19, 2007 12:07 PM Sanity102 writes:

Scottie: Don't worry

I didn't expect more from someone who thinks losing is winning.

Yesterday, the kind of judges that this President and the GOP brought in showed a serious move toward bringing back sanity--and you whined and complained instead of cheering them on.

And you contend that the President's tax cuts have nothing to do with the economy?

Just what KIND of "conservative" are you?

Keep it up Scottie, really. Each time Bush and company delivers, your group sounds more and more Liberal in your blame "Daddy" for everything and inability to give Bush any credit.

The lines between the Left and the Right are becoming indistinguishable all right--the HARD Left and the HARD Right. They hate, they blame, they look toward the government to solve all their problems and they demand everything now.

For the love of America, I hope that the GOP realize that America cannot afford these people. Let them go back to their 3rd party irrelvance and leave these serious matters to people who want to win and survive.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, April, 19, 2007 12:11 PM Sanity102 writes:

Sheila,

keep asking where's the logic...and you'll realize there is none.

Only a desire to hurt this war time president and destroy the GOP.

Now does THAT sound conservative to you?

~they keep proving me right.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, April, 19, 2007 12:40 PM SLW writes:

Sorry to be so late

to the discussion. I've been out of pocket, but am finally back.

What a great term "Suicide voters!" While the Conservatives discuss whether their candidates are conservative enough, the suicide voters have allowed the Dems to gain control of all of our major institutions. It will be pretty hard to "turn back the clock."

I finally got a new blog up.

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, April, 19, 2007 1:28 PM BrianR writes:

Sheila: LOL!

How a propos in light of the activity at Malkin yesterday and Coulter today.

But you hit the key element for me when you mentioned guns. That's the issue that originally got me active in politics, back in 1968, when GCA '68 was being debated. It is the animating interest I have in any candidate.

And the problem with your position is that Giuliani is an anti-gunner, too. So if he's the candidate, no matter who wins there's an anti-gunner in the White House. That is unacceptable to me, regardless of the R or D behind the name, and they don't get my vote no matter what.

Who do you think defeated Kerry and Gore? Gun owners, that's who! Why do you think Kerry and Edwards donned those silly outfits and borrowed shotguns, imitating Bobble-Head Dukakis' tank ride photo op?

To try to fool gun owners.

Clinton ascribed Gore's loss to gun owners.

This gun owner doesn't vote for anti-gunners NO MATTER WHAT.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, April, 19, 2007 1:32 PM BrianR writes:

BTW, Sheila

I expect better of you. Argue "in favor of the Dems"?

Because I think the GOP is failing in its responsibilities and point that out, I'm in favor of the Dems?

That's the type of nonsense that usually comes from a different type of poster.

When I disciplined my daughter, did that mean it was because I wanted her to fail? Same logic.

Your statement was very disappointing.

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, April, 19, 2007 2:05 PM Sheila writes:

BrianR

"by deafult". That's the critical word...
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, April, 19, 2007 2:38 PM BrianR writes:

I disagree

Abstaining isn't a "deafult" either way; it's abstaining.

You can shade it how you like; to a Dem that could also be a "default" vote for the GOP.

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, April, 19, 2007 2:39 PM BrianR writes:

Looks like neither of us can spell

That's "default" of course, for both of us.

Gotta laugh that either of us are allowed to vote at all!

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, April, 19, 2007 2:41 PM Sheila writes:

BrianR

But who wins if you abstain?:)
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, April, 19, 2007 3:02 PM BrianR writes:

Sheila: simple answer

If it comes down to Hillary v. Giuliani, the country loses no matter what. That's my whole point.

There is no winning in that race.

I just wrote this on Sandra's blog:

"The problem is, you then have Giuliani cloaking himself in a flag while he tries to hide the fact that he agrees with them on the OTHER 90% of their agenda.

"I mean, how can I be the only one seeing this?"



EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, April, 19, 2007 5:28 PM Sheila writes:

BrianR

Ha...typing too fast...default...

you say "abstain"...I say "default", you say tomato I say tomahto...:)

My point has always been that the dems are bad for the country. They are proving it now. If any of our candidates become president, they will defend our country, they will not surrender to the WOT, they do will not blame America first as the dems do. They aren't anti-American.

With a majority a GOP president would do quite well for us...with a majority a dem president could devastate this country.

I trust our guys. I don't trust theirs.:)
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, April, 19, 2007 5:32 PM Sheila writes:

Ignore the "do"

between the "they" and "will not blame"...
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, April, 19, 2007 6:24 PM BrianR writes:

Yes, and MY point is

that Giuliani IS a Democrat.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, April, 19, 2007 6:25 PM BrianR writes:

I really don't

know how I can make it any plainer.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, April, 19, 2007 6:50 PM Sheila writes:

BriaR

What do you think of the job he did as mayor? Any good things happen there?

Btw...where did you stay in LA County?:)
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, April, 19, 2007 8:09 PM BrianR writes:

Sehila

I'm in Santa Clarita.

As Mayor, he managed to appoint incredibly Leftist municipal judges.

Bragged about NYC's gun control (among the harshest in the nation).

I'll grant he does know how to grab a hard hat and rush to a scene for a Photo Op. Very good at that.

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, April, 19, 2007 8:10 PM BrianR writes:

Sheila (spelled right this time)

What do you mean "did" I stay in LA County?

I live here.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, April, 20, 2007 1:10 AM Sheila writes:

BrianR

Didn't Rudy do a good job getting rid of crime and cleaning up the city?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, April, 20, 2007 1:15 AM Sheila writes:

Brian...oh, I was thinking you

were on the road when you said you were in LA county, and you asked about Thompson coming to OC...a misunderstanding on my part.:)
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, April, 21, 2007 8:32 PM Jim writes:

Sheila

Thank you for saying hi, and sorry for not introducing myself earlier.

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, April, 22, 2007 12:53 PM Sheila writes:

Jim

No prob...glad you stopped by...hope to see you often!

Have you been around TH for a while?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, April, 23, 2007 12:13 AM Scottie writes:

(In)sanity, Since you insist . . .

"I didn't expect more from someone who thinks losing is winning."
[I didn't say that. I said Rudy McRomney isn't an acceptable candidate. In fact, I'm squarely behind Fred Dalton Thompson in '08. And I want him to win. And I will work to make that happen. But if Rudy McRomney's the candidate in '08, I refuse to hold my nose and vote for him.]

"Yesterday, the kind of judges that this President and the GOP brought in showed a serious move toward bringing back sanity--and you whined and complained instead of cheering them on."
[First, this president isn't on the ballot in '08. Second, to say I complained about SCOTUS appointments is an outright lie. Is your position so weak you must resort to the Leftist tactic of the "big lie" to make your points now?]

"And you contend that the President's tax cuts have nothing to do with the economy?"
[What Kool-Aid are you drinking? Congress controls taxation. All bills pertaining to taxation and spending must originate in the House of Representatives. It's called the Constitution. You might give it a read sometime. See, the president doesn't really control the economy. He shouldn't be blamed when it's bad, nor should he get credit when it's good. Unfortunately, that's the MSM's story and they're sticking to it. But I don't have to believe it, nor do you.]

"Just what KIND of "conservative" are you?"
[Apparently one better versed in politics and honest enough to make my points without lying about my opponent's prior statements. And the KIND you represent is manifest here. Talk about an ad homenium attack, jeez! If you want to debate, try staying with what I actually say instead of what you wish I had said so you can unload your canned answers.]

"Keep it up Scottie, really. Each time Bush and company delivers, your group sounds more and more Liberal in your blame "Daddy" for everything and inability to give Bush any credit."
[I realize that on the other side of the looking glass in Wonderland GWB is the center of the conversation. But here in reality, HE's NOT A CANDIDATE IN '08! And while the point of the thread seems to have escaped you, it's about who the NEXT president is going to be. Further, calling me a Liberal because I insist on a true conservative candidate at least gives us a clue as to which character you are over there in Wonderland. . . Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you "The Mad Hatter".]

