Controlling the Masses with False Promises and Demeaning Policies;

The way of the Donkey

(Results of Affirmative Action, universal healthcare and other Democrat policies)

Democrats have been convincing the masses; especially minority groups for as long as I can remember that they are the party for the people. They claim to be the party that wants to advance the causes of minorities and protect the civil rights of all Americans. They claim to be the Robin Hood of today and say that they will distribute the wealth, by taxing the wealthy and giving it to the poor. They say that they will protect us from losing our homes and send all of our children to college in perfect health, because we will all have unmatchable healthcare for free.

Has anybody ever heard that "When something seems too good to be true, it probably is!"?

If all of the wealth is redistributed to the poor, until there are no more rich, who will the middle class work for?

Eventually, the government would be in control of all businesses and they would be America's only source of income.

Has anybody noticed when so many people started losing their homes?

This started AFTER the Democrats took control of Senate and Congress. Before that, the housing market had skyrocketed and more people than ever in history were home-owners. Since the Democrats took both houses, they have systematically annihilated any important legislation that could improve society today. They did this as their way of making the president (a Republican) look bad. Once they accomplished this, they could most assuredly take the presidency in `08. After all, when anything happens to people in America, they seem to take their blame straight to the top. They like to blame God or the president and don't even look for where the breakdown in the system started.

Sigmund Freud was a psychiatrist ahead of his time. He accurately described our society today, in his ego studies. Society is more concerned with Brittany's latest perverse exploits than they are with their own futures. They stand mesmerized by the media, with one hand out, to receive anything that they can for free. All done without conscious thought of how it may affect others. Societal desires for instant gratification have taken away all of the rational thought and morality that this nation once knew. They don't care if it hurts others, as long as they get what they want when they want it. From a psychological standpoint, we are using the thought processes of children, when making decisions.

Psychologists and Psychiatrists are forever telling parents that what you tell your children they will become, they will become. Meaning that if you call your child worthless or imply that they are less intelligent than others, you will make that their future. It's called self-fulfilling prophecy. Whatever you program a person to be from childhood, they will almost certainly become, unless outside forces give them a wake-up call. It is true in most cases. For example: I am a highly intelligent person who has done nearly nothing to make a success of myself. My Mother constantly told me how intelligent I was and my father constantly told me I'd never make anything of myself.

What are minorities being told by Democrats today?

They are being told that they cannot do anything on their own and that the white man (meaning wealthy white America) owes them a living. Minorities, for the most part still make up the greater portion of the lower and lower middle class in America. The reason is Affirmative Action and welfare. Affirmative Action is degrading and disrespectful. It makes it possible for minorities to get jobs, scholarships and welfare that a white man (who may be more qualified) cannot receive. Minorities in this country are less likely to last long-term in their employment, are more likely to drop out of college and more likely to receive welfare. Is that because they are not as good or not as smart as white men?  NO WAY! With proper encouragement, a minority youth is just as likely to grow up to be a doctor or lawyer. However, our government, through Affirmative Action discourages proper encouragement and has devised a diabolical plan to make minorities think that they can't do anything without the government. The ones making this statement are the Democrats.

The reason minorities are more likely to drop out of college or quit their job quickly is that retched feeling that they are only in that college or job because of their race and that they are less qualified than some white man somewhere. Even if they are truly the most qualified candidate for the job or scholarship, how can they possibly feel like it when they are told by the Democrats that they will have it handed to them, whether they deserve it or not. How could they ever feel like they deserve it?

I'll give you two examples:

There is a white man somewhere who was denied a scholarship or a job and they see that a minority got it. Despite the fact that the minority was more qualified (in this case), the white man knows about Affirmative Action and believes they have been treated unfairly by the system. If they have friends in that company, the minority is really going to be treated unfairly at the job. Even if they don't, the minority will be convinced that they did not deserve the position. What has just happened? A minority is treated unfairly by white people after being told that they are not as good by society throughout their life. A white man feels like they will never get anywhere because minorities have all of the rights.

Hatred bred through AFFIRMATIVE ACTION!

