Another Democrat Turned Republican

[nw_hunter]

Lets have a look at Michelle Bachmann............. Kelleigh Nelson at News with views.com gives us another view of the Lady who would be President.


http://www.newswithviews.com/Nelson/kelleigh134.htm

[BUGEYE]

It just shows that people can come to their senses.

[jimster]

Reagan was a Democrat. 
 
It is possible there could be consevative people in any party, who may decide to move around a bit...not a big deal.  Political parties don't mean squat...and the reopublican party is not all that conservative anymore either. 
 
Probably this is just people digging and scratching...nothing more.

[ironglow]

 ...Am I wrong, or can we always spot the Ron Paul supporters..because they are the ones most consistently ATTACKING other conservatives ?

[saddlebum]

...Am I wrong, or can we always spot the Ron Paul supporters..because they are the ones most consistently ATTACKING other conservatives ?

Dang ole Paulistinians anyway!
I'm not much better. I'm not liking any of the candidates!
Guess I'll have to hold my nose again in the voting booth.................

[Sourdough]

I liked the statement Ron Paul made about the Dept Of Education needing to go away.  But when he was attacked, to me it seemed he just withdrew, and sulked like a child.  He did not stand up and defend his position, or himself.

[ironglow]

  He was correct, the dept of ed should go !  Get rid of the teacher's unions also..  Both are impediments to a good education for kids.  Schools should be run on a competitive basis, just as any other business..the better schools/teachers get the higher pay.  Let the parents choose for their kids with vouchers.
   This racket has only continued to rob our kids by way of the machinations of liberals in govt.   Let's stop it in 2012 !

[saddlebum]

I liked the statement Ron Paul made about the Dept Of Education needing to go away.  But when he was attacked, to me it seemed he just withdrew, and sulked like a child.  He did not stand up and defend his position, or himself.

Paul was too afraid of big bad Bill O'Reilly to go on his show, (which has the biggest audience), and tell people what he stands for. This was just after Paul whinned about not getting media coverage.
Paul later in an interview he said O'Reilly is too dumb to get what he was saying so he didn't go on the show........Pretty lame!
Can't really see him going up against some of the world leaders we have today if he cowers from mean ole O'Reilly.

[Dixie Dude]

I have mentioned this before and I will repeat it.  IN THE SOUTH AFTER THE CIVIL WAR, NO REPUBLICAN COULD GET ELECTED FOR OVER 100 YEARS.  It wasn't until a combination of Jimmy Carter and then Reagan that conservative Democrats in the south switched parties.  Why, because conservative Southern Democrats saw the party being taken over by East Coast and West Coast liberals.  Most all the Republican politicians in the South today were former Democrats.  Don't know about Northern converts.  Believe me, 90% of these Southern Republicans are very conservative.  So, someone switching parties several years ago, and staying true, like Perry, is OK.  Someone switching every 3-4 years, I would not trust.  I have just about given up on Ron Paul because his supporters keep bashing other Republicans.  He will NEVER be electable with supporters like that.  Right now ANYONE would be better than Obama, even Hillery Clinton.  He is too far left.  At least the Clintons went the way the wind was blowing.  Obama is hard core liberal.  EVERY cantidate on the Republican side has some type of baggage and isn't 100% to my liking. 
 
I think Perry would be soft on immigration.
I think Ron Paul is too isolationist, America is a superpower and really an economic and military empire that has to be managed like an empire. Not isolationist, but not fighting every little petty war either.  Pit others against each other to keep them off  our back. 
I think Newt Gingrich has very good ideas but has baggage.
Bachman puts her foot in her mouth and has her own problems.
Palin would be good, but has been destroyed by the media.
Romney is too Rino and has baggage with his health care fiasco in Mass.
Others haven't a chance. 
 
So Perry would probably have the best chance to beat Obama.  Romney is the Republican media darling like McCain was, and would probably be unelectable.   
 
Also remember the Communist goals of the 1950's. 
Take over one political party.
Take over the media.
Take over the education department.
Get teens interested in drugs, alcohol, and sex.
Tear down traditional marriage.
Get into churches and water them down. 
Get God out of schools, and any government function, etc. 
 

