Skip to comments.Enough With The Neocon And Paleocon Carping—I'll Stand With George W. Bush In 2004
Posted on 12/10/2003 8:59:00 PM PST by BobbyK
click here to read article
The exception with Hitlery is this -- it (not she) understands power, and, should it acquire any, will abuse it to an extent never seen in American history. It is Stalin-In-Waiting, in spades. In fact, I'd likely vote for Stalin before I'd vote for Hitlery -- he could do less damage (not only because he's dead, but because he doesn't even pretend to speak English; Hitlery DOES pretend to speak English).
The same is not equivalently true of any of the nine dwarves. They're merely ordinary and very boring state socialist dildos and dildettes (Kucinich being the other dildette, btw), barring Dean, who's just a good old-fashioned Marxist wanker, Lenin without the intellect, Trotsky without the rhetorical skill, although his bombast does approach Khruschev's. Gork's endorsement of this clot was hilarious (politically somewhat clever, which was surprising in Gork's case; he's almost as politically tone-deaf as Hitlery).
Historically, our judicial sytem has never, NEVER been " fair " to all, in every way, shape, manner, and form. Some people has ALWAYS been treated differently ( some better, some worse ) than others. See? You are so a " PURIST ", whose grasp of reality as it is, isn't what it is, or ever has been. Not in colonial times, not as a new nation, not at 100, and certainly NOT now and you and I are NOT going to be able to change that.
" If wishes were horses, than I would be king " and the same is true of the collective wishes of FREEPERS, who refuse to accept reality...daydreams are like soap bubbles; insubstancial but pretty. Reality is something else, no matter how much one might yearn for it to be different.
I attended the same college as both Presidents Bush and, while I never met anyone named Bush, please let me assure you that I met at least 200 or 300 would-be Bushes. There seems to be, in certain people, the unalloyed and utterly unproven assumption that they, somehow, mystically, are fit to govern the rest of us.
I didn't buy that premise in 1969-1972, and I don't buy it now.
OK, fun bs trivia time -- give me the SECOND verse of ''Deck The Halls'' -- verse, mind you, not chorus. (g!)
Questioning those who believe they can achieve political perfection on Earth is not attacking.
It is other people pointing out the real world to them.
So you went to Yale.
while I never met anyone named Bush, please let me assure you that I met at least 200 or 300 would-be Bushes.
And there were about 5 times the number of would be Dean's and Hillary's at Yale. I am surmising that you are in that camp.
Larger government from Mr. Bush? Yes.
More redistribution of income, courtesy of Fat Teddy's education bill, the pork-o-rama farm subsidy bill, and the new prescription drug ripoff...er, entitlement? Yes.
The beginnings of surrender of national sovereignity, to WTO and others (read Marx and Engels' famous work, something they ardently advocated)? Yes.
The advocacy of ''free'' trade (not free trade, but ''free'' trade, again, another of Marx' favourite ideas)? Yes.
Tell you what...just read Marx' and Engels' Communist Manifesto, just read it casually through, one time -- then come on back and tell me why the description of Mr. Bush as a quasi-Marxist is inaccurate.
Never mind personal venting -- you'll notice that, throughout this thread, I haven't -- but make me a rationally-based counterargument, if you care to.
Oh come on. A president can do anything he wants. It's ridiculous to say he "can't". And what's wrong. Can't take rough and tumble politics. Geez, it was a heck of a lot worse in the old days. They'd threaten to kill each other, just ask Hamilton.
Are you saying Bush hasn't got the right to convince Maine and Rhode Island voters their Senators are morons, cowards, and petty a-holes? That never stopped FDR, Kennedy, or LBJ. They threatened on a daily basis. Oh, I guess we should massage them so they don't Jeffords the GOP.
I'd rather elect more conservative Senators and let the RINOs rot. By you saying "think how things really are" you are pointing out you accept the status quo and are completely convinced it can't be changed.
Who's being a purist in thought now? How cares if they got elected by those voters? Voters are people and a good leader pursues the people using strong arguments. Remember the "Reagan Democrats" the GOP has pissed away?
