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"

They Say There's no Difference in the Parties

147 Comments
Thursday, April, 19, 2007 1:13 PM ScarletPimpernel writes:

intellectually lazy

people who say there is no difference. There are similarities but there are more differences. It is frustrating sometimes but we must press on.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, April, 19, 2007 1:20 PM SLW writes:

It makes sense to me!

I'm sure you will get the "usual suspects" who will argue that this is not enough. I cringe to think where we would be today without Bush and the Republican minority.

Good job as usual!
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, April, 19, 2007 1:37 PM BrianR writes:

Sheila: Sorry

The issue isn't Bush. The issue is RINO Rudy and McCrazy.

And on that I stand firm. Giuliani is simply running in the wrong party, and if the GOP nominates him, the future is very bleak. The Bush presidency will go down as the high-water mark post-Reagan, as the country then sinks in the swill of leftism, regardless of who is finally elected.





EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, April, 19, 2007 1:42 PM Sheila writes:

Scarlet

Thanks for stopping by...I loved today's headlines, because they show there are major differences, and people can't keep saying they are exactly alike...it just doesn't wash.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, April, 19, 2007 1:47 PM Sheila writes:

Sandra

Yeah, "the usual suspects"...will keep on with their tunnel vision...

I'm hopeful though, that the country will be so sick of the dem majority circus, they will go to the polls, and give us a landslide...
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, April, 19, 2007 1:50 PM Sheila writes:

BrianR

Nope...the issue is Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Barbara Boxer, and the dem party...there is a difference and it's screaming in the headlines...the GOP is still the best hope for America...:)
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, April, 19, 2007 1:58 PM BrianR writes:

"Nope" back atcha

There is no difference between RINO Rudy and anyone else you named, ideologically.

Yeah, I agree the GOP is the best hope; just not one that elects poseurs and tries to pass them off as something other than what they are:

liberals.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, April, 19, 2007 2:07 PM Virginia Daddy writes:

The GOP...

Is at a social cross-roads, I think. Rudy and McCain and their ilk certainly seem to embrace more leftist stance on social issues. And I mean not to minimize these, but there is a second set of issues that I think, especially Rudy, is probably very conservative: financial.

Its important to distinguish them. Not that this makes the issue of the GOP's future easier, it doesn't (rather it clouds it quite a bit). I do not necessarilly endorse Rudy, but I think he would be a great administrator, do much to improve the budget etc, and would be gret for national security.

Its up to the GOP to determine what its priorities are. I, for one, think it should focus on as much the social issues... But alas, I am just a blogger...
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, April, 19, 2007 2:21 PM Jimmy Carter writes:

I would like to see...

..a list of your Republican friends who "bash" the President.

Just because President Bush is the leader of the GOP does not make him immune from criticism from his friends on his ideas.

"..thanks to Bush appointees to the Supreme court the ban on partial birth abortion holds."

How would Miers have voted? I say,"Thanks" to his friends on the Republican side that kept him from appointing her.

I would also leave the word "bash" to those who call President Bush "hitler," "hate-monger," and to those who say we're all going to die if the GOP does not have a sweep in the next election.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, April, 19, 2007 2:30 PM Sheila writes:

BrianR

The headlines show that if we can get more of our folks on the conservative side elected and in the majority we can start turning back the clock...if the left gets their way look where we'll go...it's in the news today!:)
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, April, 19, 2007 2:33 PM Sheila writes:

V Daddy

"Just a blogger"...but a smart one at that! You're right that the GOP would set the agenda, and I don't think the president would veto our agenda...
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, April, 19, 2007 2:38 PM Sheila writes:

Hey Jimmy!

"Bash" might be a little strong, but what is it when defeating the GOP becomes the goal, and claiming Bush is the most disastrous president in history, (which I've heard said on our side)?...

As to Miers, do you think she would have voted against the ban?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, April, 19, 2007 2:43 PM Jimmy Carter writes:

Again..

..name the conservative (not Republican, because We have already established that that there are some Republicans who do not belong in said party) that stated defeating the GOP is the goal or President Bush is the most dangerous in history.

As to Miers, of course I do not know and am glad We don't have to. And you're welcome.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, April, 19, 2007 2:54 PM Sheila writes:

Jimmy:)

I've heard from our side that it took Carter to get Reagan...and if the dems have the majority and the WH we will get our Reagan...that kind of sounds like defeating the GOP to me...:)

The prob with that in my humble opinion, is we may never get our Reagan because if the Left got total control, the crooked bunch that's in power today, do you think they would ever let go of their power?

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, April, 19, 2007 3:03 PM Jimmy Carter writes:

How about a different perspective:

".. it took Carter to get Reagan."

That is a positive example from a past election. Conservatives, then, were not saying elect President Ford or we're all going to die if Carter is elected. It is an example that We, America, have and will withstand ANY President.

And about this power thing....they didn't think they would have to give it up in '94 either.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, April, 19, 2007 3:05 PM BrianR writes:

I just wrote this on

your "suicide" essay, but it's germane here, too.

From a comment I made 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?"



GOP: "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain".



EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, April, 19, 2007 5:38 PM Sheila writes:

Jimmy

Interesting point, but Reagan simply was the man...and we will see how the candidates do.

Still my point based on the news today is the difference in the parties...they aren't the same...even if we have a few who don't get it, our side is the best, and we need more of them to make a majority and get back on track. By losing we will see more of our rights erroded...it's scary...
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, April, 19, 2007 5:45 PM Sheila writes:

BrianR

We'll see how the candidates do, but as I said to Jimmy, I don't trust the dems to be in the majority and have the WH. Our side, as you can see by the news, is the right side...our president whoever it is won't be against our majority...we need more conservatives voted in all accross the country, and a president who's on America's side, not the UN's, and no the World Court's and not the Kyoto Treaty's...and any of our candidates would be pro- America!

But the point of this post is there is a huge difference between the parties, and our pres isn't doing such a bad job! LOL
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, April, 19, 2007 5:49 PM jevica writes:

BrianR

One difference between them is the kind of judges Rudy has said he will name and those the Dems support.

As you can see by the PBA decision, Justice Kennedy could change and then you back to a real liberal court, with one or two more conservative judges [who believe the Constitution means what was written there] will put the Court back where it should be.

BTW Sheila was the weather that bad in Texas?

Will be away from 4-24 to 5-3 so no posts during that time.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, April, 19, 2007 6:29 PM BrianR writes:

Oh, please, Jev

The guy's a lying schmuck.

As "America's Mayor" he appointed extremely leftist municipal judges. Now we're supposed to believe he's changed his spots?

He's pro-abortion, says it's a "right", and supports taxpayer funding for them.

He's anti-gun.

He's pro-amnesty.

What do you guys need, someone to kick you in the teeth so you wake up to the fact that Giuliani's a Democrat calling himself a Republican?!?

Good grief!



EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, April, 19, 2007 7:05 PM Sheila writes:

Hey Jevica

somehow I missed the "Texas weather" comment...was that at Sandra's? I'll check it out.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, April, 19, 2007 7:06 PM Sheila writes:

Also Jev,

Are you going on a fun trip?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, April, 19, 2007 7:07 PM Sheila writes:

Hey Brian

What would happen if we had a solid majority and Giuliani were pres? Not that I'm saying he will be...just asking...
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, April, 19, 2007 7:13 PM BrianR writes:

Sheila

We had a solid majority when Bush started his presidency. It went away. And he's a lot better than Giuliani will ever be.

Further, even while that majority was there we got No Child Left Behind, prescriptions for seniors, McCain-Feingold, inaction on border security, Kelo.

That's no insurance against a fool in the White House.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, April, 19, 2007 8:03 PM DavidMac writes:

Bush/Pelosi

Bush is not a liberal, but he thinks liberal thoughts. We do expect a Republican President to be the standard bearer of the party, but Bush apparently doesn't want to do that.

Guiliani is a liberal draped in Republican colors, but he isn't a socialist like Pelosi/Kerry/Reid etc.