"The lines between the Left and the Right are becoming indistinguishable all right--the HARD Left and the HARD Right. They hate, they blame, they look toward the government to solve all their problems and they demand everything now."
[To which "they" are you referring? Certainly not me. I don't hate anyone. I don't blame anyone; in fact I'm being blamed for a political loss that has not yet occured because I choose to stand on principle and support a true conservative. If you can't distinguish the difference, that certainly doesn't mean I and others can't.]

"For the love of America, . . ."
[Wow, evoking emotionally loaded language. How clever! Are you inferring that I don't love America?]

" . . . I hope that the GOP realize that America cannot afford these people.
[If you mean folks that would advocate electing a northeastern libersl with an R after his name in preference to a northeastern liberal with a D after her name and then shout down and demonize anyone that argues for a better option, I agree. See you around. Don't let the door hit you in the . . .]

"Let them go back to their 3rd party irrelvance and leave these serious matters to people who want to win and survive.


Look man, you're already convinced that:
1. Rudy's an acceptable candidate and there's nothing we can do but settle for him or else the entire universe will collapse into a black hole.

Well he's not acceptable, he's hasn't won the primary, and if he's the best we can do, then I will understand how the Dems felt when they put forth Al Gore and John Kerry.

AND

2. That if conservatives don't sell out our core principles and vote for Rudy, it will be our fault that the Democrats won.

This is also not true. If the Democrats win, it will be because the Republicans again put forth another poor candidate that failed to excite the base. Kinda like a rerun of Bob Dole's candidacy. Heck, it could even be that the Obama message so excited the liberal base that the momentum carried him to a landslide. Ever consider that? How would that be my fault?

My bet is that Fred Thompson gets into the race, the money that hasn't been sent to Rudy McRomney because people are keeping their political powder dry will come to Fred in a similar fashion to the Obama supporters (I've got my check made out and waiting), and we will have a genuine populist election for the first time in living memory. But like Ronald Reagan, I'm an optimist.

You see, I want a Republicans to win and I will work to make that happen. And if the party is dumb enough to put forth a candidate like Rudy, the fault won't be mine.

You, on the other hand, think the primaries are over. You're the one demonizing others in your own party for not blindly supporting an unacceptable candidate. You're the one without principles for which you are willing to fight. And lastly, you're the one that doesn't seem to realize that the R after a candidates name is supposed to mean something.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, April, 23, 2007 1:39 AM Sanity102 writes:

Good grief Scottie

Did it take you this long to think up a reply?

First off--and this may take the wind out of your balloon. What gave you the idea I'd vote for or am supporting Rudy?

And second--I never said settle or give up your principles. I said fight smart and fight to win. You do that by getting behind the only VIABLE party that wants to win the WOT and won't sell out America. You don't demand perfection from human beings and certainly not politicians.

I did say that when Bush and the GOP DOES do something right and that you agree with, you should be up front and center, letting the 60% that DON'T SHARE your conservative ideas know that there IS a difference between the GOP and the Dems because Scottie, that is all the choices you've got.

There is no 3rd party candidate that is going to give you everything you demand and please the rest of America that doesn't share your concerns at the same time.

You said you're going to work for the GOPs? Good...then do it the way you do it at work. You sell your product like it's the best thing since slice bread--and work behind the scenes to make sure you don't end up a liar.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, April, 23, 2007 7:04 PM Scottie writes:

Insanity : To take your analogy a step

If I may. Let's just say I'm a waiter. I want to sell product. That's my job after all. I should push the deserts and upsells, etc. Fair enough.

So as your waiter here at the the GOP club, [Psssssst. Don't order the Rudy McRomney platter. It's utterly inedible and will give you a really bad stomach-ache about three months after you eat it.]

