← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · A Fat Republican
Thread ID: 12856 | Posts: 17 | Started: 2004-03-24
2004-03-24 02:48 | User Profile
As a life long member of the Republican Party, I have consistently voted for the GOP's Presidential candidate except for the last election where I voted for Patrick J. Buchanan. I live in a state where a Republican or for that matter any one who even appears Conservative, does not have much of a chance to win the State. This is mainly due to being out numbered by our extremely large population of liberals and similar trash in the City. So I decided to vote for Pat B., the most conservative candidate in the election, at least to my mind, who obviously had no chance at all to win. This was a protest vote and I just hoped that some of my fellow Republicans in DC checked to see how many hundreds of thousands of people around the country, especially where the race was close, did that same.
With the next election not far away, what is Authentically Conservative Republican to do with a President who is not an Authentic/Traditional Conservative, but is a man who believes: that although gays should never be able to Marry, States nevertheless have the right to bestow upon these sodomites the same benefits and so-called rights as have Husband and Wife, that Abortion/Infanticide should be permitted in a few circumstances, but even then the our country/people are not ready for this dubious so-called pro-life restriction, and better still that good people can disagree on the morality of Abortion in general. For me these two moral issues alone are more than enough to discredited anyone for being even a half conservative, if there was ever such a thing, without having to go further searching for any others virtues or vices. I am basically left in a position of voting for GWB the lesser of the two evils and holding out for a conservative revolution within the GOP, or voting for a third party candidate who hopefully is not only a true conservative himself but belongs to a Party with a truly conservative platform and membership. Since the last election I have been aware of the existence of the Constitution Party, and just last month I learned of the existence of another party calling itself the American First Party. I am not very familiar with either party nor with the main differences between the two, nor am I sure of either party's likely future political viability.
Can anyone contribute and assist people like myself who may be members or guests of this web-forum and are hoping to learn more about these two parties and any another similar party that might actually have more then a snowballs chance in hell to win future elections, may they just be congressional seats and local offices to start, and at the same time expand and build a truly conservative party?
2004-03-24 03:33 | User Profile
I say "forget voting." There is no way that we Americans can vote ourselves back to being a republic. Focus on nationalism instead.
2004-08-12 14:53 | User Profile
With elections less than 90 days away, can anyone help in this regard?
2004-08-12 15:07 | User Profile
What has the party of Mista Lincoon, the Republicoons done for white folks in the last 40 years? Even when the Coonservative Republicoons were in control of the government----the Coonservative Republicoons did nothing!!!!:censored:
2004-08-12 19:47 | User Profile
I don't believe real conservatism is married to the GOP. In fact, I think they had a nasty divorce a decade or two ago.
Vote your principles and let the chips fall where they may. If there is no candidate on the ballot that represents your beliefs then leave it blank or write-in Jefferson Davis.
2004-08-13 01:28 | User Profile
I'm writing in Peter Brimelow...
2004-08-13 06:45 | User Profile
[QUOTE=A Fat Republican] I am basically left in a position of voting for GWB the lesser of the two evils and holding out for a conservative revolution within the GOP, or voting for a third party candidate who hopefully is not only a true conservative himself but belongs to a Party with a truly conservative platform and membership.
Since the last election I have been aware of the existence of the Constitution Party, and just last month I learned of the existence of another party calling itself the American First Party. I am not very familiar with either party nor with the main differences between the two, nor am I sure of either party's likely future political viability.
Can anyone contribute and assist people like myself who may be members or guests of this web-forum and are hoping to learn more about these two parties and any another similar party that might actually have more then a snowballs chance in hell to win future elections, may they just be congressional seats and local offices to start, and at the same time expand and build a truly conservative party?
............With elections less than 90 days away, can anyone help in this regard? [/QUOTE]I sympathize with your plight, and wish forums like our could have been more help. Unfortunately it appears from this vantage point at least that the minority of people like yourself and me, who are upset enough with multiculturalism and the GOP to want to do something about it electorally, have gotten ourselves bogged down arguing with another minority, who call themselves White Nationalists, but are intractably opposed to any candidate or movement with the smarts, common sense, and realism to have any chance at success, without which electoral effort is pointless. Not only are they determined to destroy any such effective political movement, but it seems they also would like to destroy any forum like this that supports such movement.