What has just happened? A white family decides that all minorities are receiving all of their tax dollars to sit around and be lazy. Even though many minorities only receive welfare due to the fact that they have so long been convinced that they are worthless, this man blames minorities for the death of his daughter. The hatred that was bred by Affirmative Action in this case would be so bad that it may cost innocent lives. This white man decides to vote for Democrats because of a useless promise that all Americans will receive health care. Unfortunately, he just voted for the people who really caused his daughter's death through wrongful legislation.

ALL CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES SHOULD BE GIVEN EQUAL TREATMENT, WITH NO REGARD TO RACE. I SHOULD NOT HAVE TO WRITE AN EMAIL SAYING WHITE MAN OR MINORITIES. THEY ARE ALL JUST PEOPLE.

Republicans almost all vote against Affirmative Action. Most Republicans know that this is the type of message that tells minorities in America that they are LESS THAN white men, promoting the hatred of the white man by minorities. At the same time they promote hatred and racism from white men towards minorities, by denying white men help when it is truly necessary, because they are not a minority. They also make white men angry by denying them jobs that they are often more qualified for, because the company must have a certain percentage of minority employees. All thanks to Affirmative Action. That is treating white men of this generation like they are less important to the government than minorities.

Older black Americans are aware of the resentment it breeds to be treated this way. Yet Democrats encourage young black America to treat white men like they owe them for the sins of past generations. The only thing white Americans owe minorities is an EQUAL and FAIR chance to achieve success. They are NOT their ancestors and NO true Christian hates or judges a person on race alone. The only way we can make equality possible is by being certain that Democrats cannot cause any more unrest between the races with unfair legislation, such as Affirmative Action. However, the majority of minorities are still convinced (some brainwashed) by the Democrats into thinking that with a Republican in office they will never be able to achieve anything, when the opposite is true.

The great majority of Democrats (including Hillary and Obama) are pro-abortion without limitation. They believe that a baby about to be born naturally should be able to have its brain suctioned out, during the birth process IF the mother chooses to terminate the pregnancy at the end. Unfortunately, when many women become pregnant (especially at the end of their pregnancy) they start becoming overwhelmed with hormones and judgment is temporarily impaired. After an abortion, they run a greater risk of post-partum depression.

How will it affect them if they have just made the bad choice to kill their full-term baby (legally) and they are suffering this awful depression?

It is no wonder so many women who have an abortion become suicidal. Unfortunately, Democrats have taken all law and morality out of this nation in the name of women's rights. They have taken away that baby's right to live and made abortion into such an immoral industry that it preys on our youth.  Do you think it is a coincidence that the Democrats have loosened the laws on abortion so much, denied rights to counseling before an abortion and systematically allowed Planned Parenthood and other abortion clinics to target black neighborhoods and place the majority of these clinics in predominately black and minority neighborhoods. Democrats have minorities so convinced that they are not as good as white men and that they will fix it that they, in great majority, vote Democrat. Minorities often put religious convictions on the back burner, because they are so certain that their very existence depends on the Democrats. It is time that society wakes up to who the REAL RACISTS are.

Abraham Lincoln was a Republican. He was willing to risk the lives of countless white men for the sake of freeing the slaves. However, his opposition in the South was Democrats, who tried to take control of the presidency and separate the North from the South. When that didn't work, the Democrats fought to be certain that a black man could never vote. When a Republican president changed those voting laws, Democrats eventually used a new tool that was originally created to give a little help to people who were coming back from unfair treatment. It is now a very affective tool that divides the races- Affirmative Action.

For those of you who agree that they should tax the wealthy and give to the poor: Stop and think. Will you still feel that way IF you become wealthy? If you spent 12 years in college to become a Neurosurgeon and worked 72 hours a week saving lives, giving up your rights to happiness and family time, would you want to make $30,000 a year and barely pay your bills?

I know empathy has lost its meaning in society today and the phrase "Put yourself in their shoes" is currently unheard by this generation. Take a moment to pretend this is about you: Imagine yourself in need of brain surgery. You had a small tumor on your MRI and they cannot tell if it is or isn't cancer. The Democrats are in office and healthcare is now free. As a result, you waited 6 months to get in to see a Neurosurgeon, due to a serious congestion in scheduling. The reason for this scheduling problem is that 75% of Neurosurgeons have quit and 23% only work 40 hours a week, because they make the same wages you do. Why work so much for nothing?