Am I a bad waiter? I didn't sell the product tonite. But I did keep the loyalty of a regular customer by preventing him from eating something that will make him sick as a dog.

I'm a conservative voter. If the party trots out one of the three current frontrunners, I'm not eating. Neither should you.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, April, 23, 2007 9:06 PM shades writes:

Well Said

All I can say is that I feel that a true conservative candidate ala the Regan model has yet to appear. It would be great, and I do believe that there could in time be one. What I do not want to see is a "Dole" sacrificial lamb nor do I want to see a noshow conservative vote at the polls come November 2008.

Someone above made the waiter analogy. I work for the USPS. There are days that I service the public one on one. We likewise "upsell" products. Some of them I might not agree with or could offer a customer a cheaper but just as acceptable price for mailing an item. It is my job however to do my best to upsell, I might not like it but there times when you work with what you have...
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, April, 23, 2007 9:17 PM Jimmy Carter writes:

"Dole" sacrificial lamb..

That is funny. And no way in h*** that will happen.

Sorry, Scottie, but I don't think the waiter analogy works unless you are made to eat the DNC sandwich instead and are carted off to the ermergency room.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, April, 23, 2007 11:24 PM Cynewulf writes:

Shades,

that describes Dole perfectly. To this day, I'm still trying to puzzle out how he won the nomination.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, April, 23, 2007 11:43 PM Sheila writes:

Shades

Thanks.

Romnie and Thompson seem to be Reagan types, Huckaby may also be...

I agree with your statement, though, that "there are times you work with what you have".
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, April, 23, 2007 11:45 PM Sheila writes:

Jimmy

I like your version of Scottie's analogy...funny:)
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, April, 24, 2007 1:50 AM Sanity102 writes:

If you're a waiter

you've got two choices...you either work to make that dessert edible (behind the scenes) or you quit trying to pretend that you're working for the restaurant.

Especially if the restaurant's competitor is right across the street with a dessert that looks good but is worst for the customer's digestion. Do you think bad mouthing your company's dessert and driving your loyal customer to the competitor's restaurant (and worst dessert) somehow makes you a better person?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, April, 24, 2007 8:53 PM Scottie writes:

Jimmy

You have to keep things really really simple for (In)sanity. As you can see from his reponse, even the simplest analogy prompts obtuseness. Sigh, you and lead a horse(s a$$) to water . . .
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, April, 24, 2007 8:58 PM Jimmy Carter writes:

I know, I know...

...Scottie, I have accidentally driven around that circle twice now.....
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, April, 24, 2007 9:05 PM Scottie writes:

(In)sanity

By all means, order the Rudy McRomney platter! I'll be happy to serve it to YOU with a smile, since you insist.

But you'll never make ME eat it, and none of your hysterics can change that. By calling me names, lying about what I've said, attacking me personally, the whole rhetorical gammut you've displayed, it makes me wonder which of us is more counterproductive for the party in the long term.

Your blather has become tiresome . . . now is time on Sprockets when we dance! (cue German techno music)
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, April, 24, 2007 9:12 PM Scottie writes:

And to Sheila

Thank you for having me as a guest here at your blog. While we may not agree on this issue, I do believe we both are motivated by what we think is the best thing for our country. As one patriot to another, I respect your opinion, I just don't agree with it.

Insanity needs to quit bringing a knife to an intellectual gun-fight. Couldn't help myself. If I broke any furniture, by all means send me a bill.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, April, 24, 2007 9:56 PM Sheila writes:

Scottie and Sanity 102...

I guess this is analogyville...:) I'm sure everyone is having fun. :)

Sanity and Scottie, you guys have endurance, that's for sure!

I'm glad that this post was interesting enough to keep a debate alive...ya'll are doing a fine job(as Jimmy would say)...

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, April, 24, 2007 10:07 PM Sheila writes:

Jimmy

Your comment to Lew on my "Who's the enemy" blog was cracking me up...I'm still laughing.

