Thread: VOTE INCUMBENTS OUT! by Frosty Wooldridge

This letter entered my inbox this week. It’s a good start as to why we must vote out most incumbents from Congress.

“oh mr. frosty, you are a lone voice crying out in the wilderness, and no one is listening. my brothers continue to stream into our beloved aztlan by the thousands every day, and your government does nothing. why? because deep down they understand that resistance is futile, and they realize the southwest rightfully belongs to the bronze descendants of the mighty aztecs. our women bear 5 children to every one born to whites. we have cowed your politicians into turning a blind eye to our invasion. they know that if they dare speak out they will no longer have a job. the reconquista is in full swing, and the beloved dream of aztlan is well within our grasp. would you deny that once more california belongs to us? our ancient language, nahuatl, is being taught in "illegal immigrant" charter schools funded by "your" own government. Ha! Ha! Ha! i'll bet that really gets your goat to know that your own tax dollars are being given to us to further our glorious reconquista. the white man has become weakened by guilt and decadence and that is why we must inevitably win. you have already lost "your" country, you just aren't smart enough to realize it. move to canada or back to europe, because the white man has no place in the coming bronze order. you fool! even "your" top law enforcement officer is one of us! why do you think "your" US justice department does nothing? viva mexico! viva aztlan!”

Sub-commandante pedro

MeCHA Brown Berets

http://www.newswithviews.com/Wooldridge/frosty193.htm

All but a few should be voted out.

Again, there is little sense in kicking out those with positive voting records. I submit that suggesting kicking out all incumbents amounts to the sort of intellectual laziness that is behind many of our problems in the first place. If it has come to the point that Americans are too lazy to examine the voting records of their representatives and make in informed vote based upon that information, then maybe we don't deserve to keep our country.

I believe the article clearly makes the distinction between those who should be voted out and those who have positive voting records. It helps to actually read more than the headline.

Intellectual laziness? I hope your intention was not to insult.

The article is merely an attempt to disseminate information, promote the America First Contractand to get more people involved and out to vote. I hope you won't argue that all those who voted for S.2611, and who are up for reelection should not be voted out?

As for not deserving to keep our country, to be honest, that leaves me speechless. Defeatism, I guess, is never pretty.

Originally Posted by AlamoAlliance

I believe the article clearly makes the distinction between those who should be voted out and those who have positive voting records. It helps to actually read more than the headline.

Intellectual laziness? I hope your intention was not to insult.

The article is merely an attempt to disseminate information, promote the America First Contractand to get more people involved and out to vote. I hope you won't argue that all those who voted for S.2611, and who are up for reelection should not be voted out?

As for not deserving to keep our country, to be honest, that leaves me speechless. Defeatism, I guess, is never pretty.

AA, I have been consistent in my complaint about those who use the blanket term, "vote out the incumbents" because that suggestion has been made ad nauseam here, and usually without any qualification whatsoever. Generally, it is a plea made by those with other axes to grind than simply illegal immigration.

Also, you accuse me of failing to read the article and then follow up with a response to my commentary as though you did not read what was written, given that you claim that I had said that we do not deserve to keep our country rather than what I actually wrote, which was that IF it has come to the point that Americans are too lazy to vote based upon the record of the candidate, THEN MAYBE we don't deserve to keep our country. For your edification, that's what's known as a hyperbolic rhetorical device.

Now then, let's address who YOU wrote. You specifically began your post with the claim that we need to vote out "most incumbents" from Congress. That's an odd statement, given that the majority in the House of Representatives passed a bill that focused on enforcement and did not address either amnesty or a guest worker program. Perhaps you do not know the difference between bicameral Congress and the Senate. I will remind you that the House is the larger of the two bodies by far and that the Senate bill passed over the objection of a very large minority. That means that the majority voting in the two chambers of Congress actually voted AGAINST the guest worker program and AGAINST amnesty. Perhaps if you had your facts straight from the beginning you wouldn't have to get offended at a very reasonable rebuttal.

Thank you for the education. And I apologize if the article I posted caused you distress.

But sir, I did not specifically begin my post with the claim that we need to vote out "most incumbents" from Congress. I didn't make any claim. I simply posted a headline and an article, and I didn't write either of them. The entire post is an article written by Frosty Wooldridge and contains no claims or statements from me.

My reasoning for posting this article was to promote the Alamo Alliance America First Contract. I apologize again if my own, or Frosty Wooldridge's level of intellect, or lack thereof, caused you distress.

I understand your position, and I respect your opinion.

AlamoAlliance wrote:

Intellectual laziness? I hope your intention was not to insult.

I didn't take CrocketGhost's comments as an insult directed toward you. If anything, I understood his comments to be directed at Frosty. Just an opinion from someone on the outside looking in.

Perhaps I misunderstood.

After reading the entire thread over, I have no doubt that the disparaging remarks were directed at me. CrocketGhost wrote:

"Now then, let's address who YOU wrote. You specifically began your post with the claim that we need to vote out "most incumbents" from Congress".

This tells me that he believed it was my statement. Whether he agrees with it or not there is no need to belittle one's "intellect". If that is not a disparaging remark, then I don't know what is. He also insinuated that the "intellectually lazy" like me are behind many of our problems in the first place.

Seems some should get their facts straight

I assume we're all on the same side here. Why attack an ally?

Originally Posted by AlamoAlliance

Perhaps I misunderstood.

After reading the entire thread over, I have no doubt that the disparaging remarks were directed at me. CrocketGhost wrote:

"Now then, let's address who YOU wrote. You specifically began your post with the claim that we need to vote out "most incumbents" from Congress".

This tells me that he believed it was my statement. Whether he agrees with it or not there is no need to belittle one's "intellect". If that is not a disparaging remark, then I don't know what is. He also insinuated that the "intellectually lazy" like me are behind many of our problems in the first place.

Seems some should get their facts straight

I assume we're all on the same side here. Why attack an ally?

AA, perhaps it is YOUR OWN initial post you should have reviewed. It begins with the following paragraph:

This letter entered my inbox this week. It’s a good start as to why we must vote out most incumbents from Congress.

Nowhere following that comment does your post attribute that statement to anyone else. If the post is a repost in its entirety of a message authored by someone else, either use an attribution (by John Doe) or the quote function. Otherwise, when your post begins in the first person ("This letter entered my inbox this week") and is followed by no attribution it will be assumed that the words are yours.

I stand by every other portion of my response. Any suggestion that "most of the encumbents" should be voted out is dangerously short-sighted.

Well sir, the title of the thread plainly states "VOTE INCUMBENTS OUT! by Frosty Wooldridge".

When you click the link to read the article, you will see, word for word, the exact same beginning of his article. As far as I know, this is standard forum "ettique" when posting an article.

I can however see how the confusion might come about as to who is the author of the statement. I apologize for my part, if any, in the confusion.

What I cannot understand is the total lack of respect for anyone elses opinion and the insinuation of "intellectual laziness". Perhaps Mr. Wooldridge believe's that most incumbents should be voted out of Congress. Perhaps he meant to write "Senate" and it was a typo, I don't know. But I do know that he is a valuable asset to our cause and has done far more than most of us to advance it.

Either way, your post was insulting and in my opinion, completely uncalled for. I see many statements on many forums that I do not agree with but I tend to refrain, as much as possible, from insinuating a lack of intelligence of the author, especially if that poster is on my side.

One of the missions of any group or forum is to attract membership. I submit that it's this kind of infighting, accusations, general nastiness and insinuations that drive people away.

I yeild the floor to any comment or rebuttal you may feel necessary. As for me, this is my final word on the subject.