1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

I Thought Orrin Hatch Was A Conservative?

Discussion in '2003 Archive' started by KenH, Nov 14, 2003.

  1. Joseph_Botwinick

    Joseph_Botwinick <img src=/532.jpg>Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2000
    Messages:
    17,527
    Likes Received:
    0
    The question is, will my son be better or worse off under President Dean than he will under President Bush. I believe he will be much worse under Dean. A vote for a Constitution Party candidate is a vote for Howard Dean. If you don't understand this, then there is nothing I can do for you to help you understand it any better. The Constitution Party has no chance of seriously fielding a winning candidate. They will lose, and in the process, give us Howard Dean, a president who will raise taxes, spend more money than Bush ever dreamed of doing, slash the military and put the national security of our nation into the incompetent hands of the UN who is mostly anti-American in its leanings, start by overturning the PBA ban and then go from there in furthering the pro-death agenda here in America which will certainly not stop at the abortion issue and most certainly effect the kind of world in which my son will live. I think I will stick with Bush who has cut taxes, passed a ban on PBA's, will appoint conservative judges who will advance a pro-life agenda, and is making the world a safer place by ignoring the knuckleheads in the UN and fighting the war on terror.

    Joseph Botwinick
     
  2. church mouse guy

    church mouse guy Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 23, 2002
    Messages:
    22,050
    Likes Received:
    1,857
    Faith:
    Baptist
  3. Pennsylvania Jim

    Pennsylvania Jim New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2000
    Messages:
    7,693
    Likes Received:
    0


    I'm all for killing terrorists. But most of the money is being spent, instead, on Iraq. Bush and co. told lie after lie to get us into this bloody quagmire that has practically nothing to do with terrorism, other than the fact that it is stirring it up far worse than ever before. He should be impeached for this alone.




    That amount of money is a drop in the bucket compared to what he is spending elsewhere. The "war on terror" excuse for Bush's irresponsible, reprehensible, unconstitutional misuse and abuse of our tax money doesn't fly. Domestic spending has skyrocked, boosted by his proposals and gladly approved by his signatures. Even if you don't count his Homeland Security monstrosity (which must make the Democrats very jealous).

    Of course you wouldn't call it agressive...unless it had been done by a Democrat.

    1. Candidate George W. Bush appointed four openly homosexual, gay-rights advocates to his presidential campaign steering committee. According to the homosexual group, Log Cabin Republicans, "scores" of Bush state steering committee members and campaign volunteers were homosexuals.

    2. Perhaps this explains why hundreds of homosexuals gathered in Washington, D.C., last weekend to "celebrate the achievements and leadership of George W. Bush." It also helps to explain why Rich Tafel, executive director of Log Cabin Republicans, said, "We want the country to know that we are behind our president and administration."

    3. On Dec. 21, 2001, President Bush signed a historic bill, which "for the first time allows the District of Columbia government to fund a program that will give domestic partners of city employees access to health benefits." Remember, Bush insisted that openly homosexual Congressman Jim Kolbe of Arizona be given a prominent speaking role at the Republican National Convention. It was Kolbe who introduced the amendment lifting the ban on gay partner benefits in D.C.

    4. Bush named Scot Evertz, a prominent homosexual activist, to head the White House AIDS office even though he had absolutely no experience dealing with public health issues.

    5. Bush appointed another homosexual activist, Donald Cappoccia, to the U.S. Commission on Fine Arts.

    6. Bush appointed openly homosexual, Michael Guest, as Ambassador to Romania. Since then, Bush has decided to leave in place a Clinton policy that calls for supporting the "unmarried partners" of U.S. Foreign Service workers. This allows Guest's live-in lover to live in the U.S. Embassy in Bucharest and allows him to join Guest at official embassy functions.

    7. Bush presided over the appointment of homosexual activist, Stephen Herbits, to oversee the choice of civilian personnel at the Pentagon.

    8. Bush has not reversed a single pro-homosexual policy instituted by former president Bill Clinton. Not even one!

    9. The Bush administration posted a job for what is called a "gay and lesbian program specialist" at the Department of Agriculture.

    10. Bush appointed the ardently pro-homosexual Governor of Massachussetts, Paul Cellucci, as U.S. Ambassador to Canada.

    11. Bush appointed Lewis Eisenberg to become the new GOP chief fundraiser. Eisenberg has a long history of supporting pro-homosexual and pro-abortion candidates.

    12. Just yesterday, The Washington Times reported, "The Bush administration has joined European delegates to an upcoming U.N. summit on children in moving to recognize families 'in various forms,' including unmarried cohabiting couples and homosexual partners."

    From: http://covenantnews.com/baldwin020423.htm




    "...It should now be considered old news that a spokesperson for President Bush recently announced that Bush intended to extend the federal Assault Weapons Ban when it comes up for renewal in 2004..."