It has started to seem evident that such efforts are strongly influenced by professional disruptors and agent provocetuers from major parties and other parts of the establishment, along with their unwitting dupes. For this and other reasons, I'm now suspicious of a lot of start up efforts and small parties, like the ones you mention. They are too easily manipulated as soon as they start to be a real threat to the existing multicultural order.
The best idea I heard of for a third-party ticket was Fahey's proposal for a Paul/Tancredo ticket, which was at least half right. But of course like any other such proposal breathed in these areas it went nowhere.
I'm of the opinion that Rep. Tom Tancredo and his band of renegade supporters within the GOP right now may furnish the best chance of real success right now, where they exist. I'd say try to find someone from this group within the GOP if you can and get involved anyway you can. Alot of the mainstream elections like that for President I'd just ignore. But I'd say do find a candidate that does seem to have enough real conviction to publicaly support Tancredo and get involved. That might be our best chance of retaining some political influence right now.
Check out Tancredo's website for details.
[url=http://www.house.gov/tancredo/Immigration/]Congressional Immigration Reform Caucus[/url]
and
[url=http://www.house.gov/tancredo/ohoh/]Our Heritage, Our Hope[/url]
Some of the costumed fetish set and their loud talking sympathizers like Rebel Army supporters etc. tend to ridicule such effort, but IMO they represent the only real chance of success.
2004-08-13 07:19 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Okiereddust]Unfortunately it appears from this vantage point at least that the minority of people like yourself and me, who are upset enough with multiculturalism and the GOP to want to do something about it electorally, have gotten ourselves bogged down arguing with another minority, who call themselves White Nationalists, but are intractably opposed to any candidate or movement with the smarts, common sense, and realism to have any chance at success, without which electoral effort is pointless.[/QUOTE]
I think you are overstating the case (and projecting your arguments in a few threads on this forum onto the larger political landscape). I'm a White Nationalist and I don't think it would be an exaggeration to say I literally LOVE Patrick Buchanan. While most WNs don't go quite so far as that, he is a widely respected figure in the National Alliance and among WNs generally. Don't you recall all the fun the Jewsmedia had with outing all the WNs who were working for Buchanan in '96? Dr. William Pierce, the late founder and chairman of the National Alliance, singled Buchanan out for praise several times in his weekly radio address. I don't know enough about you to question your sincerity, and I don't run around making unfounded allegations, but darn it, you sure have a way of insisting that such fights be remembered for as long as possible, always describing them in the most lurid terms one can plausibly get away with, thus ensuring they do the maximum damage. Is that really the most productive strategy?
[QUOTE=Okiereddust]Not only are they determined to destroy any such effective political movement, but it seems they also would like to destroy any forum like this that supports such movement[/QUOTE]
I'm torn between describing this comment as "silly" or "paranoid."
2004-08-13 08:58 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Kevin_O'Keeffe]I think you are overstating the case (and projecting your arguments in a few threads on this forum onto the larger political landscape). I'm a White Nationalist and I don't think it would be an exaggeration to say I literally LOVE Patrick Buchanan.
On this forum you definitely stand out in that regard.> While most WNs don't go quite so far as that, he is a widely respected figure in the National Alliance and among WNs generally. Don't you recall all the fun the Jewsmedia had with outing all the WNs who were working for Buchanan in '96? Dr. William Pierce, the late founder and chairman of the National Alliance, singled Buchanan out for praise several times in his weekly radio address.
Maybe you could have mentioned that in our past dialogues on the subject on this forum, where actually in defending Pat I was pretty much in the minority, at least among the talkative.
I don't know enough about you to question your sincerity, and I don't run around making unfounded allegations, but darn it, you sure have a way of insisting that such fights be remembered for as long as possible, always describing them in the most lurid terms one can plausibly get away with, thus ensuring they do the maximum damage. Is that really the most productive strategy? I call people to account for what they have clearly said and the positions they have clearly took. Just like Trisk, who most of the WN who left loved and still love, did. It may not be the most productive way of keeping authoritarians around who who come here to either dominate this forum or leave badmouthing it, I'll grant you that.
I'm torn between describing this comment as "silly" or "paranoid."[/QUOTE]Look at the evidence.
