Enough With The Neocon And Paleocon Carping—I'll Stand With George W. Bush In 2004

Toogood Reports ^ | Thursday, December 11, 2003; 12:01 a.m. EST | Bernard Chapin

[Hoverbug]

Boy, you really are full of crap.

Hb

[Fledermaus]

Don't look at me. I voted for Bush in 1988 and 1992 and W in 2000. I tried to warn everyone about Clinton but no one would listen.

[Fledermaus]

Let's find an island somewhere and start over! lol

All we need is a satellite for global communication and an airport for FedEx and UPS to land on and we're in business!

[FairOpinion]

"I voted for Bush in 1988 and 1992 and W in 2000. "

===

Excellent! I hope you will vote for him in 2004 also.

I was speaking in generalities, because many of those unhappy with Bush, were the ones who did vote for Clinton -- by voting for Perot or staying home.

[Fledermaus]

SAJ,

GWH Bush stood FIRM for the "cable bill" that did nothing. And he signed the ridiculous Americans with Disabilities Act that allowed idiots like John Edwards to steal enough money to think they can buy the White House!

[FairOpinion]

"Boy, you really are full of crap. "


===

Sign of a loser -- when you can't refute a fact and logic, resort to personal attack. That says volumes about you, not me.

[Fledermaus]

Uh oh. I wouldn't argue logic with SAJ. You'll lose everytime. I should know, he's bopped me more than once! lol

[Hoverbug]

Madam, that is not an attack. It is a statement of fact.

Hb

[Fledermaus]

Excellent! I hope you will vote for him in 2004 also.

So far, the reasons TO vote for him in 2004 are outweighing the reasons NOT TO vote for him.

I'm going to judge my vote on the war on terror. If he lets Powell continue to control policy when it comes to dealing with NK, Syria, Iran, etc., then I'm out.

And I PRAY we are slapping the Saudi's around behind the scenes but I'm not optimistic. I PRAY Bush is "keeping his enemies closer" with them.

[FairOpinion]

"I wouldn't argue logic with SAJ."

==

OK, SAJ, try refuting this statement:

"If Bush doesn't get elected, a Democrat will" -- in any realistic scenario.

Those are the only two choices.

[Hoverbug]

He'd probably say something like, "That well may be true, but unless I vote for the democrat, it wouldn't be my fault."

That's just a guess though.

Hb

[nopardons]

They don't care!

Neither do any of these PURISTS care that historically speaking, their argument doesn't hold water, either. Look at that post about the governement/president shredding the Constitution having started 25 years ago, or in 1978 , forinstance. My GOD, 1978 ?

[nopardons]

Thanks for posting the list. Unfortunately, NOTHING, absolutely NOTHING AT ALL , is ever " good enough " for the UNAPPEASEABLES.

[SAJ]

Your historical timeline is somewhat in error. It was Mr. Lincoln who first mangled the Constitution (although I entirely agree with you that Mr. FD Roosevelt extended the mangling to a far worse degree). My comment to this point was about the Regress -- and we can wrangle over the precise date that these clots began passing roughly 90% of their bills in the clear violation of the Constitution. In the interest of amity, I'll probably agree with any date you cite, but in any case, this ''phenomenon'' became entirely pronounced under the devil's triad -- LBJ, Nixon, and Carter -- to this day, I'm astonished that the nation survived that consecutivity of tyranny and incompetence.

As regards which country is ''better'', now, in the terms I named -- that the gov't simply follows its OWN rules, and ''allows'' the citizen to be left alone to a greater extent -- I would say (Scots-American that I am, so you may find this odd) that Ireland USED to be (the Creative Works Act of 1974 is what led to their being the computer capital of Europe, btw), and is still to some degree, although its unfortunate ratification of Maastricht makes me FAR too suspicious to live there. Ah, so where else?

An objective person will consider Iceland. Inhospitable climate, but absolutely marvelous people, and they put up with NO kwap from their gov't. Very much to be admired, and very independent folks. Equally, if one wanted to go through the process of gaining what used to be called a ''crown exemption'' (I can look up the current phrase if you like), the Balaeric Islands are worth a look -- cost of living is far too high, just like the Caymans, but still worth a look.