[Doublebass73]

...Am I wrong, or can we always spot the Ron Paul supporters..because they are the ones most consistently ATTACKING other conservatives ?

I only attack liberals who are claiming to be conservatives like Perry, Romney, Bachmann, etc. These people all have big government track records for all of us to see. It's real easy to research their voting records. They may have some socially conservative positions but that doesn't negate the fact that they are big government liberals when it comes to spending.

[Dixie Dude]

Would you rather have any one of the Republicans or Obama?  At least the downward spiral will slow down with a Republican in the White House.  Also, what about Supreme Court nominees? 

[Doublebass73]

My days of voting for the lesser of two evils are over. I just can't get excited about candidates whose only upside is that they won't spend as much as Obama but will still spend more than the country can afford.

There are no guarantees we will get conservative supreme court nominees if we elect any of these fake conservatives that are running as Republicans. Look at justice Souter, a Reagan appointee who turned out to be extremely liberal.

[ironglow]

...Am I wrong, or can we always spot the Ron Paul supporters..because they are the ones most consistently ATTACKING other conservatives ?

I only attack liberals who are claiming to be conservatives like Perry, Romney, Bachmann, etc. These people all have big government track records for all of us to see. It's real easy to research their voting records. They may have some socially conservative positions but that doesn't negate the fact that they are big government liberals when it comes to spending.

*****************************************************************
    You mean those "liberals" who believe in smaller govt, lower taxes, the right to keep & bear arms, the right to life, cutting govt spending, shrink the bureaocracy, encouraging free enterprise, suppoprting our troops, encouraguing Godly conduct, reforming welfare, placing the US ahead of other nations...and other such "liberal" ideas ?
         There are better targets; such as Obama, Biden, Pelosi, Reid etc..                
)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
  BTW:  Souter was nominated by George H W Bush, after being misled by Sununu.  Reagan nominated Robert Bork..perhaps one of the best ever nominated..but the real liberals killed his nomination..in a most shameful manner.
   When you complain about Reagan ..are you saying he was a liberal ?

[Dixie Dude]

All the conservatives and even moderates on the Supreme Court were appointed by Republicans.  Obama has appointed far left wacos.  If you want your rights upheld, especially gun rights, you need to vote Republican.  A lot of the Supreme Court Justices are getting old and will need to be replaced in a few years.  The most moderate Republican running is Romney, and he is more conservative than McCain was.  We have more decent choices this year, but we also need Tea Partiers in congress and the Senate.  Tearing down the existing bureaucracy will take time, a Republican or conservative president AND a conservative congress and senate.  Bush did keep most government expenses down.  His war expense was the budget buster.  He should have had some type of national sales tax or tarriff to pay for the wars until they were over.  Now Obama straps us with a huge medical expense and no real way to pay for it and the wars are still going on. 

[ironglow]

  Guys;
  We were presented with an article written by one Kelleigh Nelson.  Not having heard of this writer previously, I decided to look beyond the addressed article, to the rest of the publication.  I noticed this publication is nothing but a retinue of "conspiracy theories".
     Just look closer at the ads surrounding her article, or examine her "additional articles"..even look at the books that website has for sale...   
     http://www.newswithviewsstore.com/mm5/merchant.mvc?Screen=CTGY&Store_Code=NWVS&Category_Code=DVD
 
   Some years ago, I knew a fellow named Jake, who one day came upon the notion that preservatives in food are dangerous.  He sought out books and magazine articles which agreed with his conclusion and eagerly read them... He would not read or even consider any contrary opinions !  He conversed on equal footing with none but would agree with his already formed conclusions
    When presented by opposing evidence, he dismissed it as "somebody has been paid off" !
  Now, I am convinced there was some considerable truth many of his ideas, and the subject is worth study.
   Problem was, Jake became so immersed in his theory, that he refused to see or hear any other evidence.  He eventually saw food preservatives as the whole and only source of all our problems, even saw 'controlling agents' spiking food with extra doses of preservatives in an attempt at mind control..
   Once a man leaves the trail of logic and wanders off into the swamp of despair; unless he is very careful, he can become mired in the quicksand of delusion.