Let's say, you were lucky enough to get in to one of the 2% that still does what they used to before the healthcare overhaul and before the wealthy lost all of their wealth to pay for such things (which is why it only took 6 months to get in). When you finally get in to see him, he says, "I'm sorry, but your tumor has spread. It has to be cancer, judging by its rapid destruction of your brain. If I had seen you 5 months ago, I could have safely removed it. You may still be able to live if you receive chemo and radiation to shrink the tumor right away. But, I do not do this type of treatment. You will have to see an Oncologist. I will make you a referral. With this referral, you should get in faster. Usually it takes about 3 months with a referral. However, in 3 months you may not be able to handle chemo any longer. If you get through this, make a new appointment with me and I will remove it. Your second appointment with me should only take you 2-3 months to get in, since you are an established patient. Your best case scenario is if you are related to a Neuro-Oncologist or if you go to another country like Mexico where they don't yet have Universal healthcare." However, a trip to a foreign country would be impossible, since virtually all Americans are making approximately $30,000 a year, due to the distribution of wealth, now that the Democrats are in office.

Do you think this can't happen?

 Ask the people from Canada or the UK who fly to America to receive emergency healthcare procedures that are so long backlogged in their country that they would die if they waited for them. But at least in those countries they haven't done an even distribution of wealth, so there are still people wanting to be doctors. People like Michael Moore would have you think that these countries have it great with their healthcare, but he has an agenda. He wants the Democrats in office at all costs.

Does anybody realize who would be left wealthy and with unmatchable power if those things took place?

GOVERNMENT

Do you know that this concept is not a new one?

They call this Communism. It hasn't been that long since we heard of this kind of government quite frequently and feared it badly. Remember Russia before Reagan (a Republican) helped to free them? Don't think it can't happen in America! Both Obama and Hillary have covert ties to Socialism and Communism. Think again!

God forbid that society might look into what the real problem is and take the blame themselves for voting badly in `06! If we hadn't voted for a bunch of egomaniacal, power hungry, self-serving Democrats, due to false promises to RECEIVE more, we wouldn't be in this position.

I am representing a part of America that has far too long been ignored by the left. I am a part of the MAJORITY (at least for now)- a white non-Hispanic CHRISTIAN. I can tell you now that government is making a great big mistake by ignoring and alienating us for so long. Most Christians aren't so drunk, hung over or high on drugs that we don't bother to vote, so watch out how you treat us or you won't get anywhere.

Every president in history has spoken somewhere or to someone that shocks us all. We don't know why they do it. Maybe some campaign manager was misguided and thinks it's a good idea? Every president has done something that would make us sick, EVEN Reagan. Many of Reagan’s mistakes, like immigration, are the same mistakes McCain has made. McCain is still a war hero and basically he does things with a conscience. Reagan left the economy a mess, due to things like the star wars program. You never hear about that. The reason you don't is likely because he was charismatic, just like Bill Clinton and the left never comments on Clinton's mistakes.

God Bless!

If you do better with analogies: I was not a big fan of Bush 1, but I saw it as somebody I could tolerate. He wasn’t terrible, just not perfect. I looked at him as if a relative I was close to was dating somebody who wasn’t good enough for them and I knew they’d eventually break up and meet a better, more suited person to date. You know that when somebody you care about is dating somebody you aren’t fond of, it doesn’t help matters to belittle them, especially making them sound worse than they are. It definitely doesn’t help to have an entire family of self-righteous people, whose decisions are likely no better than the person they are cutting down, belittling them terribly. That person may just surprise you, if you don’t build them as a tyrant in your mind and belittle them to a point of no return. The results of that are typically causing unnecessary problems and often that relative will rebel and end up in a long term relationship with a very bad person. Our favorite relative: Lady Liberty has 3 potential suitors and our negativity can make the best possibility into an impossibility. With a long term relationship with one of the other two, Lady Liberty may just fall apart and never end up in a good relationship. Encourage her best suitor to be a better person and he may just surprise you and be the best one ever.

Before our 7th President, the Democrats and Republicans were a part of the Democratic-Republican Party. At the split of the party, the National Republican Party was led by John Quincy Adams. As they do now, the Democrats represented big government and liberal lifestyle. The National Republican Party, later known as the Whig Party, then later again as The Republican Party, were the Conservatives, defending the Constitution as it was written. John Quincy Adams should know what the Constitution was meant to stand for, as the eldest son of John Adams: 2nd president; a strong supporter of The Declaration of Independence, etc., who was originally chosen to author it. He passed the honor on to Jefferson. 