Amazing, this entire thread for the last couple of hours has been attacking me and SAJ and others who want some principle instead of caving into "compromise" that always benefits the left you think you are opposing. Snowe, Collins and Chaffee are the perfect definition of your philosophy. Three total RINO's that have to be countered by a Zell Miller or John Breaux (or Mary Landrieu when she's not on the rag) to get anything done. I guess since they might vote on a few bills Bush wants, it's okay to let them hold hostage real bills based on principle. You know all three of those jerks aren't helping in the judicial nominee fights.
Gee, let's just put Trent Lott back into the majority position and we can complete the circle of being reamed.
Well todays reality is that there is no one willing to stand up and win on pure principle alone. That forces us to make choices. My choice is to defend our country against terrorists whose goal is to nuke at least one of our major cities.
The democrats goal is appeasement, asking questions like "What did we do to offend you, and how can we make it right". The democrats goal is to yield our right to defend ourselves by taking a vote in the UN (108 countries of which have refused to cooperate in ferreting out terrorists in their own countries)After 9-11, Algore would still have been holding conferences, trying to get world support before taking any action (and trying to determine the environmental effects of dropping any bombs).
So vote in a way that puts these liberals in power and our next argument could well be -- to hell with Medicare and CFR -- when do you think it safe to go back to Dallas after that dirty bomb was exploded?
Read my tagline. In the order of things, CFR and Medicare are small stuff compared to our national security.
Sorry to hit and run, but it's 4:30 am here and waaaay past my bedtime.
And history, once again, repeats itself! Blackbird.
The notion of assumed and inherent superiority is utterly anathema to me, and that self-assumption on the part of quite a number of my former fellow undergraduates I thought both ridiculous and arrogant...and got into any number of brawls (real brawls, blood shed, and the lot) on this very point. However, my dear uncle, recently departed, had taught me a very valuable lesson as a boy: NEVER start a fight, and NEVER fail to finish one. And I didn't, and I didn't.
You may recall that, in March-May 1970, Bobby Seale (head of the Black Panther Party) was on trial for murder. That trial was held in the New Haven courthouse, exactly 2 blocks from where I lived. Well, this trial was ''unfair'', dontchaknow, ''racist'' and all that, and every leftie scumbag in the world descended on the campus on May Day weekend that year. The attitude all round was, shall we say, somewhat less than tolerant. There was supposed to be a ''student strike'' of classes, to show ''solidarity'' (or something) with (someone) -- the arguments made in favour of this were, at best, delusional.
I declined to ''strike''. On the Friday before the weekend orgy as planned, I was walking into a class I particularly liked, Demography 17b, with Lincoln Day (wonderful lecturer, btw), and one of the little radical types stood in front of the door to Linsley-Chittenden Hall. He presented all the arguments (well, all the 30-second sound bytes, at any rate) why I shouldn't attend class. I said, very mildly, ''Thanks. I disagree.'', and made to go into the building, by going around him. He made a mistake. He grabbed me.
He was extremely lucky. Two of my fraternity brothers were with me, and pulled me off the little bastard before I did anything more than put a few stitches in his face and kick him square in the crotch a couple of times. Upon leaving the class when it ended, I found that the little coward -- having started the problem -- had run off to the police and filed a charge. I was duly thereupon arrested, the only time in my life.
Here's a practical tip for you: if arrested, call your attorney IF he or she is the one that can do you the most practical good the quickest. In this case, an attorney was NOT the person to call. I called instead a lady named Hannah Grey, the CFO, essentially, of the College, described to her the circumstances, asked for her assistance, and mentioned -- very casually -- that I was majoring in mathematics and was able to construct numbers with an AMAZING amount of zeroes. Nothing threatening, mind, everything very calm and orderly.
The College had me bailed out in 34 minutes, by the clock. I lost a wager with the bail officer, a nice guy, that it would be at least one hour -- he had experience in these matters, I didn't, but the wager seemed reasonable at the time. We enjoyed a nice lunch with a couple of beverages (my treat, paying the loss) a couple of weeks later.
Never heard another word about it, ever. At the time, Yale College still had some scruples about property and private responsibility for one's behaviour. It no longer does, which is of course why I no longer (since 1992, btw) have had anything to do with that institution.
The radical amateur utopian socialists of that day were, as you correctly point out, far too numerous. I despised every one of them, bar one. And they knew it, too. They did their ''thing'', whatever the devil it was. I did mine.live and let live is fine with me, and I'll hold up my end of that bargain until you decide not to ''let live''. Look up the lyric to the last verse of ''Sixteen Tons'', if you'd care to know the dynamic of that mutual relationship.