    From: http://www.sierratimes.com/03/04/18/carlworden.htm



    Bush sided with those wanting to oust Roy Moore and the Ten Commandments from the courtroom in Alabama. No surprise of course.




    He already has cut taxes. Good move. I don't expect any more , though, he already has his points chalked up on this one. So, no reason to vote for him on that point. And, where is the money going to come from to fund his rampant spending? I suspect the taxpayers...there is no other source.



    I'd like to think that a Democrat would extract us from this senseless bloody mess. At least there would be a bit of hope. But I don't know if it's even possible, our "leaders" have really gotten us into a bad one here. Maybe you look forward to a "long haul" of our young people being blown apart in the sewer called the middle-east. I support the troops: BRING THEM HOME!!!

    I see no reason to expect anything of the kind from Bush. In a second term with no re-election facing him he will do even less for the unborn than he did this term (if it were possible).




    You can say that again.
     
  4. The Galatian

    The Galatian New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2001
    Messages:
    9,687
    Likes Received:
    1
    One point we should all keep in mind;

    Cutting taxes without cutting spending to avoid deficits is a massive future tax increase.

    Bush has raised the taxes of every American who doesn't plan on dying in the next few years.
     
  5. church mouse guy

    church mouse guy Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 23, 2002
    Messages:
    22,050
    Likes Received:
    1,857
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Herbert Galatian Hoover! Yes, let's raise taxes during a deep recession to cover excessive spending demanded by American people who want someone else to pay for something for them. That is the Democrat Party line--raise taxes! Like Kennedy's lie about a missile gap--after he was elected, he admitted that there was no missile gap. If you could elect a Democrat, then you would not want to raise taxes. That is the Democrat Party for you.

    Tax increases for future generations? Why can't the Democrats tell their constituents that spending has to be cut so that future generations won't get the bill?

    So far Herbert Galatian Hoover you have only convinced some people in Pennsylvania.

    :D
     
  6. Pennsylvania Jim

    Pennsylvania Jim New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2000
    Messages:
    7,693
    Likes Received:
    0
    CMG,

    I don't expect the Democrats to cut taxes, or to handle money responsibly. They are "tax and spend liberals", as you will surely agree.

    Trouble is, the Republicans are even more liberal spenders than the Democrats, and as The Galation has pointed out, they are simply "charging it" for us to pay later (with interest to their buddies, of course).

    Let's cut the "good guy-bad guy" routine that the D's and R's keep foisting off on us and vote for someone else. That's the only way WE will get control of OUR government back.
     
  7. church mouse guy

    church mouse guy Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 23, 2002
    Messages:
    22,050
    Likes Received:
    1,857
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Haven't you been told a billion times never to exaggerate, Pennsylvania?

    The GOP is not the same as or worse than the Democrats. Herbert Hoover tried to raise taxes in a depression, and now you and Galatian are advocating the same medicine. For Galatian this is real hypocrisy since the Democrats have practiced deficit spending for seventy years. The Democrats have no intentions of supporting a tax increase at this time. The American public is double-minded on big government.

    If you have decided that a third-party is for you, that is your privilege as an American. To say that the GOP is the same as the Democrats in justification of your stance is to do the GOP a disservice.

    The Islamofascists cost us billions of dollars with their cowardly attack on Nine Eleven. Some domestic groups in this multicultural country are not supportive of the American culture. Do you think that Barbara Streisand and her husband care what happens to America? So only certain groups are really working to restore the country. Forget the price tag--the important point is to win the war against terror and to defeat liberal culture.
     
  8. Pennsylvania Jim

    Pennsylvania Jim New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2000
    Messages:
    7,693
    Likes Received:
    0


    Not so. Contrary to both Republicans and Democrats, I think both taxes and spending should be cut.

    From a fiscal perspective, I have not claimed that the GOP is the same as the Democrats. My claim is that the GOP is far worse. It's not a matter of my opinion, or yours. It's hard, irrefutable mathematics. Look at the numbers.


    Would you include in this the exploding population of illegal immigrants, to whom Bush and the Republicans want to give amnesty? And the equally exploding polulations of legal immigrants, who are coming in practically uncontroled numbers, also one of Bush's favorite policies?
     
  9. church mouse guy

    church mouse guy Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 23, 2002
    Messages:
    22,050
    Likes Received:
    1,857
    Faith:
    Baptist
    It's a question of guns and butter. Of course, one would like to have the domestic problems dealt with effectively. Congressman Mike Pence, Republican from Muncie, was on Indianapolis radio this morning talking about how the Senator from Chappaquiddick and senior citizens are pushing for a drug benefit for medicare even though three fourths of senior citizens have private insurance for prescriptions.

