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

[FairOpinion]

It's excellent to have this list. Great job!

I am bookmarking it.

[Dane]

Just, dane, as I would encourage you to make the best decision(s) for your own life in your own good time, I trust that you would allow me the same. And so I shall, in my own good time

Can the ACLU martyr schtick, would you. If you can't take the heat get out of the kitchen.

[nopardons]

I don't find him " cute, hunky " nor anything else you might imagine. What I DO find him, is far better than any damned Dem.

What you and your ilk refuse to even consider, is that the alternative is far and away more destructive to my life and those I hold dear.

Please explain to me, just how Dean, or Kerry, or Hillary, or any other Dem president wannabe, is going to preserve, protect, and fulfill your " conservative " yearning. If you can't, and you most assuredly can not, then you're just like a spoiled brat, throwing a two year old's temper tantrum, or a teenager's willful and self destructive behavior, doing precisely what he/she has been told repeatedly NOT to do.

You may enjoy cutting off your nose to spit your face; however, the rest of us don't want to have the nose bleed too.

[FairOpinion]

"SAJ and I were fighting Clinton hard those eight years "

===

Of course Clinton would never have become president, if the so-called conservatives hadn't voted for Ross Perot.

Typical -- create a disaster, refuse to take responsibility for it, than "fight it", and when we finally get a good president like Bush, go and work on creating the next disaster, by getting Dean elected, so you can "fight" him too.

What brillian strategy! (/sarcasm)

[Howlin]

Sure!

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1037694/posts?page=32#32

[Mo1]

THANK YOU!!

[SAJ]

Actually, in my case, having to date lived in 11 other nations at various times, your view is not terribly accurate.

Nations, or governments, do not exist to ''satisfy'' me or anyone else. They exist TO exist, and generally to expand their power over time.

An honest man or woman requires nothing from government, except that it obey its stated rules. Granted that no government anywhere does so, in a scrupulous fashion, some governments do so FAR more reliably than others. Until the past 25 years or so, the USA was among the top 3 or 4 nations who DID obey their own rules to a **greater** extent.

Whether you or I like it or not, the USA is now NOT obeying its own rules for governance, i.e. the Constitution (which, btw, I can cite you chapter and verse right through, and -- a no-brainer -- cite any number of very specific examples of the US gov't violating its own rules, almost cheerfully, even).

At bottom, your complaint against me is that I don't (any longer) like a politician that you prefer.

Doubtless, you'll be very happy with the next anti-Constitutional outrage that is about to occur, specifically, the taxation of Internet transactions. Perhaps you might consider reading Article I, Section IX if you happen to hold the view that such taxation is somehow legitimate.

Ignoring your vitriol, may I -- VERY sincerely -- wish you the best of the Christmas season, and of the New Year to come!

[Mo1]

The SPIN stops here: It wasn't 'our votes' that got us 8 painful years of Clinton, it was GHW's failure to uphold Republican values.

we got Clinton, one of the highest tax increases, just say no policy; 93 WTC bombing; national security sold to the Chinese; blow jobs in the White House; Khobar Tower bombing; Black Hawk Down; Africa Embassy bombing; USS Cole attack; N. Korea bogus agreement with nukes and more .. all because you were upset about "Read my Lips"

Gee thanks

[Wild Irish Rogue]

" Do we want 8 years of Dean?

Without exaggeration, the very existence of our country and way of life may be at stake "

No "may " about it. Will be at stake is more like it.I don't scare easily,but, the thought of another Democrat in the Oval Office,makes me fear for the future of our country.

[Hoverbug]

Don't you get it, if you don't vote for Bush, you ARE voting for the Marxist Rat crowd?!

Yeah, sure. And if I don't give all my money to charity, I'm starving people to death.

Hb

[SAJ]

Pardon me -- I not only did NOT vote for Mr. Perot, I thought him a megalomaniac, and still do. Mr. GHW Bush brought about his own loss because he did not stand, rockhard, for ANYTHING. He ran on his resume, an ultimate ''insider''. Those were acceptable qualifications (marginally) when running against the state socialist Dukakis in 1988, but after 4 years of his increasingly obvious one-world agenda, were no longer acceptable.

If one constantly votes for the ''lesser of two evils'', one ends up with, ultimately, evil. In 1992, I chose not to do that.

[SAJ]

Very eloquently said!

[FairOpinion]

"I don't scare easily,but, the thought of another Democrat in the Oval Office,makes me fear for the future of our country."

==

Exactly.

I just posted an article about the Clintonistas whining about how Bush treated Europe, who refused to support us -- goes to show you, whose side they are on, and it's not that of the US. Some of these anti-Bush people better wake up and smell the anthrax...


http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1038215/posts

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Former top U.S. officials are blasting the Bush administration for reopening a rift with Europe by excluding critics of the war from prime contracts for Iraq's reconstruction.

"I thought we were in the process of acquiring support rather than alienating it," former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright said. "And I think it's petty. I really do think we should not be in the business of alienating people."

Former national security adviser Sandy Berger said the decision did not make sense. And Zbigniew Brzezinski, who held the job in the Carter administration, called the announcement Tuesday by the Pentagon bizarre.

[nopardons]

I don't know how old you are, but you're totally incorrect at placing the decline of government/presidents ignoring the Constitution, etc. at 25 years ago. FDR, for but one example, mangled the Constitution, his oath, and anything else you might decide to throw into the mix and he wasn't the first.History is valuable ONLY when one knows it.

You've misread/misunderstood what I posted to you about governments.I was reacting to your IMPLIED position, that governemts were there to fulfill your positions.want lists, since that is precisely what YOU want from the GOP. So,wanna try that one again ? And, having lived in 11 different countries, which one of those is better, now, than the USA?

An honest man or woman requires his/her government proyect him/her from foreign enemies, for one. Since even that position seems to have escaped you, I shan't go on, even thought, like you, I do know the Constitution and the ammendments, as well as quite a lot of other things you haven't mentioned; not the least of which is unvarnished historical facts.

No, at bottom, I am displeased that you are incapable of seeing that, in reality, there are only ever TWO presidential candidates, one of whom will win. One side will deliver some things that a Conservative wants, the other will do everything in his power to thwart ALL that a Conservative wants. By not voting for the glass 1/2 full, one aids and abetts the enemy. That's it, there's nothing else, this is a fact and there's just NO getting away from it, around it, or spinning it.

[SAJ]

I loathe the ACLU. Nor am I a martyr to ANY cause, bar, perhaps, the Constitution.

Your comment is at best obscure, but nonetheless, may I wish you the very best of the Christmas season!

[Hoverbug]

the thought of another Democrat in the Oval Office,makes me fear for the future of our country.

Doesn't the thought of your Constitution being dismantled and you being extorted in voting for the very guy who did it by threats of "if you don't, you'll get someone even WORSE" give you the least bit of pause?

America has lost it's fortitude.

Hb

[FairOpinion]

Apparently you both need logic lessons.

In the elecion there is a definite A or B choice, not infinite variations in-between.

Since you can't refute that argument, because it's irrefutable, by definition, that if you don't get A, you get B, you come up with what you think is a clever "analogy", which is totally inappropriate, because there you have infinite choices between the two extreme points.

Which part of "If Bush doesn't get elected, the Dem candidate will" don't you understand?

[Hoverbug]

Thank you. But you have me beat by miles.

Hb

[Fledermaus]

Dang...I got more than halfway through replying POINT BY POINT.

I was getting tired! lol

But then the computer locked up. I tried to "copy" but couldn't seem to paste it anywhere and it didn't survive the reboot.

Dang.

I'll summarize. Many points I didn't list and I agreed with that you listed. Social Security reform (touching the third rail), and other reforms. But I don't want a Soc Sec reform like the recent Medicare bill. ABM treaty was good, but dead in reality.

Many were no more than just supporting something already done (like Kyoto, the Senate effectively killed it before he was elected).

Others were rollbacks of Clinton's wild ride of E.O.'s before he left office and many of those weren't rolled back completely like arsenic in water and CO2.

Some are meaningless when they aren't real like tax rate changes that expire in 2011. I'm not going to gamble a "future" GOP Congress will make them permanent since they can always be raised and that's what they said about the Supreme Court knocking down McCain-Feingold.

Many were simple political moves, good ones, but not based on real principle like the Forestry bill. Why didn't he take advantage when Daschle slipped in an exemption for North Daktoa? No, he waited until the California fires let the headlines dictact his move. Good politics but not based on principle.

I think the E-P for China is a stretch. He let them "save face" and they were allowed to send it back in boxes after they had their way with it.

Nominating judges he won't fight for isn't much of an accomplishment. He barely uses the bully pulpit for them.

And he won't even threaten a veto of pork spending and got angry the Engery bill failed that was riddled with BS.

Dang, I wish I had pasted my post onto something, but again, my computer just froze. It's done that lately and I don't know why. I did a huge "clean up" recently after some crap got put on the system and I keep a virus program running.

Oh well!

Regards.

[Dane]

If one constantly votes for the ''lesser of two evils'', one ends up with, ultimately, evil. In 1992, I chose not to do that

When you reach your destination called "perfect political world", would you send me a post card. I have a feeling that I will be waiting a long time by the mail box.

BTW, I guess in your perfect world, that you have the perfect car, perfect house, and eat the perfect diet.

We do not live in a perfect world and never will.

And a Merry Christmas to you also.