William McKinley (25th President- REPUBLICAN) -A lawyer, who was a Major in the Union Army during the Civil War. He was a devoted husband and father. He was described as moral, strong in character and a man of the people. He went to war with Spain (The Spanish-American War) in Cuba for committing atrocities on Cuba. Only 100 days into the war, Spain indicated willingness to compromise. There were only 385 battle related American deaths, as a result of this war. They granted Cuba Independenceand Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Philippines were ceded to the United States. He worked on uniting the North and the South. AGAIN, another REPUBLICAN was ASSASSINATED and died in office, shortly into his second term. As you are well aware, the people shooting these presidents are the opposition, not their own parties. That proves those liberal in values to be more violent. In one of his speeches, he spoke of what REPUBLICANS today still know "..we should never abandon the simple faith in Almighty Godas recognized in the name of the American people by Washington and the first Congress." he also reiterated Washington's message on foreign policy: "Observe good faith and justice toward all nations; cultivate peace and harmony with all; religion and morality enjoin this conduct." Boy would he and Washington be disappointed today! Does that speech sound like our founding father's wanted a separation of church and state? His Presidency was one of the most flawless in all of history.

God Bless!

To Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Newt Gingrich and any other egotistical far right Conservative who claims to be concerned with what’s best for this nation:

It’s wake up time! As a fellow far right Christian Conservative, I say it’s time to support McCain or shut up! No, really, I love you, but put a sock in it- FOR God’s sake (literally). I have always shared most of your views and enjoyed your talents, but I haven’t even been willing to read your columns or buy any new books lately, due to you’re my way or the highway views. I am a representative of that grassroots base that makes you money and I am not alone in my views. I just happen to voice them louder.

These elections are so obviously becoming a repeat of the 1992 elections. In 1992 we had a Moderate Republican in office who accomplished MUCH MORE than, even I ever gave him credit for. He was replaced with this nation’s first completely immoral president, due to the far Right Conservatives and their ‘Moderate no more’ attitudes. Certainly, we’ve had liberal idiots before Clinton, like Carter for example. However, Clinton took the immoral cake and that was thanks to the righteous speeches from the far Right and the idiocy of Perot. That election was essentially given to the left by Newt (yes, I [a far Right Conservative] insulted Newt), Robertson (proclaimed Christian, who actually supported the Right’s most liberal, pro-choice candidate- Giuliani) and of course H. Ross Perot (proclaimed friend of Bush).

Now for the 2008 election cycle, we have far Right Conservatives who are well known, like the aforementioned who want to tear McCain to shreds for a 20% liberal record. Does this sound familiar? Funny! I think I heard something similar before, like in 1992. So, over a 20% liberal record, we will take a 0% Conservative who will leave some of us bankrupt and a nation morally bankrupt.

Before anybody bothers to try to rip me to shreds, like they do McCain, just know that I have spent at least 48 hours of my time, when you add it up, researching every vote and every issue McCain has voted on. Not to mention, all of the other time researching the official voting records of other potentials and the time writing to fight for our GOP to have a chance in `08, whether it has to tone down a bit or not. If you can’t say the same, you can shut up too. No offense to my fellow Conservative, but I’m tired of your far Right views flushing my nation down the proverbial Clinton toilet!

I heard this nation speaking, beginning in `04 and shouting now that they want change and it is up to the far Right just how much change we get. Are we going to get a Mildly Conservative Republican; are we going to get the worse of the two Clintons; or are we going to get a Muslim who has us all bowing to Mecca 5 times a day? Your choice folks and even Newt is saying we can’t win this with just attacks on the left. We have to turn this campaign positive!

Personally, I have been fighting for the far Right as long as I can remember. BUT, the fight for the far Right is over for now folks! There is NO far Right in the 2008 election cycle. Therefore continuing to beat your chest and fight for the far Right will make this nation take a u-turn and head left before you know what happened. Obviously I am one of the few who learned from the 1992 mistakes. Your egos are not worth the outcome. Your disappointments and threats of a 1992 style rebellion would be best suited in letters and opinions expressed directly to our only shot at `08, like it or not- McCain.