Pelosi and Co. aren't liberals either. They are socialists dug in quite well in the left flank of the Democrats.

McCain is whatever you want him to be. You want Republican, he'll wave the flag and protect your guns with his life. You want him to be a lib, he'll personally burn the flag and steal your guns. McCain courts the media, pandering to them in order to get their support.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, April, 19, 2007 8:11 PM BrianR writes:

DavidM: LOL

Yeah, McCain doesn't want to be Prez, he's angling for Emperor.

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, April, 19, 2007 8:14 PM ch47 jockey writes:

Rudy,Bloomberg,Arhnuld

very similar to the democrats,too similar for my tastes, If Rudy gets the nod, it would only lead to more infighting in the GOP, with the liberal republicans getting aid from the democrats because they know that if we veer to far left to pander for votes they can out lib the republicans. I don't see Rudy trying to keep the tax cut,standing up to gun control from the congress and his predecessor in NYC. And the border is a very touchy issue with these guys. More pandering to get votes....If it comes down to it,RINO for prez, Unlike Brian I may not abstain but activly work for a 3rd party.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, April, 19, 2007 9:49 PM jevica writes:

BrianR

I suppose you can back up that comment with proof.

Will you give me that he was married three times.

Also is there insurance against upset conservatives staying home to insure that one of the crop of Democrats is elected? It seems if they don't get what they want they will put a fool in the White House, and really f--k the rest of us.

We had a majority in the Presidents second term until McCain started his "gang of 14" B.S. for the getting judges on the bench. McCain/Feingold should have been vetoed by the President. His [the President] immigration policy is not good, and I have spoken against it over and over.

All you upset and the President is not "conservative" enough people, we could have had Gore or Kerry, then that would have made you happy because he was not pure enough.

The President made his policies and what he would do clear in his two campaigns now you are upset that he is doing what he said.

After the Presidents first term all of you had a chance to see what he would do, and he was reelected.

You all, we all will have a chance in 2008 to select a Republican, or most likely socialist Democrat liberal, and if he is not good enough for you guys, you will sacrifice the country because you did not get what you wanted.

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, April, 19, 2007 9:51 PM jevica writes:

Shiela

Yes is our [me and the wife] annual trip to Vegas.

The Texas weather comment was at Sandra's blog.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, April, 19, 2007 11:14 PM Sheila writes:

Hey Brian

I'd like to hear you talk about all the things this administration has accomplished!

This is a stromg Christian president who has done everything I have wanted as a conservative, with a few minor exceptions!

All I hear about from some of my friends on TH (that includes you Brian) is the few things that they wanted done differently, and they focus on those few things, and ignore the overwhelmingly good things!

Look at this post! We have had successes!

With a strong majority any of our candidates would do the right thing for our country contrary to the dems...I don't know why you are so focused on Giuliani...he's only one of the candidates...he's not the nominee.

And the reason the majority is gone is that those on our side who wanted to have everything all at once gave up and threw in the towel, and didn't vote, and by badmouthting the administration, caused the Reagan democrats to go back to the Left.

I think it's personal with you...it's not rational to have such a negative outlook about this administration when this administration has accomplished an impossible task after our country was attacked!

All we need to do is work for more conservatives and quit tearing down our party. This is not productive at all!
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, April, 19, 2007 11:35 PM Sheila writes:

David Mac

Thanks for stopping by and commenting!

Interesting points...however, I think Bush is more conservative than you suggest.

He's strongly pro-life, against federal dollars for stem cell research, he's for tax cuts, strong on Supreme Court nominees, National Security, WOT, the military, strong against global warming, strong for marriage...

And I disagree that McCain would "burn the flag, or take away your guns"...:)

Agree about Pelosi/Reid/Kerry...socialists all...

As far as the parties...they aren't the same...and that's the point I am amking in this post. We need to give credit where credit is due!
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, April, 19, 2007 11:40 PM Sheila writes:

Jevica

I agree...

BTW, will miss your posts, but you deserve a break! Hope you and your wife have a great time.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, April, 19, 2007 11:50 PM BrianR writes:

Jev: What? You turn lib all of a sudden?

You want PROOF? Sure, I can and if you insist, like a whiny lib, I'll be happy to post all the links and proof you want.

Further, you better re-read my post, because you will clearly see that I said Bush was a whole lot better than Giuliani can ever hope to be.

On top of that, stop trying to reframe the discussion. This isn't about Bush. He's not running for Prez anymore. That's the past, and it's over and done with. I'm talking about the future.

You're not talking to some weak-kneed whiny azzed liberal when you're dealing with me, bud. Pay attention.

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, April, 19, 2007 11:53 PM Sheila writes:

Jev

I get it about the weather...yeah it was that bad!
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, April, 19, 2007 11:57 PM BrianR writes:

Sheila: Happy to oblige

Bush's accomplishments:

Tax cuts-very significant

War on Terror in Iraq and Afghanistan- great but flawed effort, but I strongly support

Stands up for gun rights

Tried hard on Social Security

After a bungled first effort, good SCOTUS appointees

Hey, I voted for the guy twice, and don't regret it.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, April, 20, 2007 12:00 AM BrianR writes:

BTW, Sheila

The reason I focus on Giuliani is that he is absolutely emblematic of what is wrong with the GOP nowdays, and I can't believe that so many otherwise intelligent people are being snowed by this snake-oil salesman.

He is, IMO, a HUGE danger to the future of this country.

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, April, 20, 2007 12:01 AM BrianR writes:

Now!

On a different note, my new essay "Guns and Government", will be going up on the blog in just a few minutes. Stop on by and feel free to comment.

Sheila, you're check for ad revenues is in the mail!

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, April, 20, 2007 1:04 AM jevica writes:

sticks and stones

if you don't like Rudy [which seems evident] work against him and for someone you like and want.

I'm puttin in my own comments I also voted for President Bush twice and I'm glad I did, as with Ron R.

Brian when you post "The guy's a lying schmuck." you should give some cites in your comment

Also I can expect no more comments about Bush and the election. If it's over and you're looking to the future.

I would not have asked if I didn't want it, hell you sound like my liberal brother-in-law "You want PROOF? Sure, I can and if you insist, like a whiny lib, I'll be happy to post all the links and proof you want."

You get very aggressive.

My comment brought up what you said about a majority in Congress. I mention the President because it was my comment and I was bringing up my point.

I just hope that you guys will not sacrifice the country because you do not get what you wanted.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, April, 20, 2007 1:35 AM BrianR writes:

Alright, Jev

“Mayor Giuliani, when he was mayor of New York, basically said I'm not a Reagan Republican anymore, I'm a moderate Republican; I'm pro-choice, I'm for the Brady Bill, I'm for the assault weapons ban"
CBS News (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2000/04/06/national/main181115.shtml)


"But the contrast is not as sharp in Mrs. Clinton's expected contest with Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani. The mayor and the first lady hold almost identical views on gun control, which could complicate any effort by Mrs. Clinton to draw a contrast. Mr. Giuliani's campaign manager, Bruce J. Teitelbaum, said, "As a senator, New Yorkers will know exactly what Mayor Giuliani will do because he doesn't just talk about gun control, he actually has a record of taking an historic number of guns off the streets."
NY Times on the Web, 10 May 2000


“Abortion Fits GOP Philosophy, Says Giuliani
By Jeff McKay
CNS Correspondent
April 09, 2001”

“Giuliani Touts Senate's 'Comprehensive' Approach to Immigration Policy

By IRA STOLL - Staff Reporter of the Sun
April 27, 2006

"Mayor Giuliani is wading into the debate over America's immigration policy with the argument that the comprehensive approach being pursued by the Senate is better for American security than what he called the "punitive" approach being pressed by the House of Representatives.”

http://www.lifenews.com/nat2976.html

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/0212072giuliani1.html

http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/blogs/politicalticker/2007/04/giuliani-stands-by-support-of-publicly.html


I've got lots more, or is that enough for you?