[Cabin4]

This thread should be "Democrat Party turned Socialist Party". Pushes members to GOP."
 
Thats the real headline.

[Doublebass73]

...Am I wrong, or can we always spot the Ron Paul supporters..because they are the ones most consistently ATTACKING other conservatives ?

I only attack liberals who are claiming to be conservatives like Perry, Romney, Bachmann, etc. These people all have big government track records for all of us to see. It's real easy to research their voting records. They may have some socially conservative positions but that doesn't negate the fact that they are big government liberals when it comes to spending.

*****************************************************************
    You mean those "liberals" who believe in smaller govt, lower taxes, the right to keep & bear arms, the right to life, cutting govt spending, shrink the bureaocracy, encouraging free enterprise, suppoprting our troops, encouraguing Godly conduct, reforming welfare, placing the US ahead of other nations...and other such "liberal" ideas ?
         There are better targets; such as Obama, Biden, Pelosi, Reid etc..                
)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
  BTW:  Souter was nominated by George H W Bush, after being misled by Sununu.  Reagan nominated Robert Bork..perhaps one of the best ever nominated..but the real liberals killed his nomination..in a most shameful manner.
   When you complain about Reagan ..are you saying he was a liberal ?

I'm saying that electing a Republican does not guarantee a conservative supreme court justice. You're right about Souter, shame on this NH resident for mixing Reagan's name in there on that one by accident  but Bush and Sununu, both Republicans gave us Souter a very liberal vote on the supreme court.

When I say "liberals" I'm referring to Perry and Romney actions and past records, not what they are telling us. The size of government increased under both of them in their respective states, taxes went up under both of them. That is the bottom line. Do you honestly believe them when they say they are in favor of smaller government?

[Doublebass73]

Tearing down the existing bureaucracy will take time, a Republican or conservative president AND a conservative congress and senate.

We had 6 years of Republican controlled President, Senate and House. The size of government grew immensely during that time. That is the point I'm trying to get across to you guys - Republican does not equal conservative despite what the candidates tell us.

[nw_hunter]

  Guys;
  We were presented with an article written by one Kelleigh Nelson.  Not having heard of this writer previously, I decided to look beyond the addressed article, to the rest of the publication.  I noticed this publication is nothing but a retinue of "conspiracy theories".
     Just look closer at the ads surrounding her article, or examine her "additional articles"..even look at the books that website has for sale...   
     http://www.newswithviewsstore.com/mm5/merchant.mvc?Screen=CTGY&Store_Code=NWVS&Category_Code=DVD
 
   Some years ago, I knew a fellow named Jake, who one day came upon the notion that preservatives in food are dangerous.  He sought out books and magazine articles which agreed with his conclusion and eagerly read them... He would not read or even consider any contrary opinions !  He conversed on equal footing with none but would agree with his already formed conclusions
    When presented by opposing evidence, he dismissed it as "somebody has been paid off" !
  Now, I am convinced there was some considerable truth many of his ideas, and the subject is worth study.
   Problem was, Jake became so immersed in his theory, that he refused to see or hear any other evidence.  He eventually saw food preservatives as the whole and only source of all our problems, even saw 'controlling agents' spiking food with extra doses of preservatives in an attempt at mind control..
   Once a man leaves the trail of logic and wanders off into the swamp of despair; unless he is very careful, he can become mired in the quicksand of delusion.

I thought her article was just to give us some information about the people running for the highest office in the land!

So! Before you started this story of Jake, the poor misguided soul that became so mired in that swamp of despair he could no longer see reality, did you find that the writer was telling lies about her?
Or perhaps truth only counts when told by those (WE) choose to believe.
"Quicksand of Delusion" MAN! That's poetic!