10 years ago, I would have said Costa Rica was a definite. Still is, except that -- courtesy of indifference on the part of the US -- Marxism is spreading like wildfire through Latin America. Chavez, Lula, the new clown in Peru, the Colombian narcoterrorists who control that nation...not for me. It'll spread northward, too, just wait.

Singapore is very interesting -- sure, they'll bust your ass if you leave a piece of gum on the sidewalk...but I don't chew gum. Capitalists down to the nth degree, the gov't leaves you alone as long as you do something productive (and, hence, pay taxes).

There are several other possibilities, couple of slots in the West Indies, and Turks and Caicos Islands for one specific. Just a rockpile, but some lovely scenery, and the weather's decent, the gov't is benign, and modern communications are very available.

As they say -- investigate BEFORE you invest...or move.

[Fledermaus]

Uh, we aren't the "purists".

All we are asking is SOME principle. Especially when you win the arguments.

Again, Bush won the tax rate cut argument. Good for him. But what good is it when it's short term and expires in 2011. And don't give me the optimistic look into the future about "oh, the GOP will fix that later".

Like the Supreme Court was "guaranteed" to strike down the "ridculous attacks on free speech" in McCain-Feingold I was told WOULD HAPPEN by many here? I was told back then I was a "purist" for saying Bush was WRONG to sign the bill for political reasons.

Actions have consequences and nobody knows the future.

[Fledermaus]

If it wasn't for the prevalent socialism run amok, I'd live in Amsterdam. At least I stay high and sexually satisfied for a small price!

[SAJ]

Looking at it logically, your statement boils down to:

We can elect a Marxist or a quasi-Marxist.

If, under either choice, we get larger government and an expansion of the assorted Ponzi schemes now in favour with most governments, and the associated restrictions on and confiscations of our respective liberties, what's the difference?

And -- keeping in mind that I (more's the idiot, me -- and I admit my error, unlike a large number of our fellow citizens) voted enthusiastically for Mr. Bush in 2000 -- why MUST I play **their** game any further?

Btw, I will cheer you up to this extent: if Hitlery runs, I'll vote for ANYONE the Pubbies nominate. Period. I once spent 5 1/2 months in the old Soviet Union, 1971-2 (don't EVER spend a winter in Leningrad...wups, Sankt Peterburg...TRUST me on this one point!) and there is precisely nothing to differentiate the Clinquant of Chappaqua from a female version of Stalin, except possibly the moustache.

[Texasforever]

Btw, I will cheer you up to this extent: if Hitlery runs,

Why only Hillary? Is there a democrat running that you would prefer over Bush?

[nopardons]

It isn't " MY " historical timeline at all, but another poster's and it was I, who said that that date was completely and utterly out of whack! I also stated that FDR was but one of MANY previous presidents( though possibly the worst of all ), who had mangled the Constitution and all else. Yes, I know about Lincoln too, dear, as well as many others, who HAVE folded, twisted, mangled, and spit upon the Constitution. I just get weary, oh soooooooooooooooooooooooo weary, of being one of FR's corrector/teacher of historical facts, which most people neither know, usually misrepresent, and/or don't really even care about; not to mention feeling NO shame at all, over posting erronious garbage about.

It isn't " just " which governemnt is more strick about keeping true to their Constitution; no, rather it also is about just WHAT is actually therein. Then, there is also the fact that most other places, depending upon one's wants, needs, and proclivities, aren't nearly as hospitable, to most Americans, as is the USA.

Would I ever leave ? Maybe. Is there someplace else, where I could find what, at the minimum, I KNOW that I need ? Doubtful. You haven't mentioned a place, where I and mine would go...for various and sundry good reasons.

Oh, and by-the-by...you harped on the fact that South America is turning into/has turned into a Marxist slum, implying that OUR governemnt should have been doing something, long ago, about that. That is NOT exactly all that CONSTITUTIONAL. LOL

Is it only when YOUR wants/positions aren't being met 100%, that you think that the governemnt has the absolute RIGHT to interfer? And yes, I know all about the Monroe Doctorine and all that THAT implies. :-)

[SAJ]

Your just failed Logic 101.

There is ALWAYS option C -- none of the above. Whether or not that this option is palatable to you, it is an option...therefore, let's please in future be just a trifle more cautious about declaiming about logic, ok?