You just let me know, now, hear?



EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, April, 20, 2007 2:48 AM Cynewulf writes:

Just an observation:

I find it interesting to see some conservatives sticking up for Rudy at this point in time. Even if, as a Republican, you would vote for him if he won the nomination, this is the time when, as conservatives, you should be on the attack. Or at least not on defense (for him). It is, after all, a race.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, April, 20, 2007 3:47 AM Sanity102 writes:

But Sandra...and Jev

what happened to global warming? I guess they forgot to tell Texas huh?

Hawaii had a bit of rain but we are so spoilt that if the weather goes over 80 degrees or under 59 the 6 PM news has an interview with a group of scientists trying to answer the big question...is the world going to end.

And Jev...Vegas? Aw...I've got another 8 months before I make it back there. I don't go for the gambling (I have this thing about losing money) but SHOW me the shops! If shopping was a sport, I'd be classified as "professional".

Oh ok, go, have fun...but remember we need you. While there are somethings I don't agree with you, I've admired the adult way you handle yourself, here and on your blog. I truly believe that you represent the real conservatives--and your strength and reasonableness will go along way in bringing back the Independents, upon which our elections depend on.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, April, 20, 2007 3:55 AM ch47 jockey writes:

Bear in mind

that until the primaries I am still working hard for the GOP, Although I am a Thompson supporter,I also think Tancredo or Hunter or even Huckabee maybe excellent as well hopefully with any of the above mentioned canidates being nominated in January. Newt would be excellent but he carries too much baggage from the 90's and his term as SOH, not that any of it is true but the public is easily swayed by nonsense, i.e. Gonzales.
But to sway left to pander for votes is a sure way to get beat as the democrats can out-socialist any republican. Just my thoughts.....
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, April, 20, 2007 5:06 AM jevica writes:

Any

judges Rudy appointed as mayor would have nothing to do with with abortion. If they were liberal or not they would have nothing to do with a so-called "womans right." Seems like two of the links have to do with abortion. Rudy talks about it being a right [constitutional] based on present case law it is, though the entire basis for Roe is B.S. as anyone with sense should realize.

Immigration, hell I don't agree with the present President's policy. If the Senate approach they talk about is that then I don't agree with it.

Now BrianR I take it you never change you mind on anything? Never change your thoughts on policies? because it seems that you feel Rudy can't change.

He has to be examined and questioned to be sure he has really changed or if it's all B.S.

I did not read the entire smokinggun.com link [contrary to thought I do have a life apart from the web and blog]. I would like to know if one of your main objections is the abortion issue.

Support a candidate you can, that's the main point. But it will have to be one who has kept the same policy and thoughts since they started in politics.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, April, 20, 2007 8:48 AM Virginia Daddy writes:

Rudy

There certainly are more conservative choices out there. We should focus on them. If Rudy's the nominee, we'll deal with him there...

But Thompson, Huckabee, perhaps even Rmoney, are still out there...
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, April, 20, 2007 11:34 AM davecatbone writes:

BrianR and cohorts

I'm amused at the fixation you've got on Rudy, "The reason I focus on Giuliani is that he is absolutely emblematic of what is wrong with the GOP". I think Rudy popped up out of a vaccuum in leadership in the GOP.

The best man for the job? I don't think so. Interestingly, Pajamas Media strawpoll has Rudy with 11% and Fred with consistently around 40%. This is by no means definitive, but I think Thompson would win.

I'd personally like to hear your criticisms of Arnold. He's a symptom of creeping Liberalism. Will the Left Coast re-elect him next time?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, April, 20, 2007 11:38 AM davecatbone writes:

Sheila

I'm proud of Bush, the Partial Ban was huge and illustrated how important the White House is. SCOTUS will determine the fate of Conservative litmus issues more than anything else. That's why we must win. Bush's speech yesterday was great, I'm proud of him. And the Republicans on the floor have stood up to denounce the Defeatocrats. We just won't hear it emphasized over and over in the MSM like a Democratic message. Good post.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, April, 20, 2007 11:46 AM BrianR writes:

Jev: My apologies

I apologize for snapping at you last night. I was in a bad mood, and took it out on you. Unforgiveable.

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, April, 20, 2007 11:50 AM BrianR writes:

Davecat

I've been extremely critical of Ah-nuld, both in my column comments and blog. I despise him, too, and refused to vote for him either time. He is exactly what this nation would get with a Giuliani presidency, transformed from the state to national level. See my essay of last week "The End of America" on my blog.

He is beyond being a state embarrassment; he is a harbinger of the end of the GOP if his type takes the White House. It would definitely be time, if that happens, for another party as the GOP would have gone the way of the WHIGs.

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, April, 20, 2007 11:54 AM BrianR writes:

Jev

You know what? It may surprise you to learn that I have never changed in my core principles and beliefs. I've held them since I was a small kid and watched the Kennedy/Nixon debates.

I don't compromise on them... at all.

So, Giuliani is either a liar on his beliefs then, or he's one now, or he simply has none and is an opportunistic and cynical pol who will say whatever he thinks he needs to in order to be elected.

None of those are good options. Not the kind of person I'll vote for, because how can you ever know what you're gonna get?

Kind of Bill Clinton, but not as good looking.

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, April, 20, 2007 1:28 PM Sheila writes:

davecatbone

Thanks, I am proud of the president too. And look at what we actually have accomplished despite an attack on our soil, which could have devastated the economy, and life in general.

This strong president kept the morale of the country high, and we were pressing on, and that's why the Left had to start attacking. They saw his popularity, and they couldn't abide that, since they hated the fact that he was elected a second time, and they believed he was illegitimate.

But as the news shows, which I featured in this post, the parties are different. There is a huge contrast, and the future of the country and our lives, will be determinied by the decisions we make at the polls. God only knows where we will be in 08.

As we've seen what the dems are truly capable of since they took the majority, our nation would be in serious danger, with the likes of these dems in total control.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, April, 20, 2007 1:53 PM Sheila writes:

BrianR

I know you are focused on your dislike for Giuliani, but there are others out there. Newsmax.com had an excellent article on Romney,who is extremely qualified, and a conservative, and of course Fred Thompson is getting a lot of attention. It's about the nation's future, and my point is we can't afford to have the dems in control.

Our party is different and far superior to the dem party,and we need to work for it not against it.:)
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, April, 20, 2007 1:58 PM Sheila writes:

And also Brian

Glad you noticed Bush accomplished a great deal.There's more that I mentioned previously, as well.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, April, 20, 2007 2:12 PM Sheila writes:

Plus, Brian

I don't agree that Rudy is "emblematic of what is wrong with the GOP"...because it's not the GOP, it's a few people in the party.


EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, April, 20, 2007 2:19 PM Sheila writes:

Cynewulf

Good to see you! Long time no see!:)

I think most of us are focused on all the candidates right now, and deciding which one we'll support...it seems our friend Brian is focused on Giuliani...:)

It will be interesting to see how this campaign goes...we need to focus our attack strategy on the opposition, and where they are attempting to take the country! It's definitely the wrong direction!

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, April, 20, 2007 2:22 PM Sheila writes:

Sanity

Speaking of Global Warming...it's freezing here in sunny California, and rainning...of course not the "Texas" kind freezing...:0)
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, April, 20, 2007 2:23 PM Virginia Daddy writes:

The trouble with Rudy

is that, as I said earlier (I do not support him), but he does offer some appealing views to many-- this is why he is up in polls. Those here are not likely to endorse him, but we are not the only ones out there voting ro making decisions...
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, April, 20, 2007 2:30 PM Sheila writes:

ch47 jockey

Thanks for sharing your thoughts...yup, we need to work hard for the GOP!

It's still a long time 'till the election, and a lot can happen.

One thing is clear, and that is that there's a huge difference between the parties, and we need to focus on that, as I pointed out in my post...

