Thread: Quitting The Republican Party

Originally Posted by Shapka

Originally Posted by 2ndamendsis

That's like jumping into the fire and taking the pan along for the ride.

Nadar is a socialist and like Perot, he's had his 15 min.

Unfortunately, unlike Perot, that 15 minutes seems to have lasted for two hours.

OK, I stand corrected........ :P

Originally Posted by 2ndamendsis

Originally Posted by Shapka

Originally Posted by 2ndamendsis

That's like jumping into the fire and taking the pan along for the ride.

Nadar is a socialist and like Perot, he's had his 15 min.

Unfortunately, unlike Perot, that 15 minutes seems to have lasted for two hours.

OK, I stand corrected........ :P

The thing about Nader is that he is a reactionary, but he does genuinely have affection for this country, and in his own warped way is very patriotic. For example, a few years ago he was one of the few public figures to bring up the fact that before most corporate board meetings in this country there is no pledge of allegiance. It is never recited. Why?

In that sense, I feel more of an affinity for his views than those of the Bushes, or Clintons, who feel no allegiance whatsoever to their native country, and would just as soon we become part of a broader, Spanish-speaking, NorteAmericano, Hemphispheric superstate, along the lines of the EU.

The problem with Nader is that his version of patriotism is inflected with an anachronistic, socialistic quality that is in the end destructive. Not quite as destructive as the one-world, open borders philosophy of the Bushes and Clintons, but still harmful nevertheless.

SHAPKA
after years of watching him very carefully and also my firm belief that socialism/communism/marxism are all similar and cause the same results

I say nay to Nadar.

Yes, I do believe he likes this country but I also believe he loves redistribution of wealth much more.

Each one of these guys, local/state/fed must be scruitinized with a fine tooth comb. No one should be given a pass for a vote until they've declared where they stand on this issue, especially this farce of a "guest worker program."

Look at it this way, you'll never have to worry about that in Nader's case, since he'll never be elected to anything.

:P

I saw the most hilarious-and in some ways, pathetic-sight when my friends and I went down to Foley Square a few weeks ago in order to document some typical leftist insanity for The People's Cube. Anyway, we ran into this guy who was toting a piece of oaktag-the thing must have been the same height, and twice the width, of the person bearing it-that proclaimed "Nader Received 7% In Vermont."



The sad part is that it wasn't part of some pre-arranged skit, he was actually sincere.



There were even goofier leftbots there, believe it or not.

ROTFLMAO

You sure know how to get a laugh!

Huge Nadar playcard in Hildebeast country

It's painful for me just to go through the garment district down to Lex.
I can't wait to get back up in the mountains where some people are sane. But that's changing too.........the guys from your way are invading me!

Originally Posted by 2ndamendsis

ROTFLMAO

You sure know how to get a laugh!

Huge Nadar playcard in Hildebeast country

It's painful for me just to go through the garment district down to Lex.
I can't wait to get back up in the mountains where some people are sane. But that's changing too.........the guys from your way are invading me!

Yeah, the outward migration of commie refugees from Brooklyn and Massachusetts-and now Vermont-has ruined large parts of New England and the rest of the Northeast.

Bernie Sanders is actually from here, ya know.

Not surprising when you think about it.

I think they should force people who want to leave New York to go through a rigorous screening process in order to obtain newly minted exit visas-like in Cuba-so that they don't unknowingly infect other states and localities with their habitual leftist ignorance.

:P

and the Dems are 99.99999% of the time worse than the Reps.

You've got that right!

They want illegals to be alble to vote for pete sake! They're all socialist/communists, and multiculturists. They are a dividing element in American society, not a unifying one.

As bad a some Republicans are, I could "never", "ever" vote for a Democrat.

But I will be working on the local level for "true" Conservative candidates that are as passionant against the illegal issue as I am. I "know" they are because I've talked to them, and have heard them talking causually about the subject. They are as fired up as I am about it. In fact that's the reason some of them are running for office to work in the fight against illegal immigration. And just because they happen to be Republicans is beside the point. They are on the right side of the issue. And I've told them I'll keep their feet to the fire over it.

These candidates see how much people are upset over the illegal problem and are making illegal immigration as one of the top issue they are running on.


On the national level, If I can't find anyone that will stand against this illegal immigration issue, then I will write someone in that stands up for the sovreignty of the nation, and will enforce the immigration laws of the country.

I believe I will write Pat Buchanan, and encourage him to run. As was said, he has been right on the money with his comments on the direction of the nation and these supposed conservatives.