2004-08-13 12:23 | User Profile
"Jew Kerry-Kohn ââ¬ÅUnfit for Commandââ¬Â
The newly released book, ââ¬ÅUnfit for Commandââ¬Â is added evidence that Senator John Kerry should not be president of this country. See the following commentary by Ann Coulter concerning this book:
[url]http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/Re...le.asp?ID=14618[/url]
[ Quote:] Two hundred fifty-four Swift Boat Veterans have signed a letter saying John Kerry is not fit to be commander in chief, a point developed in some detail in the blockbuster new book by John O'Neill, aptly titled Unfit for Command. At the 2003 reunion of Swift Boat Veterans, about 300 men showed up: 85 percent of them think Kerry is unfit to be president. (On the bright side, Kerry was voted, in absentia, "Most Likely to Run for President on His Phony War Record.") Fewer than 10 percent of all Swift Boat Veterans contacted refused to sign the letter.
Kerry was in Vietnam for only four months, which, coincidentally, is less than the combined airtime he's spent talking about it. It takes a special kind of person to get that many people to hate your guts in so little time. The last time this many people hated one person after only four months was when Margaret Cho had her own sitcom.
But our young Eddie Haskell managed to annoy other servicemen even before he came home and called them war criminals. About 60 eyewitnesses to Kerry's service are cited in the book, describing Kerry fleeing comrades who were under attack, disregarding orders, putting others in danger, sucking up to his commanders, creating phony film footage of his exploits with a home-movie camera, and recommending himself for medals and Purple Hearts in vainglorious reports he wrote himself. (This was apparently before the concept of "fragging" put limits on such behavior.)
After three months of combat, Kerry had collected enough film footage for his political campaigns, so he went home. He even shot three different endings to the episode where he chases down a VC guy after test audiences thought Kerry shooting a wounded teenager in the back was too much of a "downer." After filming his last staged exploit, Kerry reportedly told a buddy, "That's a wrap. See you at the convention in about 35 years."
Kerry is demanding to be made president on the basis of spending four months in Vietnam 35 years ago. And yet the men who know what he did during those four months don't think he's fit to be dogcatcher. That seems newsworthy to me, but I must be wrong since the media have engineered a total blackout of the Swift Boat Veterans.
In May, the Swiftees held a spellbinding press conference in Washington, D.C. In front of a photo being used by the Kerry campaign to tout Kerry's war service, the officers stood up, one by one, pointed to their own faces in the campaign photo, and announced that they believed Kerry unfit for command. Only one officer in the photo supports Kerry for president. Seventeen say he is not fit to be president.
Again, I would like to stress that we not think in terms of which of the two candidates is the best or the worst; we should assess which of the two would institute policies which would serve the interests of White Nationalists best. And, as I have stated above, the capitalist and Zionist policies of the Bush administration would better serve us than the Marxist-communist policies of the Jew, John Kerry ââ¬âKohn and his Jewish wife, Teresa.
See my posts above for details on this strategy.
Comments are appreciated.
Sincerely, Joseph Henderson"
2004-08-13 12:24 | User Profile
"Vote in our Best Interest!
A British politician by the name of Lord Palmerston, who, beginning in 1830, served for many years as foreign secretary, once proclaimed to the British House of Commons that Britain had no eternal allies and no perpetual enemies. He said that Britons had to come to the realization that it was Britainââ¬â¢s interests which were eternal and perpetual, and that it was therefore their duty to follow these interests.
It is in this spirit that I present this election strategy, to re-elect George Bush, to the White Nationalists of America. It is our interests which are eternal and perpetual and not our personal feelings about the two major presidential candidates. Our interests will remain the same long after either George Bush or John Kerry is no longer in office. But, for the moment, we must face facts. The next president of the United States of America will either be John Kerry or George Bush ââ¬â this cannot be changed.
It is our duty as White Nationalists to try to elect the one which will serve our interests best. Just because we vote for one or the other does not mean that we completly or even partially agree with their politics; it only means that we have weighed the arguments concerning electing one or the other and that we have come to a realistic conclusion. A conclusion based on the interests of White Nationalists.
In this thread, I have presented the arguments for both of the candidates from a White Nationalist perspective and I believe that they clearly indicate that the re-election of George Bush would serve our interests best. Please see my posts above for the details.
Your comments are welcome. Sincerely, Joseph Henderson "
2004-08-15 22:37 | User Profile
I'd probably vote for Bush if my vote mattered but Kerry has it wrapped here in IL and so I'll protest the GOP with a write-in candidate.