L'Envoi: I only ever saw that little punk again once, 1 1/2 years later...but that's another saga for another day.
''None of the above'', in context, means that I am not required to participate in a game in which the outcome is loaded against me, and much more importantly, against the Constitution.
It's too late for that. This guy is already 100% behind every Federal spending program on the horizon. Not only that -- he touts his support for the "No Child Left Behind" Act and the Medicare prescription drug bill as major accomplishments.
Just think of Dean or Hillary with a Dem Congress, if you don't like what Bush and the curent Congress is doing now.
Actually, the problem here has nothing to do with political parties -- it has everything to do with a lack of divided government. If you took every political jurisdiction in the U.S. and closely examined those that have been dominated by a single political party for any length of time, one of the clear trends you will see is that these jurisdictions tend to be in worse financial shape than their counterparts. And that is the case regardless of whether were talking about Democratic governments like New York City or the U.S. government of 1993, or GOP governments like Nassau County, Long Island or the U.S. government of 2003.
It's no accident that in the last 50 years, the two brief periods in which the U.S. government operated with any sense of fiscal responsibility also happened to be the two most contentious periods of divided government in Washington (the end of the Johnson administration and start of the Nixon administration in 1968-69, and the height of the Clinton impeachment scandal in 1998-99).
I must admit, though, that I've softened my attitude a bit regarding my own Congressman. I knew him personally back before he entered Congress (long story), and his political career is a very strong argument for the need for Congressional term limits (nice guy, but that's another long story). CFR will probably not affect him at all because I believe he finances a sizeable chunk of his own campaign in each election.
You go ahead with your purest attitude help elect a Dean, or Kerry.
I think President Bush is immensely head and shoulders above the rest.
We're not asking for perfection, Dane. We're just asking that the Bill of Rights be left unmolested and unabrogated.
You didn't address this to me,but if I may,
Don we now our gay apparel, Fa la la, la la la, la la la. Troll the ancient Yuletide carol, Fa la la la la la, la la la la.
See the bla-zing Yule before us (fa la la ...etc)
Strike the harp and join the cho-rus (fa la la ...etc)
Fol-low me in mer-ry mea-sure (fa la la ...rising ...etc)
While I sing of Yule-tide trea-sure (fa la la ...falling ...etc)
What you cited is the second couplet of the first verse.
Best of the Holiday season to you!
I trust you are being facetious here (please tell me you are). I have a sister living in Dallas and another one in Ft Worth. Yeah, I live in a rural community, so I'm personally relatively safe from terrorist attacks. And I didn't know a single person who died in the twin towers, but that didn't stop me from grieving for them.
It angered and infuriated me to the point that the WOT is my number one priority, so that 9-11 never happens again.
He has a Republican Congress now. What is he doing with it? He's expanding the government at a rate that FDR would be proud of!
So -- do you want to "cut off your nose to spite your face" or do you really want to have conservative reforms.
I'd like the conservative reforms, but voting for GWB seems to not be the way to get them.
So if the Republicans destroy the country it's acceptable to you?
I submit you as Exhibit A of your own quote. You keep voting for Republicans expecting that THIS time they'll actually rein in the federal leviathan.
If you continue to vote for politicians who do unacceptable things, then what leverage do you have over them to make them do right? If a Republican can scare you into voting for him or her out of simple fear of the Democrat, then that Republican may act in any manner he or she sees fit, and you will walk to the polls and cheerfully cast your ballot for the lesser of two evils.
Who doesn't understand? I submit it is you.
I'll take Reagan's "75-80%" anytime. 3/4 of a glass full ain't bad. And if we had a glass filled to the rim, we'd have nowhere to go but down. Spills can be messy.
I liken a second term for President Bush to a team having a chance to win a championship, after a solid rebuilding season. More experience, good bench strength, and some solid recruits.
Some want to fire the coach. He's not winning all the games now. He's not calling all the right plays. If only we could hire a coach who'd do it exactly like we would.
Those folks could start a new team, and call themselves The Utopians, I guess:-).
Sure, allow the Dems to win EVERY election, from now until the SECOND COMING, and what good will THAT do?