Originally Posted by CrocketsGhost

Interesting. I see plenty of concerned former Republicans willing to take the step of abandoning their party over its inability to control illegal immigration. My question: Where are all the Democrats? After all, it is more Dems than Republicans who are killing all the key amendments to this reform bill. Why aren't any of the Dems willing to say that they are leaving their party?

This is what I was talking about in another thread. It appears that the small group of congressmen and congresswomen who are at least somewhat serious about getting this problem under control are mostly Republican. Almost every senator who voted to kill the Isakson amendment had a D by his name. So what do we accomplish if only one side abandons its party? We get a new majority of those who will ramrod illegal immigration down our throats and reward the La Raza mob with our tax dollars. That's why I'm saying that we MUST NOT make this a partisan issue. If the Democrats whose elected representatives are selling us down the river are not willing to follow suit, then those Republicans pledging to leave their party may be commended for a grand gesture, but ultimately it's akin to cutting off your nose to spite your face.

What it comes down to is this: We are either all in this together, which means that BOTH sides write off their parties and give an independent ticket a serious chance at winning pivotal victories, or else the whole thing comes off as a partisan bushwhack and we end up MUCH worse off than we were before. Do we really want to replace all the Hutchisons with Kennedys? Do you guys in California want to replace Schwarzenegger with a Villaraigosa? If only one party's membership drops out, that's what you'll have.

Why not vote smart and reward those politicians who are doing their jobs while punishing EACH AND EVERY politician who is selling us out, regardless of political stripe? If that's not what we're willing to do, then I'm afraid that I will have to agree with those who complain that the anti-illegal immigration movement is becoming every bit as co-opted by the Left as the pro-illegal immigration movement is by neo-Communists and other anti-Americans forces.

You are absolutely right!

Leaving the party does not hurt these elite guys in the party at all, they stay regardless. What would hurt them is to stay in the party and work on the local and state level for change, and influence it on the national level. That's what I'm doing. All politics is local. And the most influence you have on candidates and issues is on the local level. It works it's way up from there.

I refuse to sit on the side lines and do nothing, as the vast majority has been doing, and is doing for far to long. That's the reason we're in the mess were in. And only writing on this messgae board, and sending off email and faxes to Congress is not enough. Voting, as important as that is, is not enough. Getting involved on the local level, and actually going to prcienct meetings and party events so you can influence the candidates is what needs to be done. Being involved, and staying informed is what it takes!!

Also, everyone that has posted on this thread should send the link to this thread to the National Republican Party. Let them know the level of discontent and rage that Conservatives are feeling, over the betrayal of the citizens and the nation.

If the choices are (as predicted by the mainstream press):

Hillary - Marxist, Communist, Stalinist, friend of La Raza, friend of Tata, friend of illegals, chronic liar, co-organizer of the [taxpayer funded] Friends of India Caucus. New World Order globalist. Prefers our jobs go to foreign nationals to the detriment of Americans, then she lies about it.

McCain - "Another globalist Making Mexico proud!" Friend of La Raza, friend of Mexico, prefers totally open borders, full citizenship and concessions for illegals to the detriment of Americans.

Nader

Originally Posted by Shapka

The thing about Nader is that he is a reactionary, but he does genuinely have affection for this country, and in his own warped way is very patriotic. For example, a few years ago he was one of the few public figures to bring up the fact that before most corporate board meetings in this country there is no pledge of allegiance....

Any other known independent candidates? I hate to take a barf bag to the polls.

I don't know.

If George Allen is the nominee of the Republican Party-and I sincerely hope that he is-then I think he's worth voting for. Or at the very least, taking a look at. I know some people think he's wobbly-and I have to agree with that to a certain extent-but nine times out of ten, after all of the waffling and dithering is completed, he comes down on the right side of the issue, even in this case.

On the other hand, if this amnesty monstrosity is passed-either now, in a lame-duck session of Congress, or by the Democrats if/when they retake control-then this debate will largely be irrelevant, because the damage will have been done. We could elect an anti-illegal immigration president and all our efforts will have been pointless, because the process set in motion by the idiots in Washington will by that point be irreversible. See California and Prop. 187. A day late and a dollar short.

That's why I think our priority right now should be to stop this amnesty, then try to keep at least functional Republican control in the House. I could care less if they lose the Senate. In fact, I hope they do lose that chamber, but if they lose the House then amnesty will be rammed down our collective throat faster than you can exclaim "ole!" Even now stopping amnesty is an iffy proposition. If the Republicans in the House cave-or the conferees roll over and play dead-then I would say they deserve to lose as well.