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, April, 20, 2007 2:32 PM Sheila writes:

V Daddy

Exactly! There are others to watch. And all far superior to the Left's candidates!
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, April, 20, 2007 2:36 PM Sheila writes:

BrianR

About Ahnold...if we let our voices be heard, he listens...we need to keep it up.:)

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, April, 20, 2007 2:57 PM jevica writes:

BrianR

Glad to hear that [abot your beliefs], at one time I was not any conservative, until the time Buckley ran for mayor of NYC [and I had to cast a vote the right way].

After looking at things on both sides I realized how f---ed up things were on the left. Over the years you can see how bad the liberal side is as it matches up to the conservative way. As Rush would say when we run as conservatives we win every time.

If he is as you say [which he might be] he does not deserve our backing or support.

A question is that what you are looking for in a candidate, it migh be difficult to find.

I know abortion is important but how important is a candidates position to you.

Best always.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, April, 20, 2007 2:58 PM Virginia Daddy writes:

Not sure if I'd go so far

as to say "all" are better... But the vast majority are. And I think germaine to all of this is that we weed out those who are not all that good.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, April, 20, 2007 3:01 PM ch47 jockey writes:

I agreed that the GOP

has vastly supieor canidates for the most part,however like very large group the are some bad examples, or inverted there are a few good democrats like Zell Miller, And perhaps Shuler so far he hasn't really been towing the party line. I believe Darvin Dowdy wrote a piece about the 12th man it is very relevant here, what I think is happening is the party leadership is trying to throw just 3 canidates at us pretty hard,however I think FT is changing that scenario.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, April, 20, 2007 6:34 PM Expound Truth writes:

Differ in Responsibility

Over the years I have learned the party of democrats promotes personal irresponsibility. I was once of the opinion that they promoted concerned assistance for the peoples needs. That changed after I was permanently disabled. I then became reliant on the programs they hang their hat on. What a farce. I've seen, up close, and personal, the mountain of bureaucracy that feeds off our tax dollars. I've watched able bodied Americans play the system, has a bureaucracy looks the other way. I've seen state systems not held accountable to federal law. If you research the system you will find sixty some odd percent of the money for those in need goes to the bureaucracy. They are not responsibly promoting these programs for American interest, but for the money that flows to their state, and factions, benefit. If these programs were run responsibly the people collecting should be declining, not increasing. Think about it. They need to keep the vision of personal need, and turbulance, alive. Their breadbasket relies on it.

They had me faked out before I was permanently disabled, when my lifes situation depended on my responsibility. Since then I've had time to reflect,read,and research the reason why I've lost everything I took for granted before. I found out I did not lose it from any of my actions. I lost it from the irresponsible, sluggish, response of a bureaucracy that feeds off democrats in power.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, April, 20, 2007 7:19 PM BrianR writes:

Sheila, Jev

Sheila: Actually, I think Romney might be pretty good. I haven't looked real closely, but I do like what I see. And I think Thompson's great. My issue is totally with Giuliani and McCain, both of whom I view as dangerous, and that's why I continually sound this wakeup call to any and all. They are a danger to the integrity of the GOP and the country, and when I see influential segments of the party backing these guys, I get very alarmed and perturbed.

You may have noticed.

Jev: Glad you were saved from liberalism, my friend!

Actually, as to abortion, as I believe it is rightfully a state issue, the only reason I use it in evaluating a national candidate is as a guide to their value system.

I hope that helps clarify.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, April, 20, 2007 8:36 PM Peppermint writes:

I find myself somewhat

baffled at all the furor over Rudy. He isn't even the nominee as yet, and I tend to doubt he will be.

He's just the flavor right now because not many are interested in Jekyl and Hyde, McShame. Poor Mitt looks like a decent guy to me, but I keep reading his Mormonism will keep him down because Evangelicals don't like that I think that is a shame for such bigotry.

As far as someone changing their minds. I have changed my mind on many issues as time goes by. I think most of us evolve and change over our lifetimes, giving up some things we held in stone and becoming more compassionate or more reasonable about certain things.

I think if you don't change as you age and go through life you are not growing as a person. You just stay stuck on whatever, never allowing your mind to be open to any new ideas. For myself I like to keep an open mind. I even like hearing what the libs have to say and try to look at it from their viewpoint. Sometimes I even think they make sense, very seldom, mind you, but there are times. And, of course, those on the far left are such loons there isn't much sense in anything they have to say.

I am struck though by the left's argument that Evangelicals are bigoted. I used to read these arguments on the columns on religion and mull them over. Now, I see the statistics on Evangelicals being against Romney because of his religion and I see the left's argument may hold some weight. Why are people looking at this man's Mormonism, instead of his policies. He has flip flopped too with his views on some things. But, to merely look at his religion and be against the man for that is shameful in my opinion.

In any event as I have said before there are other candidates who haven't "struck" the national scene yet and may very well pull this off. We do have conservative candidates who are not getting such publicity. So, why not talk about them, rather than mire oneself with Rudy. It seems like an obsession, a destructive one.

One thing I do know is the democrap party is now officially the socialist/communist party. The leaders of that party have shown their true colors for all to see. It will be up to the voters to decide in 2008 whether they want socialism or something else. If socialism gets the nod in 08, we are finished. I look right now at the damage the dims are doing and think how will we recover from what they are doing this minute, this day? Dingy Harry tells the world the Iraq war is lost yesterday. So, who can know what damage he caused by that statement for the months ahead?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, April, 20, 2007 10:49 PM jevica writes:

Yes BrianR

Abortion is [as you say] best left to the states. The sooner the Courts realize that the better off the country will be.

There are many, many other issues that are best left to the states, that the federal government has NO business in at all.

The powers listed in Article I Section 8 of the Constitution are the only things the federal government should be involved with, the rest are left to the states.

If this was done the neverending fights about who would be appointed to the federal courts would not happen.

Also have you read Article III Section 2 next to last paragraph where Congress can make exceptions as to what the Supreme Court shall have jurisdiction over?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, April, 20, 2007 11:13 PM Pasadena Phil writes:

Shiela: "usual suspect" checking in

I know you have a hard time seeing Bush non-heroically but this has truly been an inept and incompetent administration for the ages.

I won't list all of the failures but here is an article from the current edition of "The Spectator", a conservative publication in the UK.

http://www.spectator.co.uk/the-magazine/features/29092/i-found-saddams-wmd-bunkers.thtml

Read it carefully. This is a respectable and credible source. I find it very disturbing. I would be interested in hearing what you think. I commented on it at my blog this morning.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, April, 20, 2007 11:24 PM Pasadena Phil writes:

I guess I should have said something

on the subject of the essay. Although the two parties may be different, for all practical reasons, they are being financed by the same interests and the leading candidates have all signed onto the same agenda. The agenda is what matters. If we don't change the agenda, we are going to get the global one-world liberalism whether it is delivered by Hillary or Rudy. Be careful wishing for an empty Republican victory. It's like a funny bit Lilly Tomlin used to do in her stand-up act: "When I was a little girl, I just knew I was going to be somebody when I grow up.....I guess I should have been more specific." Wish for specific things...like an agenda that embodies your stands on issues. For now, the fight has been narrowed down to who will be in office to deliver the poison. So, as you can see, I disagree with you Sheila (spelled it right this time). There is no practical difference between the parties.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, April, 21, 2007 12:37 AM Sheila writes:

V Daddy

I guess we'll have to see how the campaign goes...if the dems take all, we lose.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, April, 21, 2007 12:45 AM Sheila writes:

ch47 jockey

Yeah, I liked Zell too. He had guts...

Fred Thompson is quite a surprise with his potential presidential run...

of the "top three", I think Romney looks the best.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, April, 21, 2007 1:37 AM Sheila writes:

Expound Truth

Thanks for stopping by and sharing your story.

Dealing with the bureaucracy can be disheartening. I'm sorry you had such a bad experience discovering what it's all about.

The pandering from the dems is pathetic...they want to appear to be the party that cares about people, when all their doing is padding their own pockets...

