I Thought Orrin Hatch Was A Conservative?

Hatch is one of those GOP mavericks. The key to his personality is that he is a Mormon. This causes him to be all mixed up from time to time.

Mormons are a part of the GOP coalition. The Norman Barnacle choir performed for Bush 41 at his inauguration.

Never be surprised at what Hatch does. Just pray that he (and all other cultists) sees the true Jesus and becomes a Christian.

 

Hatch is far from a maverick. He is right in line with Bush and the rest of the party leadership. Anyone who stands for Godly constitutional government is a maverick.

 

You've got it, PA Jim. The Republican who believes in Goldy government (and the Constitution) is the rare exception these days.

 

If I am not mistaken, Bush is against hate crimes legislation for the very simple and true reason that all crime is hate crime. A person killed because of prejudice is no more dead than a person killed because of money or drugs or revenge. All crimes are hate crimes and should be treated so.

So if Hatch is for hate crimes legislation, then he is out of step with the president on this one.

 

Funny thing is, I never thought Hatch was a conservative.

Joseph Botwinick

 

Thanks! I never counted Hatch as much of a conservative either.

I think that we need two categories: Christian conservative and secular conservative.

Bush's critics are in attack mode, but the election is not for another year.

 

Senator Hatch's good friend is Ted Kennedy. Need I say more?

 

Nonsense - quite a number of crimes are greed crimes or negligence crimes. Then there are lust crimes (pedophilia springs to mind there), pride crimes (covering lethal mistakes, perhaps) - anyway, not everything is hate.

 

Nonsense - quite a number of crimes are greed crimes or negligence crimes. Then there are lust crimes (pedophilia springs to mind there), pride crimes (covering lethal mistakes, perhaps) - anyway, not everything is hate. </font>[/QUOTE]Yes it is. Hate for other humans leads to crime. The point is that whether someone kills because of prejudice or because of money, they are dead and the killer should be treated like he killed somebody. The motive is irrelevant.

 

Why can't opponents be friends?

So if a capital crime is also a hate crime, is the person given two life sentences instead of one? Given two lethal injections instead of just one?

 

Hate Crimes are irrelevant in practice. The only relevance to it is to get people to slowly relinquish their freedom of thought and speech rights, to where one day we go the next step and pass hate speech legistlation and eventually, hate thoughts will be criminal. I wonder who will set the standards for hate speech. I wonder what that standard will be.

Joseph Botwinick

 

It's hard to say where Bush stands on hate crimes, as he hasn't to my knowledge had opportunity to sign or veto legislation. You sure can't go by what he says. If he is forced politically to deal with it, I would expect him to concoct some complicated unclear compromise designed to extract votes from both sides of the issue, as he did with stem cell research.

Anyway, even if Bush would be against hate crimes legislation, it would be only one point of many...most of which he would be in line with Mr. Hatch.

 

I am sorry, Pennsylvania, but President Dean will make you long for the good ole days of Dubya. You may want to turn you attention to what President Dean has in mind for you.

 

Like what...

Uncontrolled spending at outrageous levels?

Aggressive promotion of the homosexual agenda through political appointments?

Further federalization of our childrens' education?

Abortion on demand?

Lying us into horrible, bloody wars against nations that do not threaten us?

Extension of the "assault" weapons ban?

Support of outlaw "judges" who want to purge Christianity from our public life?


Nobody needs Dean to do all of that, Bush is doing just fine.

 

If you are talking about the war against terror, then yes we are spending a lot, and it is an investment in our country to keep us from fighting the war right here in our own homeland or from experiencing another 9-11. If you are talking about the money that was sent to New York to help rebuild one of the financial centers of America and the world, are you seriously suggesting that we should let our finiancial centers go off into oblivion. If we did that, you would be bashing Bush because he was destroying our economy. If you are talking about education, I would say that you probably have a point there. But, to say that there is no difference between Bush and Dean is really rediculous.

Aggressive promotion of the homosexual agenda through political appointments?[/QUOTE]

There has been some promotion. I don't know if I would call it aggressive.

Further federalization of our childrens' education?[/QUOTE]

True. The sad truth is that come 2014, there will be some children left behind because not all kids are equal in family situations, in intelligence, and in instruction. The kids living in a white collar home don't have the same home life as those living in the ghetto (this is a generalization of course). Not everyone is a genius in math. Kids who live in the country don't get the same instruction as those in the city. There is no set curriculum. The whole push to try and make everyone equal by punishing the schools is really foolish. Got to agree with you there.

Abortion on demand?[/QUOTE]

http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=10;t=003338

Lying us into horrible, bloody wars against nations that do not threaten us?[/QUOTE]

http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=32;t=001327


Extension of the "assault" weapons ban?[/QUOTE]

Source?

Support of outlaw "judges" who want to purge Christianity from our public life?[/QUOTE]

Who are you talking about?

Nobody needs Dean to do all of that, Bush is doing just fine. [/QUOTE]

There are some clear differences between Bush and any of the Democrats. Otherwise, the DEMS would be tripping over themselves to join Bush because they know there isn't a single Democrat candidate who really resonates with America and they will not be ablle to fullfill their agenda. Here are the differences:

1. Bush will cut taxes. Dems will raise them.

2. Bush will stay the long haul in Iraq and Afganistan while the Dems will gamble our national security away on the whims of the UN who are mostly anti-American in their leanings.

3. Bush will incrementally try to to curb abortion in America and appoint judges who will uphold a move away from the pro-death agenda in America and suppoert life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for all Americans including the unborn. The Dems will START with the reversal of the ban of PBAs and then run with the ball from there the other way toward a more expanded pro-death agenda. This will not be the end, it is only the beginning.

Bush is not perfect. But to say there are no differences between him and Dean is to stick one's head in the sand and ignore reality. I don't think even the liberal Democrats on the board would even agree with you. Otherwise, they wouldn't be fighting so hard to get him out of office. I think you are being used as unwiiting pawns in a game to give the liberal voice legitimacy by stating these inaccuracies.

Joseph Botwinick

 

Have to agree with you, Joseph Botwinick, except for a minor point on education. There was some sort of a deal with the Senator from Chappaquiddick but he broke his word. I don't know how the farm bill became so expensive.

Pennsylvania, has not your Hoosier friend warned you a billion times never to exaggerate?

 

The problem as I see it, Ken, is that a vote for the Constitution Party is not a vote for a conservative agenda. It would instead be a vote for the radical left pro-death machine in the Democrat Party. I think I will stick with Bush, who isn't perfect, but is not an extreme left wacko like the Democrats under the leadership of Nancy Pelosi and Hillary Clinton.

Joseph Botwinick