If you can climb over your egos, you’ll see that many of the McCstakes made throughout his McCareer are the same mistakes made by Reagan. I know, I know, it is a sin to speak ill of Reagan. He was my favorite president too. I cried when he died too, but he was no more a human than McCain. He started out as a Democrat, don’t forget! McCain has always been a Republican. AND, does anybody remember where amnesty came from? Do your research!

In the spirit of all Moms’ of our generation, “If you don’t have anything nice to say about McCain, don’t say anything at all.”

In the words of my Mom, “Someday when I meet my maker, at least I can say I tried.” Can you? Think about it before you help fast forward us to the day he comes.

God Bless you all and may God forgive our haughtiness before the elections!

The Ice Princess

(Tina)

PAUL FOR PORN:

Support his war on Faith??

Before you become so disgruntled with the GOP that you consider throwing away your vote on a third Party:

Ron Paul is the most likely person to break out as a third party candidate, despite saying otherwise, since he IS NOT a Republican. He is the most likely person to cause the GOP to lose!

I have some examples of who he is, from a credible source:

Abortion/ Right to Life:

• Get the federal government out of abortion decision. (Nov 2007)
• Not government's role to protect people like Terri Schiavo. (Sep 2007)
• Voted NO on banning physician-assisted suicide. (Oct 1999)
• Sanctity of Life Act: remove federal jurisdiction. (Sep 2007)
• No experiments on frozen embryos. (Sep 2007) which I agree with, but why does he?

If you are okay with states allowing abortion, why are you against stem cell research??? I'm against it ON BABIES at all stages, unless they are UNINTENTIONALLY miscarried or stillborn. I am pro-life!

·  Rated 56% by the NRLC (Nat'l Right to Life Com.), indicating a mixed record on abortion. (Dec 2006)

_________________________________________________________________

Gay Marriage:

• He is FOR gay marriage. 
• Voted NO on Constitutionally defining marriage as one-man-one-woman. (Jul 2006)
• Don't ask, don't tell is a decent policy for gays in army. (Jun 2007)
• Protect all voluntary associations; don't define marriage. (Oct 2007)
• No legislation to counteract the homosexual agenda. (Sep 2007)

Rated 38% by the HRC, indicating a mixed record on gay rights. (Dec 2006)

__________________________________________________________________

Affirmative Action/ Civil Rights:

Rated 39% by NAACP, indicating a mixed record on affirmative-action. (Dec 2006)

Rated 67% by the ACLU, indicating a mixed civil rights voting record. (Dec 2002)

__________________________________________________________________

Indecency:

• Not appropriate to prosecute all illegal adult pornography. (Sep 2007)
• Don't apply broadcast indecency rules to cable networks. (Sep 2007)
• Voted NO on increasing fines for indecent broadcasting. (Feb 2005)

No wonder the local topless dancers came out in favor of Paul.

__________________________________________________________________

Crime:

Rated 11% by the NCJA, indicating a "soft-on-crime" stance. (Dec 2005):

• Opposes the death penalty. (Jan 2007)
• Voted YES on funding for alternative sentencing instead of more prisons. (Jun 2000)
• Voted NO on more prosecution and sentencing for juvenile crime. (Jun 1999)
• Voted NO on establishing nationwide AMBER alert system for missing kids. (Apr 2003)

EXCUSE ME? No need to help find missing kids, right? I can't even wrap my head around it. Maybe if he gets in office, John Walsh will take him out.

__________________________________________________________________

Drugs:

Rated A by VOTE-HEMP, indicating a pro-hemp voting record. (Dec 2003)

·  Voted NO on subjecting federal employees to random drug tests. (Sep 1998) 

·  Voted NO on military border patrols to battle drugs & terrorism. (Sep 2001)

·  War on Drugs has abused Bill of Rights . (Dec 2000)

·  Legalize medical marijuana. (Jul 2001)

·  War on drugs is out of control; revert control to states. (Dec 2007)

·  Repeal most federal drug laws; blacks are treated unfairly. (Sep 2007)

·  Inner-city minorities are punished unfairly in war on drugs. (Sep 2007)

·  $500B on War on Drugs since 1970s has been a total failure. (Sep 2007)