Reasons I would never vote for Kerry.
He'd have this country signed onto every International treaty regardless if they were in Americas best interest. The Internet world tax comes to mind as well as others. Envision a socialist world tax. hehe After all, he thinks sensitive, not sensible.
Supreme Court Justice. I'd say Renquist and Jewsburg are goners this time around. We barely survive a few important votes with O'Conner flippin and floppin.
The Jews would run circles around him and the nuts he will pick to surround him. The Clinton administration had a Jew on every corner and I expect the same from Kerry.
Education - Envision someone like Ted Kennedy as Education Secretary. Oh geez... as if education isn't bad enough. And it shows, as we keep slipping further and further in the world in many subjects. They are hell bent on money being the problem because they have no other solution or excuses for their failures. If one has had to put their kids through public school, you know how important this issue is.
National Security - He wants to sign on to all the recommendations of the 9/11 panel like it's gospel. Not a freaken one of them are experts. What a dumb yes man. And that is exactly how he is going to run this country. He will cater to any and every organization against conservatives. Look at his voting record, the ones he didn't miss that is.
More taxes - I don't even want to think about it.
Bush is no winner but Kerry is a loser. I'm glad I don't have to choose. I'd suggest to those that do, write a list of important matters and go down the checklist penciling in which candidate is best. The one with the most checks wins.
Good Luck.
2004-08-16 17:29 | User Profile
If you vote, vote on principle. If you vote strategically (i.e. for the lessor of two evils), you're fooling yourself.
The Constitution and America First parties have websites you can go to if you want to learn more about them. The America First Party doesn't has a presidential candidate. The Constitution Party is better established.
2004-08-16 18:48 | User Profile
[QUOTE=GunnerGal]
Reasons I would never vote for Kerry.
[QUOTE]
The Jews would run circles around him and the nuts he will pick to surround him. The Clinton administration had a Jew on every corner and I expect the same from Kerry. [QUOTE][/QUOTE] Hey, Kerry killed real jew-commies, or at least shabbos goy jew commies...that's more than any of these other blow hards have done...:censored:...
2004-08-16 21:14 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Pennsylvania_Dutch]Hey, Kerry killed real jew-commies, or at least shabbos goy jew commies...that's more than any of these other blow hards have done...:censored:...[/QUOTE]
I wouldn't be surprised if Kerry faked three injuries just to get out of service.
He was never injured enough to be removed from duty. Take his first purple heart. The doctor said it was superficial and only needed a bandage, not even a stitch. The men with Kerry at the time dispute Kerry's story that they were under attack. How hard is it to jab yourself with shrapnel three times to get a ticket home? In any case, he managed to end his very short service on a technicality.
I don't fault Kerry for bailing. Unless America is being invaded, most people would avoid a war zone if they could. I have no problem with that. Being unable to avoid service doesn't make someone more honorable.
But, Kerry appointing judges scares me... even knowing that Bush would only appoint moderates.
2004-08-18 21:43 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Happy Hacker]I wouldn't be surprised if Kerry faked three injuries just to get out of service.
He was never injured enough to be removed from duty. Take his first purple heart. The doctor said it was superficial and only needed a bandage, not even a stitch. The men with Kerry at the time dispute Kerry's story that they were under attack. How hard is it to jab yourself with shrapnel three times to get a ticket home? In any case, he managed to end his very short service on a technicality.
I don't fault Kerry for bailing. Unless America is being invaded, most people would avoid a war zone if they could. I have no problem with that. Being unable to avoid service doesn't make someone more honorable.
But, Kerry appointing judges scares me... even knowing that Bush would only appoint moderates.[/QUOTE]But at least Kerry went to Vietnam, while the Likudnik puppet Pres. Gump went AWOL from the Nat'l Guard, and Chickenhawk Cheney got a half-dozen deferments because, as he said, he had more important things to do. But I guess we should give Bush and Cheney a break, that war was not in the interest of Israel, thus it was not important enough to die for.
2004-08-20 12:52 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Jack Cassidy]But at least Kerry went to Vietnam, [/QUOTE]
So what if he went to Vietnam? He was out in a few ** months **and he was a con man. But he can always wave those three purple hearts that he supposedly threw on the White House lawn. Really!
[url]http://www.jibjab.com/default.asp[/url]