It sounds like you learned a lot from the experience...I hope things have gotten better for you.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, April, 21, 2007 1:44 AM Sheila writes:

BrianR

From what I've read Romney is extrememly qualified, and a really fine man, plus he's a Reagan conservative...Fred Thompson's a good man too, so we'll see what happens!

I'm sure the debates will be interesting and revealing.

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, April, 21, 2007 1:54 AM BrianR writes:

Jev, Sheila

Jev: Yes, that is a great section, and used only occassionally (unfortunately). It should be used much more often, IMO.

_____________________________

Sheila: About the furor over Giuliani, I was just thinking about that a moment ago, and here's my big issue. It's one of character. Giuliani strikes me as the GOP's answer to Bill Clinton. A man with a sordid past, no morals to speak of, a political philosophy that changes by the poll, a con man and huckster.

I have a similar problem with McCain. He's a megalomaniac, who wants to be President for all the wrong reasons.

So aside from the fact that they're both wrong politically, I think they are not good men.

One of the charges the Right hurled at the Dems throughout Clinton's presidency was that they had no true values or morals as they put such an alleycat in office.

Is the GOP in danger of doing the same thing?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, April, 21, 2007 2:07 AM Sheila writes:

Wow, Pep!

You've got quite a lot on your mind! I totally agree about the Rudy thing...enough!

Mitt is definitely qualified...I think some will object to his Mormonism, but over all, once people start paying attention they may change their mind. I don't think the concerns are bigotry, just the fact that our nation was founded on the Judeo/Christian heritage, and this would be a departure from that tradition, at the highest level of power in the land.

There are a lot more candidates that will be seen as times moves forward, and the debates will play a large part in revealing each one.


I tend to think you're right about people changing their outlook and values as they mature...some people go nuts and rebell, and then come to their senses, and totally change their core values...others are pretty consistent and never change.

As far as the official socialist/communist party being the democrat party, I think I wrote a blog on that...Harry Reid and Pelosi are definitely encouraging the enemy...Reid's statements about the war are despicable...maybe they will do themselves in, and it will come back to haunt them in 08. We can hope and pray.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, April, 21, 2007 2:22 AM Sheila writes:

Pasadena Phil..."usual suspect"...:)

I'll do some checking and see if there are other sources which can validate the claim...unfortunately there are people with agendas, who are holdovers still in the administration that don't have the president's or the nation's best interest at heart...this could be the situation here.

Unfortunately even Reagan had troubles with things not going as he would have liked in his administration...I guess it's inescapable...the Russians have been working against us with Iran and Syria, and it's a serious matter that this administration will have to deal with. The world is a dangerous place, Phil, and if the dems win in 08, it will be worse...

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, April, 21, 2007 2:32 AM Sheila writes:

Also Phil,

Regarding the parties...and wishing for empty victory...

Money is the machine that gets the word out to people...so everyone who is interested in politics and claiming a stake in politics will be contributing.

As far as all the candidates having the same agenda, I don't see it that way. The Republicans have different solutions...so we'll see as the campaign unfolds...

Truthfully, only God knows what the future holds, but I'm glad He holds the future...we can only do our part, the rest is in His hands, ultimately, and His timming.

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, April, 21, 2007 2:33 AM jevica writes:

Phil

Here is an update from Captain's Quarters blog about this very thing

UPDATE: Or, it could just be BS, as many CQ commenters have decided. Here's Gaubatz' website, which doesn't mention this story. His blog at Sanework -- Society of Americans for National Existence -- features posts by Gaubatz that asserts a link between radical Islam and the Virginia Tech shootings, and a long post about how nuclear weapons could be transported ... through the sewer systems.

Gaubatez site is http://www.davegaubatz.com/

The captain links to the story that you link to.

President Bush has not done everthing great but I cannot agree with your evaluation of his administration.

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, April, 21, 2007 2:40 AM Sheila writes:

"be careful wishing for empty victory...

"empty victory" isn't the goal, btw, I didn't continue with my thought on that...we need a "significant victory" with strong leaders, and a strong majority to hold onto the country we know and love, and to try to reverse damage done by the Left...not to do so will be devastating as we are witnessing now with the current majority...
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, April, 21, 2007 2:45 AM jevica writes:

Sheila

Amen
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, April, 21, 2007 3:36 AM Sheila writes:

Hey Jev...

Thanks for the link!:)
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, April, 21, 2007 6:22 AM J-Dawg writes:

Responsible?

There's something weak about dang near each candidate for most of us. I'm fairly certain, however, that whichever candidate ends up with the nomination will recieve more forgiving evaluation, standing opposite Hitlery, or the Breck Girl. Better something than nothing.

Regards
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, April, 21, 2007 9:17 AM davecatbone writes:

Sheila

The future: "Truthfully, only God knows what the future holds, but I'm glad He holds the future"

I believe He will help us help ourselves. But He's going to let us decide our salvation or destruction. The choice we all face every moment of everyday is, how are we going to act.

So, will we unite under the common goal of truth and freedom, or will we let the forces of selfishness and humanism win because of our own distractions and agendas?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, April, 21, 2007 11:50 AM Sheila writes:

3-Dawg

Hey, hadn't seen you here at my place before! Thanks for stopping by!

Thanks for adding your perspective. I believe we have the better candidates, and will have a far superior nominee.

Interesting times we live in, Dawg...we will see what the future holds...
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, April, 21, 2007 11:58 AM Sheila writes:

davecatbone

"So will we unite under the goal of truth and freedom"...Dave,my hope is, that as time passes, and we have the debates, and the campaign heats up, our side will "wake up" as the line is drawn in the sand, and the two sides define themselves. It will be clear which side is for truth and freedom...
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, April, 21, 2007 12:53 PM SLW writes:

J-Dawg:

Well said. The idea of Hitlery, Hussein Obama, or Pretty Rich Boy, all far left... will put some perspective on the issue. At least you would think!
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, April, 21, 2007 1:42 PM Sheila writes:

Sandra

Yeah...the socialists will show their true colors before this is all over...

Good to hear from you Sis!:) You always make sense...
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, April, 21, 2007 1:43 PM Sheila writes:

BTW,Sandra

Hope the weather is better in Texas...and you're not hanging out in the closet with the cats...:)
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, April, 21, 2007 7:19 PM J-Dawg writes:

Shooting their foot

Being the Keystone cops of Capitol hill, I'm fairly confident that the left leadership, in their scramble to represent both sides of each argument, will inevitably do just such. Only variable, IMO, is timing. Old Harry Landgrab is setting the pace.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, April, 21, 2007 8:32 PM Sheila writes:

J- Dawg!

Sorry, I got it wrong the first time...for some reason the J looked like a 3!

"Old Harry Landgrab" is setting the pace...funny...he is such a loser, isn't he?

yeah, let's hope the voters throw the rascals out in 08.

If we work hard to get conservatives elected, and keep the WH, it'll give America time to recover, and hopefully hold back the advances of terror around the world, and keep the terrorists on the run...

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, April, 21, 2007 9:03 PM jevica writes:

Sandra

You have cats?

Are you a cat person?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, April, 21, 2007 10:25 PM Sheila writes:

Jevica

Is Sandra a cat person?...I'll let her answer that...:)

I'll go get her...
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, April, 21, 2007 10:31 PM Sheila writes:

Jev

It seems that comment rang a bell...are you a cat person?...:)
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, April, 22, 2007 12:09 AM jevica writes:

Sheila

Yes I have had cats since I was a youngster.

For a period of time [when my daughter was younger] we adopted a stray dog, even then we still had cats. Now we have adopted my late brothers cat.

I do like cats better than dogs. Dogs are OK I do not dislike dogs but I like cats more.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, April, 22, 2007 11:10 AM BrianR writes:

Sheila: LOL

Maybe you were thinking of 3-Dog Night, that great 60s-70s band.

"One is the loneliest number....."

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, April, 22, 2007 12:19 PM Sheila writes:

Jevica

I know what you mean...I'm more a cat fan than dog fan myself...they are smart as heck!