__________________________________________________________________

Energy & Oil:

Rated 0% by the CAF, indicating opposition to energy independence. (Dec 2006)

(FRIEND TO OPEC and others who REALLY caused gas hikes)

• Voted NO on criminalizing oil cartels like OPEC. (May 2007)

__________________________________________________________________

War, Trade and Domestic & Foreign Policy:

• Stop interfering with Latin America; talk & trade instead. (Dec 2007) 
  (BASICALLY- let them send things in, WITHOUT imposing our restrictions)
• Cut off all foreign aid to Israel
• We don't need any troops abroad--they don't help our defense. (Dec 2007)
• Bring all troops home from abroad & save $100B's every year. (Dec 2007)
• 9/11 resulted from blasphemy of our bases in Saudi Arabia. (Dec 2007)
• Suicide terrorism stops when we stop intervening abroad. (Dec 2007)
• Preemptive war is against Christian doctrine of just war. (Sep 2007)
  Now he worries about Christian doctrine, to prove his own point. Use of the Bible: A rule not a tool !
• No US role in autonomy for Christians in Iraq Nineveh region. (Sep 2007)
• Pre-emptive war is not part of the American tradition. (Jun 2007)
  So, it is pre-emptive because? So, we weren't attacked? Not to mention, pre-emptive war has been nearly ALL of our wars, in recent history. Did Vietnam, or Germany ever come here and attack us? NO! BUT they were a threat to national security!
•  Voted NO on deterring foreign arms transfers to China. (Jul 2005)
• Voted NO on Permanent Normal Trade Relations with China. (May 2000)
  In other words, arm them and make them angry!
• No constitutional or moral authority for US action in Darfur. (Sep 2007)
• Voted NO on allowing school prayer during the War on Terror. (Nov 2001)
• Inappropriate to impose sanctions for persecuting Christians. (Sep 2007)
  They are just Christians, after all, right?? Huh?
• No restrictions on import/export; but maintain sovereignty . (Dec 2000)  WHAT? HOW?
• Voted NO on promoting free trade with Peru. (Nov 2007)
• Voted NO on implementing CAFTA, Central America Free Trade. (Jul 2005)
• Voted NO on implementing US-Australia Free Trade Agreement. (Jul 2004)
• Voted NO on implementing US-Singapore free trade agreement. (Jul 2003)
• Voted NO on implementing free trade agreement with Chile. (Jul 2003)
  I thought he said NO restrictions on IMPORT/EXPORT? Am I the only one confused?
• Close departments of Energy, Education & Homeland Security. (May 2007)
  I guess we wouldn't need Homeland Security with him in office anyhow, since he seems to be an anti-war leftist.
• End government secrecy; restore openness of information. (Aug 2007) Like we can all handle the truth??
• Voted NO on campaign finance reform banning soft-money contributions. (Feb 2002)
• Voted NO on requiring lobbyist disclosure of bundled donations. (May 2007)
  Oh! So he can get his campaign funds from whatever crooked source he wishes, but the government should disclose everything? And then kickbacks would be okay? Huh?

__________________________________________________________________

Immigration:

·  No amnesty, but impractical to round up 12 million illegals. (Sep 2007)

·  No amnesty, but border fence isn't so important. (Jun 2007)

·  Those who attack bilingualism are jealous & feel inferior. (Dec 2007)

BASICALLY: Leave immigration like it is?

__________________________________________________________________

Other:

·  Called Bush 41 a "bum"; didn't vote for Bush 43. (Dec 2007)  MEANING, he voted FOR a Democrat!

·  Bush's faith-based initiative is "a neocon project". (Oct 2007) 
I guess that makes me a neocon

·  He stated: First Amendment was written for controversial speech. (Sep 2007) WHAT?

I COULD go on!

VOTE RESPONSIBLY!

Don't vote without checking the REAL records!

www.OnTheIssues.org

I don't agree with McCain on ALL issues, BUT I notice more GOP attacks on him than on Rudy. Rudy IS a Social LIBERAL. Rudy is a Moderate fiscal Conservative. Lieberman is LESS Liberal than Rudy and is at least honest in his label.