[ironglow]

  Guys;
  We were presented with an article written by one Kelleigh Nelson.  Not having heard of this writer previously, I decided to look beyond the addressed article, to the rest of the publication.  I noticed this publication is nothing but a retinue of "conspiracy theories".
     Just look closer at the ads surrounding her article, or examine her "additional articles"..even look at the books that website has for sale...   
     http://www.newswithviewsstore.com/mm5/merchant.mvc?Screen=CTGY&Store_Code=NWVS&Category_Code=DVD
 
   Some years ago, I knew a fellow named Jake, who one day came upon the notion that preservatives in food are dangerous.  He sought out books and magazine articles which agreed with his conclusion and eagerly read them... He would not read or even consider any contrary opinions !  He conversed on equal footing with none but would agree with his already formed conclusions
    When presented by opposing evidence, he dismissed it as "somebody has been paid off" !
  Now, I am convinced there was some considerable truth many of his ideas, and the subject is worth study.
   Problem was, Jake became so immersed in his theory, that he refused to see or hear any other evidence.  He eventually saw food preservatives as the whole and only source of all our problems, even saw 'controlling agents' spiking food with extra doses of preservatives in an attempt at mind control..
   Once a man leaves the trail of logic and wanders off into the swamp of despair; unless he is very careful, he can become mired in the quicksand of delusion.

I thought her article was just to give us some information about the people running for the highest office in the land!

So! Before you started this story of Jake, the poor misguided soul that became so mired in that swamp of despair he could no longer see reality, did you find that the writer was telling lies about her?
Or perhaps truth only counts when told by those (WE) choose to believe.
"Quicksand of Delusion" MAN! That's poetic!

**************************************************************
  Let each decide for himself !

[ironglow]

Tearing down the existing bureaucracy will take time, a Republican or conservative president AND a conservative congress and senate.

We had 6 years of Republican controlled President, Senate and House. The size of government grew immensely during that time. That is the point I'm trying to get across to you guys - Republican does not equal conservative despite what the candidates tell us.

*****************************************************************************
   DB;
    We have observed 2 debates and many short speeches by the candidates presently challengiing B. Hussein Obama for his job. We have heard what they say for months & sometimes, years..
   Although some, such as Bachmann, Perry and others are heartily endorsed by the Tea Party, still they are all running as REPUBLICANS.  You say and I agree, that being Republican doesn't guarantee one to be a conservative.  In selecting SCOTUS appointees, It certainly appears that any of them COULD go wrong..
   However, among the current frontrunners, outside Huntsman and possibly Romney..  all are likely to seek out the most conservative candidates.  We are not mind-readers and obviously neither you nor I can be 100% sure who they will appoint or what decisions they will make.
  Our point of challenge will come in Nov 2012..  Which ever candidate among the present leaders wins, will have to face B. Hussein (or possibly Hillary) in 2012.
  Have we any doubts whether Bachmann, Paul, Perry,Cain, Santorum or Newt would be more conservative than either Obama or Clinton ?  ..Of course not...That's the time to do our duty.....

[Doublebass73]

Ironglow,

You and I both agree what needs to be done. The time to do our duty is now and elect the most conservative candidate to challenge the socialist. I want the candidate with the best record of voting with the Constitution and keeping the government as small as possible. I refuse to support any candidate who has a proven track record of growing the size of government and taxes. The Republican party will never change it's way if we continue to support all of the big government Republicans that exist out there. We've already gone down that road with Jorge Bush and Juan McAmnesty and it doesn't work.

[nw_hunter]

Ironglow,

You and I both agree what needs to be done. The time to do our duty is now and elect the most conservative candidate to challenge the socialist. I want the candidate with the best record of voting with the Constitution and keeping the government as small as possible. I refuse to support any candidate who has a proven track record of growing the size of government and taxes. The Republican party will never change it's way if we continue to support all of the big government Republicans that exist out there. We've already gone down that road with Jorge Bush and Juan McAmnesty and it doesn't work.

Right you are! If we are to ever reverse this Liberal takeover, we must stop voting for these lesser Liberals, and not vote for one period!
Look what happened when we voted GW Bush into power.We got unconstitutional wars and shackled with  the biggest threat to freedom in modern history............The Department of Homeland Security. "So much for smaller government" When we hear voters talk about the field of players we have today, they talk about what they have to say........It's not about, so much what they say. It's about what they do.
Look at their voting records. Do some serious research on their history.Break this mentality of...Anyone is better than what we have!If that's the best we can hope for, then we are doomed to fail.

[Casull]

The time to do our duty is now and elect the most conservative candidate to challenge the socialist.