I started my cat experience with a stray that jumped in my lap miowing one evening as we sat in the back yard enjoying the outdoors in So Cal watching the sunset...the rest is history.

I had three strays, and one persian I adopted from a family who were moving away. Every one had a unique personality...:)Cats are lots of fun.

I always had dogs growing up, so never experienced cats 'til later in life...

You mentioned adopting your late brother's cat...was the loss of your brother recent? Sorry for your loss.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, April, 22, 2007 12:25 PM Sheila writes:

BrianR

Ha ha...funny...I think it was the fog of the wee hours of the morning...:)

You're too much...

BTW, couldn't get on TH last night, so I gave up and went to bed early for a change...
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, April, 22, 2007 2:37 PM BrianR writes:

Sheila

Yeah, it's been tanking on and off today, too, earlier.


Now, c'mon, sing along:

"One is the loneliest number that you'll ever dooooo...

"Two can be as sad as one, it's the loneliest number since the number one....."


I'll bet you have a hard time getting it out of your head for the rest of the day, now.

LOL


EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, April, 22, 2007 2:49 PM Sheila writes:

Yo Brian!

One is the loneliest number...good thing we don't have that problem here on TH...ha!

Yeah it's hard to get the tune outta my head...thanks a lot Brian! LOL

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, April, 22, 2007 2:55 PM Sheila writes:

Looks like TH is

humming right along now...never know what's going to happen.

Last night I was going to comment around on TH, but gave up...

guess I'll get around soon.

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, April, 22, 2007 2:58 PM jevica writes:

Sheila

The loss was back in 2003, thanks for you comment.

You are right it's amazing how each cat has it's own personality, my daughter and her husband have a cat with a much different personality, than ours.

How many cats does your sister have if any?



EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, April, 22, 2007 5:36 PM Sheila writes:

Hey Jev...

Yeah, they're unique...

Sandra is the "kittie angel" of the planet...she's rescued quite a few over the years...so she's had a lot of cats...

I think she has 3 or 4 right now, but not sure, since I don't always see them when I'm at her place.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, April, 22, 2007 5:49 PM jevica writes:

Sheila

Most I've ever had at once is two.

I'm sure my daughter would be like that is she had her own place.

Sorry to hear that Sandra is having problems with TH.

TH seems to working ok for me since I had all my problems.

This purist against pragmatic is really heating up, just think of how long we have to go for the primaries and the election. Hope everyone remembers who the opponent is.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, April, 22, 2007 6:02 PM Sheila writes:

Shane 7

Hey Shane, glad you stopped by, but obviously we don't agree.:)

You need to listen to Larry Elder, who is a Libertarian, and chose to become a Republican because he believes there is a major difference in the parties, and working within the R party he can get more done regarding shrinking the governement etc.. He's a very sharp guy.


Though I don't agree with all his issues, he understands that a two party system is the best, and he chose the better party that is closer to his point of view.

He would prefer a smaller government as most conservatives,and since we aren't a dictatorship, we have divided government... also in case you
didn't notice the population is pretty much split down the middle, so It's a hard task to get everything I as a conservative would want.

Until we have more conservatives representing us we won't have school choice, SS reform,etc, though there has been an improvement in welfare state in the country, with Newt's welfare reform.

As to "American Imperialism", you sound like a lib...
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, April, 22, 2007 6:38 PM BrianR writes:

Shane: Don't listen to her!

Sorry, Sheila, LOL.

But Shane, good for you. Join the small but growing Band of Brothers and Sisters who see these issues clearly, and are demanding the GOP perform and live up to its advertised core values, instead of simply paying lip service while they dump all over the American electorate.

Hang in, Shane.

We're right!

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, April, 22, 2007 6:54 PM jevica writes:

Sandra &/or Sheila

The Democrat match up is on your Toyko Rose post comment by Phil on 4-22 4:10PM. Phil has alot of posts about % of votes conservative & moderate vs the libs. Interesting reading.

Brian;

What Sheila said is good and as you say we have to get the GOP to listen to its base and not take us for granted.

But just to walk away or split the vote and give the country to the socialist/lib/left is a hard choice to make.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, April, 22, 2007 7:04 PM BrianR writes:

Jev: Of course

But what happens when they don't? What's the final recourse?

The only leverage we have is our votes. Particularly -- and this is the key issue I keep trying to emphasize -- when the candidates we're offered are in no substantive way different from the other party's candidates.

Like I've written before, the campaign slogan of "Hey, we're bad, but the other guy's worse" isn't very persuasive, know what I mean?

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, April, 22, 2007 11:14 PM BrianR writes:

Shane! Impressive debut!

.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, April, 23, 2007 3:27 AM jevica writes:

As I have

Blogged, and commented on, the Constitution gives enumerated powers to the central government, the rest belong to the states. If this could be brought back then many of the problems could be eliminated.

It's a difficult choice during the time of the WOT to hand the country to the socialist/left, if we can't get the right kind of candidate to elect.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, April, 23, 2007 11:30 AM BrianR writes:

Jev: Yep

The constant erosion of States' Rights has been a big part of the problem, because with them go individual rights and responsibilities.

I think we can really look to the FDR administration as the genesis of the problem.

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, April, 23, 2007 11:42 AM Jimmy Carter writes:

Well done Shane..

...these alarmists think Republican and Conservative are interchangable terms.....the concept of Principle is lacking in some....
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, April, 23, 2007 12:32 PM Sheila writes:

Hey everyone

Sorry I couldn't get back to answer your comments. Good to hear from 'yall! (A little Jimmy Carter lingo)...:)

Where do I begin...
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, April, 23, 2007 12:50 PM Sheila writes:

Shane, Brian, Jimmy,

I understand your passion, and smaller costitutional government is our goal, with states rights at the forefront.

The problem we have is, you forget the dems had 40 years to entrench their policies, and expand the government, and spread their tentacles throughout society. That can't be reversed overnight not even in a decade! We were on the right track, and we were making gains, and then came the tantrum in 06.

You can't win by giving the battle back to the enemy, you have to add to your numbers...we neede more conservatives, a larger majority, not the dems in control...

Now you guys are talking about a third party...well, you can pretty much guarantee the dems the victory from now on out. When you start splitting the vote, that's what you'll get. And in this new era of terror, we may not survive.

If we would all unite, work hard for the good candidates, and stick with our party, we would advance our cause much faster than giving it over to the dems, rolling back the clock again, putting the nation at risk, then trying to gain back ground again! We will never have consistent change with this kind of yoyo voter strategy!

The only way to move our agenda forward, is to work for the cause, not by letting the enemy win, but by working hard and making gains consistently, rather than gainning, and losing, gainning and losing. It's a no brainer, guys!



EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, April, 23, 2007 1:07 PM Sheila writes:

And Shane

America has never been imperialist. The idea is to defend the homeland, not expand an empire. A country that doesn't take action against visible threats won't survive long...sorry but that's just the way it is in this fallen world, Shane.:)

BTW, I wasn't name calling, you just sounded like a lib with the imperialist stuff. No offense meant. Is saying someone sounds like a lib name calling?...ooops, sorry.;)
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, April, 23, 2007 1:15 PM Sheila writes:

Jevica

Your daughter might have rescued kitties like Sandra too, huh...it's hard not to adopt a kittie in trouble...that's how I wound up with four!

One that was a "Morris" cat, who was a wild Tomcat on the sloaps behind my house, became a "teddy bear" (I actually named him that) after I trapped him, and he lived 25 years!

And btw,as usual you are right on the money in this discussion. You must get right back here after your vacation!:)
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, April, 23, 2007 1:28 PM Sheila writes:

Hey Jimmy!

Am I an alarmist because I don't want another 9-11? And am I lacking in priciple because I don't want the dems to win?...:)

I will work for more conservatives, and I will vote with my party, which is the best hope for America. Otherwise I lose all my principles to an unprincipled party, which opposes everything I believe in...