As for McCain, he may not always be correct, but some people say they'd NEVER vote for him and this attitude comes from reading posts from so called "CONSERVATIVES" bashing him for things that are nonsense. Answer me this, ANYBODY, do you have even one friend or family member (who you associate with) who is liberal, for abortion, or different in key views than you?

If you say NO, you are either very lonely or a bigot, by its strictest definition.

If you say YES, then you have NO right to judge McCain for being seen in the political arena with a "Liberal".

Why are all of these collective Conservatives acting so similarly to LIBERALS with their bashing and banter of real GOP?

I have also NEVER gone after a candidate with biased or weak, unresearched ammunition. Calling McCain, Thompson, Huckabee or even Romeny a Liberal or even a RINO is inaccurate and equally as biased and destructive as what the Liberals themselves do to the GOP. They call us racists, woman-haters, right-wing nut jobs, etc... We know that not to be true.

I used to go to the source directly, in battle with liberals and I always found this type of bashing and banter from them. However, Shame on all of the GOP for false statements about the competition. Many of these people, claming to be Christians are lying (bearing false witness), going on hearsay or exaggerating about the extent of things, to win a verbal battle.

None of the aforementioned GOP members are RINO's or liberals.

Romeny used to be a Social MODERATE, due to his one time views on abortion, which were once even shared by Reagan.

McCain is CONSTANTLY attacked for his REFORM Bill, for his so-called amnesty Bill, etc... DON'T attack him for these things without reading them personally and understanding them first! That is a LIBERAL way of doing things. I have read the Reform Bill, front to back and nearly 100% of what I've seen Republicans attack him for, aren't even a part of it. The so-called "Amnesty Bill" I have NOT read yet. Hence I will NOT comment, without doing so first. McCain may also be catering to the left a bit in being a media-hound, speaking out about waterboarding, being seen with Kennedy, etc. However, there are an awful lot of collective fence sitters who would vote for him in the General Elections, because they are not smart enough to ignore the media. I see that as a good move. I wish the rest of the GOP could understand that things like that can win a General Election. Reagan did it. Now that he was a great president, you NEVER hear about it.

Huckabee is attacked left and right by the Romniacs. Most of it seems to be spun on what a hypocrite and liar he is, without much to base it on. People call him a RINO, when in reality he is almost 100% Conservative, in his history, especially on social issues.
 
Thompson gets it from people who ask if he's qualified because of his experience on Law and Order. Others say there is nothing to base his competency on. Yet others call him Hollywood and say that his career as an actor makes him a Liberal-sympathizer. Was Reagan? Reagan had many who said these things and more and he turned out okay, right?

When we mercelessly and boundlessly attack the real GOP, we open up our party to being insurged by Liberals like Rudy. How do you think he got in as far as he did? Do you want to make it so that we come down to a liberal against a liberal in the General Elections?

I cannot say with certainty who I'll vote for in the primaries, but it won't be anybody who has EVER voted pro-choice. This is not because I know nothing about politics. I have been politically pro-active since before adulthood and I am very much into adulthood now.

As for who should or should not be called a liberal or a RINO (Republican In Name Only), PLEASE BE RESPONSIBLE and look up their voting records either on one of the government websites or www.OnTheIssues.org

ALSO, If you say you would NEVER vote for somebody in the GOP, be willing to sacrifice the nation. If you don't vote GOP in the generals, you might as well vote for an @$$.

PS- If you can only respond with biased or baseless attacks like a liberal, please don't bother.
FACTS ONLY PLEASE!

Things I don't like about Rudy:

Did you know he was married to his 2nd cousin for 14 years and when he became tired of the marriage, he annulled it on that basis?

Less than two years later he married a Florida reporter.

    -How many marriages has he had now? If he made it into the oval office, maybe he could be the first president to have alternating first ladies?

    -Rudi started his career as a Democrat. Since then, the majority of his views haven't strayed far.

Partial quotes, political history, implications (made directly to reliable sources),  and views of the G-man in proper context (plus a few responses from me preceded by a -):

ABORTION:

*Would probably not sign federal ban on all abortions. (Nov 2007)

*Ran against Hillary for Senate as a pro-choice candidate. (2000)

*Allowing choice keeps government out of people's lives. (May 2007)

****Opposed parental notificiation(1997)

****Supported partial birth abortion (1997)

         -about ten years later:

*Encourage adoptions; ban partial-birth abortion. (2007); HUH?

*Pro-choice; no ban on partial-birth abortions. (Dec 1999) FLIP-FLOP!

***Giuliani donated to Planned Parenthood throughout the 1990's.

*Embryonic stem cell research ok if limited properly. (May 2007)

              -Who will limit it?

 
-GAY RIGHTS:

*Pro gay rights. (Jul 2006)

*No Marriage Amendment needed now, but maybe if DOMA fails.(Oct 2007)

              -What does that mean exactly?

*Don't change gays-in-military policy in time of war. (Jun 2007)

*Opposed President Bush's ban on gay marriage. (Jan 2007)

*Supports domestic partnerships, but not same-sex marriage.(Aug 2007)

         -Is it possible to BOTH oppose a ban on AND not support gay marriage?

 
 EDUCATION:

*$50 Million for more art teachers & art programs in NY. (Dec 1999)

*Replaced NY Board of Education with appointed commissioner. (Apr 1999)

 
RELIGION:

****Opposes prayer in school. (Apr 1989)

*Said: The Bible is greatest book ever written, but it's allegorical.

                 -WHAT????? ALLEGORICAL?????  Christians- take offense!

*Absent from Values Voter Presidential Debate. (Sep 2007)

                -Maybe because his values are allegorical???

GOVERNMENT/ TERRORISM/ WAR/ MILITARY:

*His consulting business was involved with Qatar, who helped Khalid Sheikh Mohammad, the 9/11 mastermind.

*He stated that the GOP is fundamentally irresponsible on war.

*In 2004 he recommended NYC's police commissioner Kerik to be the secretary of homeland security, AFTER Kerik's associates had been indicted & pleaded guilty. Kerik now faces up to 142 years in prison now for his crimes.

*Avoided military service in Vietnam with a deferment

ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION:

*He forbade city employees from giving ICE officials names of illegals unless they were suspected of OTHER criminal activity.

*He filed suit himself to overturn abolition of sanctuary cities.

*NYC had a policy of allowing illegal immigrants to put their children in public schools (funded by taxes), yet had no tax legislation for them.

              -A FREE ride

*Supports Senate guest worker plan & path to citizenship

GUN LAWS:

*Government can impose reasonable regulations on guns. (Nov 2007)

               - And where will they stop??

*Says: NYC gun control laws made NYC safest big city in US.(Sep 2007)

               -And will he impose them on us all??

*Supported the Clinton assault weapons ban in the 90's.

*Supported nationwide federal licensing in the 90's.

*As NY Mayor, he stated that weak gun laws in other states might actually end up producing guns on the streets of New York, so nationwide laws are needed.

*Says: Gun control reduces urban crime; no effect on hunting. (2007)

           -Well, personally I don't hunt! I have a gun for protection. So, will I be aloud to protect myself in a state full of crime produced by illegal border penetration?

*NYC sued 2 dozen major gun manufacturers and distributors. (Jun 2000)

            -Yet, he is PRO-TORT reform. That states that a gun manufacturer is liable for a murder committed by a stranger, but a doctor holds minimal liability for their own patient?

*All gun owners should pass written test. (Mar 2000)

            -He has a point there. Voters should also have to pass a written test to see if they are smart and moral enough to vote, then we don't have to worry about those of loose morals getting into office, right? Wait! Isn't that essentially a litmus test??? He is against Litmus testing!

                     CAMPAIGN REFORM:
*Said he's "a very strong supporter of McCain-Feingold..."(Aug. 2006)

          -That may be the single issue I have seen the MOST McCain- bashing about in McCain's political career??

          -Now who's spending the BIG bucks on the campaign and where does it all come from???

OTHER:  

*Criticized for tax-funded police security for his girlfriend.

*Favored for presidential nomination in CNN poll of GOP. (Sep 2006)

                   -Is it an oxymoron for CNN to do a GOP poll?

              -I do agree with him on one issue:

"You do not achieve peace through weakness and appeasement."

AND that means IF given the option between Giuliani or ANY Democrat in the General Election I would DEFINITELY pick Giuliani. However, there is NO Republican running who I wouldn't choose in the primaries over Giuliani.

I place Giuliani right on the Arlen Specter/ Joe Lieberman level.