 
That's the word that many RP people forget.  Yes, we need to support and vote for the most conservative ELECTABLE candidate.  Just supporting the most conservative candidate who is not electable is like p*ssing into the wind.  Yeah, it'll make you feel better, but you're still going to just be p*ssing on your shoes.

[ironglow]

 Doublebass & NW hunter;
     You both say we can only vote for someone with a proven voting record. Using your own professed criteria, we could never elect anyone but an already practicing politician, since a businessman, such a Herman Cain or would have no "voting record".
  Guess that goes for any newcomers, since they have no voting record either !
        In any case, even those with a voting record, any clear-cut leader is difficult to discern, here they are for your convenience: http://www.ontheissues.org/default.htm
 
   In a quick assessment, it appears Michelle Bachmann & Newt Gingrich seem to have the most consistant CONSERVATIVE voting record along with Rick Perry and Rick Santorum.  Others such as Ron Paul have some very good conservative voting records, except in certain questions  such as abortion and the illicit drug business, where they wobble off into libertarian, rather that conservative thought.
   Romney goes "greenie" ...  Huntsman drifts and Johnson is nothing more than a liberal with lipstick !
 
  You guys complain loudly about GW Bush, and not without reason..but one question remains..
 
   Had every conservative taken your advice and stayed at home for election day for 2000 and 2004.. Would we have been better off, had Al Gore been elected to fill those 8 years instead of GW Bush ?
   

[BBF]

.......................
........................................

................
 
.........................

Can't really see him going up against some of the world leaders we have today if he cowers from mean ole O'Reilly.

Try getting in a word or two edgewise with him.

[ironglow]

I liked the statement Ron Paul made about the Dept Of Education needing to go away.  But when he was attacked, to me it seemed he just withdrew, and sulked like a child.  He did not stand up and defend his position, or himself.

Paul was too afraid of big bad Bill O'Reilly to go on his show, (which has the biggest audience), and tell people what he stands for. This was just after Paul whinned about not getting media coverage.
Paul later in an interview he said O'Reilly is too dumb to get what he was saying so he didn't go on the show........Pretty lame!
Can't really see him going up against some of the world leaders we have today if he cowers from mean ole O'Reilly.

*******************************************************************************
  Gotta admit; that was a weak performance by Ron Paul.  He should not be afraid of the "big bad wolf" O'Reilly...  Shouldn't complain about lack of coverage  and then turn down coverage by the #1 rated show !   ...Plus, like him or not..we all know O'Reilly is NOT DUMB !
  As far as wanting the "dept of Education to go away", he's not alone...check the other candidates out;
   http://www.ontheissues.org/default.htm
  You will find he voted against vouchers to make the NEA (and their teachers & schools)..  compete for the funds...
       ...The NEA rather likes him, giving him a 67% rating.
 
   As DB & NW said...check out their records..click onto the link just above...

[bilmac]

You can't be from Minnesota and not have been a Democrat for a while at least can you?

[nomosendero]

.......................
........................................

................
 
.........................

Can't really see him going up against some of the world leaders we have today if he cowers from mean ole O'Reilly.

Try getting in a word or two edgewise with him.

I have seen several that do actually. Anyone elected will have tougher challanges than that.

[saddlebum]

I would like to like Paul because of the stance he takes on some things that nobody else even talks about. But his negatives keep me from supporting him. The other candidates are too much like 'more of the same' except Bachmann who is great on some things but flops on others. And as much as I hate to be the one to say it, she is a she. I have no problem with a woman president, but I'm not everyone. If I had to choose between Bachmann and Palin, I would pick Palin in a heartbeat. But as much as I like Palin, she is out of it and if you think Americans aren't ready for a woman president, just consider the rest of the misogynistic world today. Cain's heart is in the right place I think, but doesn't strike me as a world leader and trips over himself sometimes. Gingrich had his chance and blew it last time. I almost blame him for Obama being president. I don't even consider Huntsman a candidate. I think if Christie jumps in, it would just muddy the waters more. Although he has his good points.
 
Maybe I'm just old and grouchy but I don't see any 'messiahs' in the bunch..........
The best I can say is that anyone is better than Obama. Even the tick on my dog is less of a bloodsucker than that guy!