I feel it is unpricipled to do that. LOL
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, April, 23, 2007 3:17 PM Jimmy Carter writes:

I will address you directly...

...and state for myself only.

The difference I see going on between Us is the party versus the Individual.

Conservatism is a foundation with which to live One's life; principles. A Republican simply attempts to get the most votes; compromise.

These primaries are not only for selecting the next canidate for President, but the canidate will also represent the party.

If a canidate (Rudy to use just one example) who has compromised (Republican to use one example) the 2nd Amendment (to use just one example) and wins the nomination for the party (Republican), he, therefore, does not represent Conservatism and is now the leader of a party that does not.

The election of '06 was not a "tantrum." It is an indication that the Republican party has moved closer to the left via compromise, therefore alienating Conservatives. Don't blame the voters, blame those who ran and on what they ran.

If the party "needs more conservatives" I suggest the party "needs" to be more conservative.

The rest of what you have stated reads like political whitewash: "move forward," "roll back the clock," "work for the cause," "gain back grounds," "work for the cause," ad nauseum...

You have defended President Bush but have yet to find an Individual to support and is actually
eligible to not only run for President, but who will also represent your party.

The primaries are for weeding out the pretenders of the Republican party, assuming the Republican party is the home of Conservatism.

And yes, alarmist are those who see death and destruction if they don't get their outcome.

Principles cannot be determined by which party wins elections. You can wave good-bye to a party that claims to represent your principles, but by definition principles are unwavering. That doesn't mean We can't use the primaries to get the closest canidate possible by criticizing their past performance.



EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, April, 23, 2007 4:09 PM Sheila writes:

Hey Jimmy

Thanks for your comments...you make some interesting points...but, in my opinion, we quit too soon, and caved...how much of our agenda are we getting passed now? Hummm?:)

I, like you, want the conservative agenda passed, but it won't happen with the dems in control...that's my point.

For the party to be more conservative, you need more conservatives elected, not less...so that should be our goal, even if it doesn't happen overnight. If we get a landslide in 08, and the WH, we can "pick up where we left off"...(sorry, I guess that was "whitewash" to you...:)

As to a candidate, my choice right now is Fred Thomspson, but we have some other good guys I'm keeping an eye on. We'll see.

I do fear that with today's dems, and the blame America first party, if they had total control the country would be in big trouble in many ways, not just the WOT, and Homeland Security, but I guess you're not worried about that. Wish I had your confidence in the dems' ability to keep us safe and not completely ruin the country...they did a pretty good job while in power for 40 years.

Thanks for addressing me personally, btw! I'm honored to have the famous Jimmy Carter address humble little me...:)

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, April, 23, 2007 4:21 PM Sheila writes:

And, Jimmy

Regarding your thoughts on the the party vs the individual, I agree conservatism is an idiology, not a party, but there's only one party that can adress my individual conservatism, and get my agenda as a conservative passed. I understand I may not get it done overnight, though.

The idea of forming a "conservative party" is nice, as some have suggested, but a long shot.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, April, 23, 2007 4:29 PM Jimmy Carter writes:

C'mon Sheila...

...I understand your point: Our Nation is better off with Republicans in the majority.

My point is (after having used the example above) if those Republicans are no different than the Democrats they defeat, what's the difference? Just because someone is in the Republican party does not necessarily make the politician a Conservative.

Remember, Conservatism doesn't move, Republicans move. If Republicans want more Conservatives, the representatives of the Republican party "need" to be more Conservative.

".., if they had total control the country would be in big trouble in many ways, not just the WOT, and Homeland Security, but I guess you're not worried about that."

Another scare tactic? And you guessed wrong.

"Wish I had your confidence in the dems' ability to keep us safe and not completely ruin the country.."

Another scare tactic? Never have I ever stated such a fallacy.

Where's that optimism that used to exude from Sheila's post and comments? I sure miss her.



EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, April, 23, 2007 5:52 PM Sheila writes:

Hey Jimmy

Sorry, I am optomistic, but not about the dems!:)Is that a scare tactic?

Hey, I totatlly understand what you are saying...and I agree. We want a more conservative Republican party, and we can accomplish that...:)I'm going to work for that!

We can do it! (Am I doing better?)...:)

So, let's let the R's know who we want for a nominee.

BTW, remember when we were having a similar discussion before the last election, and I kept saying "we can do it"...someone said I sounded like a cheer leader...wonder who that was?;)

I do want to be positive about things, Jimmy, but watching Reid and Pelosi only makes me positive they are bad for America...

I'll try harder though...:) Thinking positive thinking positive...I'm optimistic I'm optimistic...




EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, April, 23, 2007 5:55 PM Sheila writes:

And Jimmy

Remember the great campaign plans we had? Still considering a run? I think BrianR decided to decline...;)
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, April, 23, 2007 6:06 PM Jimmy Carter writes:

What a difference.

And much more pleasurable to read.

"..watching Reid and Pelosi only makes me positive they are bad for America.."

Funny!

"Keep smiling, keep shining
Knowing you can always count on me, for sure
That's what friends are for
For/In good times and/in bad times
I'll be on your side forever more
That's what friends are for..."

Sorry, but "One Is The Lonliest Number" has been in my head for a while....had to try and replace it.

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, April, 23, 2007 6:17 PM Sheila writes:

I love it! Thanks, Jimmy!

"In good times, in bad times

I'll be on your side forevermore!

That's what friends are for"!

Good song!

Thanks, I needed that!:)
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, April, 24, 2007 12:44 AM BrianR writes:

Hey!

No way did I decline to run. I seem to recall on some post somewhere I wanted to declare myself Emperor!

But, actually Sheila, I'm sure it comes as no surprise to you that I agree with what Jimmy wrote; you've heard me say it a hundred times so I won't repeat myself; particularly as Jimmy phrased it so well.

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, April, 24, 2007 12:51 AM BrianR writes:

Shane: Interesting

I've heard that posit on Lincoln and the Civil war; I'm not sure I agree.

He did suspend Habeas Corpus, and the Constitution provides for that. I'm not sure the case can actually be made that the Civil War was a revolution and not just simply a revolt or rebellion, as I'm not aware of any providion in the Constitution that allows a state to secede from the Union once it's joined.

Wait one, I'm going to take a quick look...

You know what? I just took a quick read through, and though there are provisions for adding states to the Union, there are none allowing secession.

Apparently, like the Mafia, once in never out.



EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, April, 24, 2007 12:56 AM Sheila writes:

Hey Shane!

I said more CONSERVATIVES...:)

Unfortunately we can't decree to balance the budget, we have to have a super majority to get the votes we need.

That's why we need more conservatives elected...we need to work like heck for good candidates where we can.

I think we did accomplish a lot for the conservative cause, one of the biggies is the Supreme Court, tax cuts, great econmy, support for pro life issues, marriage between one man one woman, National Security ( we're keeping the jihadists on the run and so far no more attacks on our soil), and we're working internationally to catch them before they bomb innocents.

If we can get a real conservative super majority, we can get school choice, SS fixed, and hopefully balance the budget, more welfare reform, and all the other things we'd like to see happen.

Let's work hard and can get it done. I think the fiasco we're watching right now with Reid and Pelosi, will generate some votes for our side, and we just may get that landslide we got with Reagan.

If you had your choice, who would you like to see be the nominee?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, April, 24, 2007 1:03 AM Jimmy Carter writes:

Oh, Brian..

.."Apparently, like the Mafia, once in never out."

Man, that was too funny! Not only states though, it would include Our southern neighbors as well.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, April, 24, 2007 1:05 AM Sheila writes:

Brian,

How did you like the story of the 82 year old ex- Miss America shooting the tires out of the ol' crooks vehicle, and holding him at gun point on her farm 'til the cops showed up? Not a bad gun story, huh?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, April, 24, 2007 1:07 AM Sheila writes:

Jimmy,

Yeah that was pretty funny...way to go Brian!;)
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, April, 24, 2007 11:27 AM BrianR writes:

Shane

I understand, but the Constitution itself is the final arbiter. There is a clear mechanism for acquiring statehood, none for withdrawing from the Union. Therefore, it's a one-way street. Inferences can't be drawn from the silence of the C on the issue; that would be using Roe v. Wade logic.

As to Jeff Davis, analyses I've read about why he wasn't ultimately tried for treason, as well as others like Lee, was that prevailing wisdom wanted a time for the healing process to begin, and treason trials for the rebels would not have allowed that. That's why there was a general amnesty.

Further, there would have been the pragmatic problem of determining how far down the chain of command one cuts off actionable treason. Davis? Lee? Other generals? Sergeants? Privates? Where?

As to resolution by force, it had happened before, the Whiskey Rebellion coming immediately to mind. So it wasn't a unique or watershed event.

Additionally, since the C does mention "rebellion", specifically as a circumstance under which Habeas Corpus can be suspended, it was an event envisioned by the Founders.



EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, April, 24, 2007 11:32 AM BrianR writes:

Sheila, Jimmy: LOL

"Old beauty queens never die, they just blaze away."

That Cyne! That just cracked me up!

Guys, ever notice how all the funny lines come from Righties? I guess Lefties are just too busy being shrill and hysterical.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, April, 24, 2007 12:37 PM Sheila writes:

Hey Brian!

Yeah, we have the sense of humor on our side that's for sure...:)
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, April, 24, 2007 12:49 PM Sheila writes:

Brian, Shane

Interesting historical discussion...

It is clear that America came to be and survived by the hand of the Almighty. God certainly kept this fledgling nation from falling apart, and has had His hand on our Nation.

My prayer is that He will continue to protect our land from enemies foreign and domestic, and protect our president, and give him wisdom handling the decisions that need to be made. It's a dangerous world, and the forces of evil are arrayed agaisnt us.

May God bless and protect America in these perilous times. Only He knows where we're headed.

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, April, 24, 2007 1:05 PM Sheila writes:

Shane 7

I just lost my post to you...will try again...
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, April, 24, 2007 1:12 PM Sheila writes:

Shane 7

OK, I'll try again since I guess my last post worked.

Thanks for sharing your perspective and your choice of candidates.

As you can tell from our discussion we disagree on our approach...but we can agree to disagree.
Our conscience will direct our decisions...

We'll see how things shake out over the next few months...a lot can happen to change everything.

I would prefer to avoid the h**l you mentioned with the dems in power, and work from strength to get more conservatives in office, after a victory in 08...:)
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, April, 24, 2007 10:51 PM Sheila writes:

Shane

Thanks for your perpective.

It's going to be interesting to watch this campaign.

It seems Hillary is not doint too well, and Obama is doing better than she thought he would.

I'm sure the Clinton machine will be on attack mode and they'll go after him with a vengeance...that would be a scary thing to be in the crosshairs of those two...:0)

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, April, 24, 2007 11:44 PM BrianR writes:

Shane

Philosophically, we're on the same page. I'm a constructionist and originalist.

So when I pointed out the flaws in your argument, it was with the idea in mind that it would help you present a better case in the future.

Repeating all the same things you said earlier doesn't enhance their strength or persuasiveness; it makes them boring and repetitive.

As to my quote on Davis, you took it out of context. Did you read the entire paragraph I wrote? If so, you'd realize your statement is pointless, and apparently simply put there to, I guess, dazzle others with your brilliant repartee as my original statement covered the entire issue of amnesty for Southern combatants.

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, April, 24, 2007 11:54 PM BrianR writes:

PS, Shane, as to FDR

He got away with his programs by threatening to pack the Supreme Court when Congress wouldn't go along with his proposals.

It had nothing to do with Lincoln.

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, April, 25, 2007 3:37 PM SLW writes:

Sheila:

I'm using my computer at school to test the comments. Yesterday I couldn't get to the comments page at your site at all.

If this posts, then I'll test it again from home.

It's getting pretty deep here. I see we are going all the way back to Lincoln.

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, April, 25, 2007 3:42 PM SLW writes:

Jevica:

I haven't been able to get on Sheila's site to comment for several days. Now that I got on, I am finally going to answer your question. I do love cats. I used to live on a golf course and would rescue the strays and get them fixed and find them homes.

I still have several that I kept. I've got a couple of indoor cats and a couple of patio kitties.

They are my darlings.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, April, 25, 2007 5:01 PM davecatbone writes:

The Original Premise of this Post

Sheila, it's clear that most on the right, big C's, & little c's, can agree on the basics. Small government, low taxes, strong national defense, tough on crime, constructionist constitutional interpretations.

To judge the Dems and GOPs through these values, you'll see varying degrees of purity. As always. We can all agree on that. But we can also agree the the difference between the 2 parties on these issues is enormous when checking voting records.

As far as a possible candidate for 2008, I'd like to hear more promotion on individuals to consider, not just a running criticism of the GOP in general. That's just not constructive towards anything, and makes me wonder about the motives of the commentators.

I have been reading the articles Thompson has been publishing lately with great interest. Have you read them?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, April, 25, 2007 9:23 PM BrianR writes:

Shane: Actually

surprisingly enough, I do understand the meaning of the word "sovereign". Ta da!

Further, and let's try not to get into too much minutiae here, the States retain certain aspects of their sovereignty (States' Rights) when they join the Union, and surrender others, as is quite clearly spelled out in the Constitution. It is obvious, based on a reading of the Constitution, that one of those aspects is the option to secede, in return for which (quid pro quo) they acquire certain other considerations (to put it in lagalspeak). Just like they lose the right to impose tariffs. They are, in return, assured of their defense by the federal government should it become necessary, among other considerations.

It is a legal document, after all, and a binding contract (in theory) between the individual states and the Federal government.

I do not concede that Lincoln's actions in the Civil War were "tyranny". He was, under my posit and under established precedent (Whiskey Rebellion) exercising his responsibilities to enforce the rebellion states' adherence to their contractual obligations; nothing more nor less.
Also, don't forget what the Whiskey Rebellion was all about: on the face of it, the same issue the Revolution was about, i.e. product taxation (tea, whiskey). Do you hold it was a valid revolt?

As to your assertion that there's some kind of "interpretation" of the Constitution here on my part, I would actually assert that you are the one interpreting into the Constitution something that is, in fact, not there, i.e. the right of secession. It simply does not exist. There is no mechanism extant for that to take place.

As I said earlier, once in never out.

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, April, 26, 2007 7:32 PM Sheila writes:

Dave

Thanks for the comments, glad to hear you feel this post was a worthy point to make.

I agree that it's not productive to constantly criticize the GOP,that is pro-America, when we could be criticizing the party that seems to be for our defeat, and who is doing everything to undermine our country.

I've missed the Thompson articles...I will check them out...I like him.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, April, 26, 2007 7:37 PM Sheila writes:

Shane

I agree, Mc Clintock is a great guy...wonder if he could beat Boxer in a senate race...
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, April, 26, 2007 7:40 PM Sheila writes:

Sandra

Glad you're able to comment finally...hope you figure out what's been happening.

Btw, Jevica is gone to Vegas on vacation...
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, April, 28, 2007 6:25 PM gently99 writes:

Sheila

Yes there is a difference. The thing now, as some posters note, is work hard for a nominee to the right of the current front runners, but then vote for whomever the candidatge is. Couple days ago Peppermint mentioned the slowly boiled frog analogy. This is the rub that makes a hard choice. Would putting the Dems in make things so bad we would jump out of the slowly heating water? Not that i advocate it, but its a plausible arguement. Golly i hope we don't have to make that cchoice.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, April, 28, 2007 6:39 PM Sheila writes:

Gently 99

Yes, you make good sense...I feel the future is too critical to allow those who take our national security and the WOT lightly, to get total control of the reigns of power...

The strategy should be as you say...the frog in the water that Pep mentioned is a possibility if we don't do so...

Thanks for checking in, and sharing your thoughts...you're welcome anytime!:)

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