    There are too many groups in this country who want to have the federal government manage their lives daily. The Democrats want socialized medicine. The Republicans want to give insurance only to those who cannot afford it.

    Why do not the Democrats tell Teddy Kennedy that he is too far left to deserve any respect? Or should we just let the Islamofascists off the hook and come home and solve our domestic problems? You know, cut and run.

    By the way, at least Hatch is probably more sober than Kennedy.
     
  10. Pennsylvania Jim

    Pennsylvania Jim New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2000
    Messages:
    7,693
    Likes Received:
    0
    Because he's a Democrat. Same reason that Republicans won't say the same thing about Bush.
     
  11. Daisy

    Daisy New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2003
    Messages:
    7,751
    Likes Received:
    0
    No, it's not. You said, "All crimes are hate crimes", which is very simply not true. Love of money, which is separate from hate for other humans, also leads to crime. Carelessness can be a crime. It isn't all hate.

    Crimes of "passion" are often treated more leniently as they are seen as less likely to recur. Self-defense is what got Durst off - that is totally motive.
     
  12. KenH

    KenH Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    41,907
    Likes Received:
    1,469
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Very interesting reasoning, Joseph. By your estimation, my voting for a true, constitutional, limited government conservative instead of voting for a liberal(George W. Bush) to keep out a socialist(Howard Dean or someone else) does damage to my desire to see these United States have constitutional, limited government. According to your idea, by voting for a liberal to keep out a socialist I am improving the chances of seeing constitutional, limited government. In other words, I would improve my chances of getting what I want by voting for what I don't want.

    No wonder conservative Christians continue to buy the political snakeoil of the liberal side of the Demopublican Party because of their fear of the socialist side of the Demopublican Party. Of course, all the while the liberal Demopublicans(aka Republican Party) become more and more liberal and move more and more toward socialism every year.

    Conservative Christians that vote for liberal Republicans like George W. Bush get what they deserve - bigger, more intrusive government and more power moved from the people and from the States to the federal government.
     
  13. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry <b>Moderator</b>
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    No, it's not. You said, "All crimes are hate crimes", which is very simply not true. Love of money, which is separate from hate for other humans, also leads to crime. Carelessness can be a crime. It isn't all hate.</font>[/QUOTE][I think you are slicing the balogna pretty thin here. I think you are overanalyzing the situation to defend the indefensible.

    But they should not be. They are crimes. A crime of passion is a crime and should be treated as such. This picking and choosing of human value has to stop. If someone is killed in a fit of passion, they are just as dead as if it was premeditated for months. To say that one the person killed in a premeditated murder is more valuable than a person killed in a crime of passion is simply wrong.

    Self-defense is not considered a crime in most places.
     
  14. Daisy

    Daisy New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2003
    Messages:
    7,751
    Likes Received:
    0
    Not at all. I'm not defending the designation of certain crimes as hate crimes (that's what you think, isn't it?); I'm simply saying that all crimes are not based on hate, because they are not. My statement is entirely defensible.


    One size fits all - no extenuating circumstances, ever? Ok, that's a subject for a different thread.

    But the person killed is just as dead and just as valuable.

    Sometimes mistakes are considered crimes; sometimes not - that seems to depend a lot on the victim's status, rightly or wrongly.
     
  15. KenH

    KenH Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    41,907
    Likes Received:
    1,469
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I saw a great cartoon by Russmo today. It has a fella saying, "I'm a modern conservative...I believe in making government smaller by spending more on government programs." [​IMG]
     
  16. church mouse guy

    church mouse guy Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 23, 2002
    Messages:
    22,050
    Likes Received:
    1,857
    Faith:
    Baptist
  17. Pennsylvania Jim

    Pennsylvania Jim New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2000
    Messages:
    7,693
    Likes Received:
    0
    CMG, I think you are mixed up. From what I see of Ken's posts, I think he wants smaller government and less spending.

    It's Dean and Bush who are the big spending liberals.
     
  18. church mouse guy

    church mouse guy Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 23, 2002
    Messages:
    22,050
    Likes Received:
    1,857
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Just looking at the end of the road ya'll are on, Pennsylvania.

    Here is a link for you!

    Enjoy!


    www.barbrastreisand.com

    :D

    [ November 18, 2003, 08:58 AM: Message edited by: church mouse guy ]
     
  19. Pennsylvania Jim

    Pennsylvania Jim New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2000
    Messages:
    7,693
    Likes Received:
    0
    CMG, Barbara Streisand is a nobody. Why are so afraid of her?
     
  20. church mouse guy

    church mouse guy Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 23, 2002
    Messages:
    22,050
    Likes Received:
    1,857
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Would you like to sit through one of her movies? That is what I fear could happen to me. Politically, she probably shares your concerns about Bush.

    :D
     
Loading...