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, April, 25, 2007 2:46 AM Sanity102 writes:

Talk about simple

Scottie, didn't you get what the other posters was saying? Even JC said "Sorry, Scottie, but I don't think the waiter analogy works unless you are made to eat the DNC sandwich instead and are carted off to the ermergency room."

In other words, your analogy was lame.

Simple enough?

And everytime you get on your high horse and insist that everyone be honest to the point of losing...you make other people like Peppermint who won't risk losing her job by talking politics at work...or the guy who works for USPS and sells things he may not want to...uncomfortable.

The problem with guns Scottie is sometimes you hit the wrong target.




EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, April, 25, 2007 8:36 AM Scottie writes:

One last time Insanity

"Talk about simple"
[Name calling, good opening! It conveys your inability to form a coherent argument and decends immediately to third grade level.]

"Scottie, didn't you get what the other posters was saying?"
[As I recall, I dissected what YOU said. The others display a modicum of intelligence. I showed YOUR words verbatim with my comments appended. Didn't you get that?]

"And everytime you get on your high horse and insist that everyone be honest to the point of losing..."
[What are you smoking? What high horse? What did I insist on? And when has honesty been a liability? And where have I ever advocated losing? You've accused me of it, but it's not in evidence from anything I've said.]

"you make other people like Peppermint who won't risk losing her job by talking politics at work...or the guy who works for USPS and sells things he may not want to...uncomfortable."
[I think Peppermint is more than capable of handling her own battles. Note that we are not at work, but in a forum specifically for the purpose of discussing politics. The USPS guy is doing whst he must because he is being paid to do so. And if the comfort of others is paramount, why do you attack me? Isn't my comfort as important as that of those you cite?}

The problem with guns Scottie is sometimes you hit the wrong target.
[The problem is your ability to cram more ignorance into less space than most. Given the endless holes I've put in your "arguments", I'd say I'm shooting pretty well.]

Since this thread is pretty much played out, I'll bid thee adieu for now, my insane little friend. No doubt we will cross paths again here at TH. I look forward to it.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, April, 26, 2007 3:33 AM Sanity102 writes:

and calling me Insanity isn't name

calling?

What was that about decending to 3rd grade level?

Sigh, you didn't even get the part about shooting targets instead of making precision knife cuts.

Yes, go home Scottie. You're done.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, May, 04, 2007 6:26 AM jevica writes:

The mayor

in NYC is one big Dem in Republican clothing.

Think it was BrianR's blog that mentioned Bloomberg & Arnold. There is not much we conservatives here can do to stop the socialist ideas in the NYC city council & by the mayor, except let them know how we fell [and I do].

Read an article in the Wall Street Journal about Bloomberg running as a third party candidate, another Ross. He [Perot]got 19% of the vote but no electoral votes, just some big hoopla built up by the MSM to sell themselves.

Yes WOT is important, don't forget if we lose it then we might not be able to address the other issues Brian and others feel are important. That's just a comment I also believe that there are other issues that have to be addressed, but if we become a Muslim state, or vassel because of Mid-East oil the other issues woun't be addressed at all.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, May, 04, 2007 12:08 PM Sheila writes:

Hey jev

Welcome back...it's been weird around here...

Bloomber...what a schmuck...if he does that it will probably cost us the election.

All the issues are important , of course, but if we lose the WOT, as you say, we probably won't be in a position to fight for the rest of the issues, will we?

Good to see you back.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, May, 06, 2007 10:52 AM anti-socialist writes:

Vote for lesser of evils...

No human is perfect, but RINOs & today's Democrats both represent EVIL at it's purest. Voting for either would be as bad as voting for Marx, Stalin or Hitler.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, May, 06, 2007 9:38 PM Sheila writes:

anti-socialist

The socialist dems are anti-America, they aid and abet the enemy, and they will cause our ultimate destruction, if they ever have complete power.

I want more conservatives in the government not less, and the only way to achieve that is to stick with our side, keep on fighting, and not give up...:)

We must not give up the fight, and give it over to the enemy!

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive