Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

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

Posted on 12/10/2003 8:59:00 PM PST by BobbyK

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 301-324 next last
To: Howlin
It's excellent to have this list. Great job!

I am bookmarking it.
101 posted on 12/10/2003 11:06:36 PM PST by FairOpinion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: SAJ
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.

102 posted on 12/10/2003 11:08:00 PM PST by Dane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: ETERNAL WARMING
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.

103 posted on 12/10/2003 11:10:15 PM PST by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Fledermaus
"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)
104 posted on 12/10/2003 11:10:58 PM PST by FairOpinion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: Concentrate
Sure!

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1037694/posts?page=32#32
105 posted on 12/10/2003 11:11:31 PM PST by Howlin (Bush has stolen two things which Democrats believe they own by right: the presidency & the future)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: BobbyK
THANK YOU!!
106 posted on 12/10/2003 11:21:51 PM PST by Mo1 (House Work, If you do it right , will kill you!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nopardons
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!

107 posted on 12/10/2003 11:27:15 PM PST by SAJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: ETERNAL WARMING
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

108 posted on 12/10/2003 11:32:17 PM PST by Mo1 (House Work, If you do it right , will kill you!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion
" 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.
109 posted on 12/10/2003 11:35:40 PM PST by Wild Irish Rogue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion
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

110 posted on 12/10/2003 11:36:49 PM PST by Hoverbug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion
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.

111 posted on 12/10/2003 11:37:50 PM PST by SAJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: Hoverbug
Very eloquently said!
112 posted on 12/10/2003 11:38:55 PM PST by SAJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: Wild Irish Rogue
"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.





113 posted on 12/10/2003 11:39:08 PM PST by FairOpinion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: SAJ
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.

114 posted on 12/10/2003 11:40:35 PM PST by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: Dane
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!

115 posted on 12/10/2003 11:41:52 PM PST by SAJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: Wild Irish Rogue
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

116 posted on 12/10/2003 11:43:57 PM PST by Hoverbug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: Hoverbug; SAJ
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?
117 posted on 12/10/2003 11:45:34 PM PST by FairOpinion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: SAJ
Thank you. But you have me beat by miles.

Hb
118 posted on 12/10/2003 11:46:10 PM PST by Hoverbug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: Howlin
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.
119 posted on 12/10/2003 11:47:15 PM PST by Fledermaus (Fascists, Totalitarians, Baathists, Communists, Socialists, Democrats - what's the difference?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: SAJ
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.

120 posted on 12/10/2003 11:47:44 PM PST by Dane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion
Boy, you really are full of crap.

Hb
121 posted on 12/10/2003 11:48:59 PM PST by Hoverbug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion
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.

122 posted on 12/10/2003 11:49:40 PM PST by Fledermaus (Fascists, Totalitarians, Baathists, Communists, Socialists, Democrats - what's the difference?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: SAJ
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!
123 posted on 12/10/2003 11:50:53 PM PST by Fledermaus (Fascists, Totalitarians, Baathists, Communists, Socialists, Democrats - what's the difference?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: Fledermaus
"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.
124 posted on 12/10/2003 11:51:48 PM PST by FairOpinion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: SAJ
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!
125 posted on 12/10/2003 11:52:37 PM PST by Fledermaus (Fascists, Totalitarians, Baathists, Communists, Socialists, Democrats - what's the difference?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: Hoverbug
"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.
126 posted on 12/10/2003 11:53:11 PM PST by FairOpinion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion
Uh oh. I wouldn't argue logic with SAJ. You'll lose everytime. I should know, he's bopped me more than once! lol
127 posted on 12/10/2003 11:53:55 PM PST by Fledermaus (Fascists, Totalitarians, Baathists, Communists, Socialists, Democrats - what's the difference?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

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

Hb
128 posted on 12/10/2003 11:54:10 PM PST by Hoverbug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion
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.

129 posted on 12/10/2003 11:57:06 PM PST by Fledermaus (Fascists, Totalitarians, Baathists, Communists, Socialists, Democrats - what's the difference?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: Fledermaus; SAJ
"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.

130 posted on 12/10/2003 11:57:52 PM PST by FairOpinion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion
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
131 posted on 12/11/2003 12:00:49 AM PST by Hoverbug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion
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 ?

132 posted on 12/11/2003 12:02:33 AM PST by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: Howlin
Thanks for posting the list. Unfortunately, NOTHING, absolutely NOTHING AT ALL , is ever " good enough " for the UNAPPEASEABLES.
133 posted on 12/11/2003 12:05:51 AM PST by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: nopardons
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.

134 posted on 12/11/2003 12:13:09 AM PST by SAJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: nopardons
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.
135 posted on 12/11/2003 12:15:15 AM PST by Fledermaus (Fascists, Totalitarians, Baathists, Communists, Socialists, Democrats - what's the difference?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: SAJ
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!
136 posted on 12/11/2003 12:20:44 AM PST by Fledermaus (Fascists, Totalitarians, Baathists, Communists, Socialists, Democrats - what's the difference?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion
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.

137 posted on 12/11/2003 12:26:14 AM PST by SAJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: SAJ
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?

138 posted on 12/11/2003 12:28:52 AM PST by Texasforever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: SAJ
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. :-)

139 posted on 12/11/2003 12:30:04 AM PST by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion
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?