By NOT voting to keep GOPers in office, no matter how bad, you get something far worse. Half a loaf is better than none plus you owe three loaves. No one, NOT A SINGLE CANDIDATE/PARTY, " learns a lesson ", especially NOT the " lesson the UNAPPEASEABLES imagine they're sending, when either bounced from office or not elected.
Tell me, just WHAT " lesson " did the GOP " learn ", when Clinton won in '92? It certainly was NOT the one the UNAPPEASEABLES thought that they were sending, when they refused to help re-elect Bush 41.
Your ignorance is overwhelming.
Remember the Contract With America? It was a list of very conservative ideals outlined in great detail which the Republicans ran on in 1994. It was in direct response to the miserable failure of the Bush administration from '88-'92 which culminated in his loss to Clinton, a loss that came to be because Bush did not govern as a conservative, and enough honest-to-goodness conservatives withheld their votes as a consequence. The GOP learned its lesson, the CWA was born, and they stomped the Democrats in the '94 elections.
The lesson works, but it requires the sort of intestinal fortitude not found in people like you.
What ideals does Bush espouse that cause you to support him?
It's a simple question that I hope you'll answer.
Bush 41 lost because enough " conservatives " decided to take as whole clothe, the propaganda heaped upon Bush 41, held it against him, that he dared to try to work with the Dems and then was used and abused by them, the never ending, mindless rantings about the " READ MY LIPS " thing, the abjectly gullible believing the snakeoil, that Perot was spooning out and, as is often the case, enough people deciding that 12 years of one party having the White House was too much. Historically, it is exceedingly RARE, for a V.P. to win the presidential election and then winning re-election.
Bush 41's loss and Clinton's unConstitutional tax hike, made enough people angry, so that they took the House away from the Dems. Yes, the CONTRACT WITH AMERICA helped, but a fat lot of good that did, when all is said and done. And as far as " teaching the GOP a lesson ", the " lesson " you imagine it taught, wasn't really taught at all and your saying so, doesn't make it a fact. ;^)
I support him in the war on terror. Our position in Iraq and Afghanistan. Lowering taxes. Then there is the fact that he is the best option by far - no other alternative that comes close.
You may consider these reasons lame and even find a basis to attack them. That would be your privilege, my privilege is that I get to vote in the next election and I am excited about it.
Personally, I hate the fractionalization and the name calling over neo/paleo. It's just a divide and conquer ploy, a way of making snide, smarmy, anti-Semitic remarks for some, and does NO good whatsoever, to OUR cause. What cause is that ? Getting as many Dems out of elected office, as is humanly possible.
I am sick and tired of hearing neanderthals like your self spewing hate and disrespect for our truely honorable Commander in Chief.
The TRUTH is, you people have slithered so far to the Right, you have wound up on the other side!
If you can't be a part of this forum and support the GOP, then get the he// out of here and start your own group of pathetic, grovelling, sniveling, carping defeatists.
YOU CERTAINLY DO NOT BELONG HERE! DO YOU GET IT MAGGOT?
Let me give you a little advice. It's the best kind, because it comes from a fat, dead, alcoholic comedian.
I never vote for anyone; I always vote against.
W. C. Fields
You can fool yourself into thinking that you're always supporting a candidate, but in 99%+ of the cases, you're simply picking the guy who's not as bad as the other.
Clearly, our system sucks. Its faults are summed up best in the words of a fat, dead, alcoholic politician.
It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.
Sir Winston Churchill
So, if you have a better idea that doesn't involve letting the bad guys win easily while we fall on our swords and declare moral victory, I'm all ears. If not, I'll continue to uphold the pillars of dead, fat, alcoholic wisdom.
So, how do you feel about the C-in-C violating his oath of office? What do you, as a person who swore to uphold the Constitution, think about a person who takes an oath similar to the one you and I both did and then turns his back on it?
Last time I checked, Jim Robinson decided who stays and who goes. Your invitation to leave will go unheeded. This isn't an "I Love the GOP Forum", at least not last time I checked.
And if you'll do some reading, I am not "spewing hate and disrespect". I am questioning why a person who swore to uphold the Constitution is doing the exact opposite, and why people like you, who should revere that Constitution over a person, are giving him a free pass on it.
And you're a coward and a disgrace to the uniform for letting it go unchallenged. I belong here much more than you do, because unlike you I refuse to roll over and play dead for the masters at the GOP.