140 posted on 12/11/2003 12:31:11 AM PST by SAJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: SAJ
Didn't Monty Brewster (the Richard Pryor remake) win the "None of the Above" race? he he
141 posted on 12/11/2003 12:33:32 AM PST by Fledermaus (Fascists, Totalitarians, Baathists, Communists, Socialists, Democrats - what's the difference?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: Fledermaus
Those tax cuts, on an incrimental stage and fadeout, was all that he was going to get, at that time, or is your short term memory not what it should be ?

And yes, you really are more " PURIST " than not. Would you rather have had algore, instead of W, a massive tax increase, rather than a tax cut ( and some ARE not going to be phased out/come to an end)at all, etc. ? Enquiring minds want to know why 1/2 a loaf isn't good enough.

142 posted on 12/11/2003 12:34:07 AM PST by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: nopardons
Charge me a rate of taxes (by preference not too extreme) to maintain roads and sewers and assorted infrastructure, promote trade (mutually beneficial to all), let me go about my trade unmolested insofar as I cheat or deceive no one, establish an objective code of law that WILL (not might) punish those who do defraud or violate other citizens, defend the nation (for which I shall gladly pay my share or even somewhat more) against foreign invasion...and I'm all yours.

I think I must have sent one response to message A to party B, and vice versa. My apologies if so.

143 posted on 12/11/2003 12:40:22 AM PST by SAJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: nopardons
Those tax cuts, on an incrimental stage and fadeout, was all that he was going to get, at that time, or is your short term memory not what it should be ?

Why? He had a GOP controlled Congress. Reagan got a 25% reduction in rates...far below our current rate system in 1981 with a DEM controlled Congress.

I don't care about purity, I just want some stinking BACKBONE! But, unfortunately, Bush's people won't let him go over the fray and talk directly to the people they way Reagan did. I guess they figure he's not as good a communicator.

I also feel Bush is being disserved by many in his circle. But that's his choice, he put them there. Personally, I'd tell Powell take a hike and I'd sit the GOP Congressional leadership down and TELL THEM what they are going to do, not listen.

I'd call up Snowe, Collins and Chaffee and read them the riot act and pull a Buford Pusser - put their offices in the basement of their buildings, cut their staff, remove them from ALL committee's etc. unless they played ball.

Those three alone are directly responsible for the lack of flu vaccine this year. And if they threatened to "switch" like Jeffords then I'd threaten to go to their states and campaign against them even if they weren't running in 2004! I'd humiliate them in a nationwide address (just bring up the flu vaccines).

But that's just me. I don't play games with jerks.

144 posted on 12/11/2003 12:41:17 AM PST by Fledermaus (Fascists, Totalitarians, Baathists, Communists, Socialists, Democrats - what's the difference?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: SAJ
Oh, but we are extremists. We complain Bush increased AmeriCorp (a total joke and worthless agency that does NOTHING) and get called names.

Like I said, his daddy's big accomplishments were ADA, a large tax increase, and "cable bill" legislation. Does anyone even think today that the "cable bill" did anything?

And what was wrong with letting cable companies charge enough to make a profit and invest in new techonolgy and increase the channels? Yeah, we now have another "entitlement" to 14 shop at home channels for $40 a month! Woo hoo!

But I should regress, otherwise I'll bring up the "do not call list" that was the same folly in fuzzy, feel good legislation even "conservatives" seemed to like.

What's next? Banning used car salesmen?

145 posted on 12/11/2003 12:46:15 AM PST by Fledermaus (Fascists, Totalitarians, Baathists, Communists, Socialists, Democrats - what's the difference?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: SAJ
"There is ALWAYS option C -- none of the above."

===

Are you claiming that "NOBODY" will be President of the US is an option?

146 posted on 12/11/2003 12:48:54 AM PST by FairOpinion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: ETERNAL WARMING
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.

Perhaps you need to read up your political history. GHW's biggest failure was falling for the democRATs lies that the nation would go broke if he didn't raise taxes. The RATS claimed that this was the only solution, and GHW mistakenly gave in. Then the RATS turned around and used GHW's campaign pledge of "No new taxes" against him.

Nor was he helped by Alan Greenspan who refused to lower interest rates -- until Clinton was in office.

Do you even recall the outrageous lies and distortions of the truth that the RATS used against GHW during the campaign? Or do you even care? Having read your numerous anti-Bush comments on several threads, I believe you are a troll.

If the spin stops here, then stop spinning. You continue to rail against a less than perfect president to what end? Politics has ever been about voting for the lesser of two evils, so get a clue!

I am proud that GW Bush is our president even though I don't agree with him on some very important issues, but I will never bow down to Mecca, as his opponents would invite, in order to appease our enemies.

147 posted on 12/11/2003 12:50:21 AM PST by bjcintennessee (Don't Sweat the Small Stuff)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: SAJ
Yes, I think you have, since this post has nothing at all to do with my last post to you.

That's okay, it's late and I'm off to bed. So ends our discourse.

148 posted on 12/11/2003 12:50:39 AM PST by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: SAJ; nopardons; Consort
"We can elect a Marxist or a quasi-Marxist. "

===

Do you claim that President George W. Bush is a "quazi-Marzist"???!!!!



149 posted on 12/11/2003 12:51:10 AM PST by FairOpinion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: bjcintennessee
Politics has ever been about voting for the lesser of two evils, so get a clue!

I disagree. Politics used to be about principle and the top of the ticket was a crony to the party if they weren't leading...not the other way around. The concept of "the lesser of two evils" is, in my opinion, giving up.

There has to be someone willing to stand up and win on pure principle alone.

150 posted on 12/11/2003 12:54:12 AM PST by Fledermaus (Fascists, Totalitarians, Baathists, Communists, Socialists, Democrats - what's the difference?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 301-324 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson