Posted on 09/22/2004 5:32:31 AM PDT by Dazedcat
I agee with Teddy Roosevelt. but these many Americans who criticise George Bush have yet to admit that he is indeed the elected President of the US It may be unpatriotic not to criticise , but it is traitorous not to admit he is President, legitimately.
Very well put at #70. As you remarked, Bush has made some serious mistakes in his first term - free pills, CFR ect. one of which threatens our national security - i.e. amnesty. How do you propose getting the GOP and President Bush to allievate those problems in a 2nd term?
No, I'm afraid that you don't see the point. The Southerners had such a low opinion of the fighting capabilities of the Yankees that they felt that their secession would be an easy fight and a foregone conclusion.
The North thought that they had the manpower and the equipment to easily subdue the rebellion and that poor Southerners would not fight for the blueblood aristocracy.
Both were wrong ... and, if Generals Lee, Longstreet, and Johnston had been different people, the Confederate Army would have taken to the hills to fight for years in a guerilla war against the occupying North.
Again, I would give you the warning ... things rarely turn out as expected.
I am getting tired of the line, "You must vote Republican because the alternative is so bad." When will the Republicans nominate a conservative?
Moby thread
"Islamototalitarian" doesn't roll off the tongue as well. The term "fascism" has become more commonly used as a synonym for totalitarianism, not simply Mussolini's particular system of governance.
As for "homicide bombers", that is a redundant statement. Was Billy the Kid a "homicide shooter" or OJ a "homicide stabber". Suicide bomber is the preferred term when the bomber intends to blow himself up along with his victims.
Billy the Kid was a murderer, as was OJ. So are people who blow themselves up in the hopes of getting 72 virgins to rape.
The use of the term "suicide bomber" emphasizes the death of the bomber, not the death of those he/she kills. It focuses on the one death (the only one who deserved to die) while ignoring the others who died.
But YOU don't see the point. Liberals have little capacity for combat or military discipline. That's why the miltiary ranks are so overwhelmingly conservative (and from the south and mountain west, for that matter). The North had a cause (the preservation of the territoral integrity of the United States). How the heck are the liberals going to fight when they don't even let their boys play with toy guns. And what cause are they going to lay their lives down for? Gay "marriage"? Keeping Al Franken on the air?
Yeah George Bush Senior was the Vice-President Ronald Reagan never wanted, the man who betrayed the Reagan Revolution.
The only worthwhile accomplish of that nebish was siring George Bush II.
I don't know too much about Jeb but what I have seeen doesn't impress me. Besides, I'm an American. I don't like dynasties.
Piffle ... I have read none who thought it a foregone conclusion until after Gettysburg, and a number who believed that there was a chance for Southern victory until the siege of Petersburg.
A live Stonewall Jackson at Gettysburg .. instead of Ewell and Early .. would have probably completed changed the first day results. Atlanta held until after the Federal elections may have resulted in a McClellan victory. Guerilla war after Appomattox may have led to war-/occupation-weariness on the part of the North and withdrawal and defacto victory for the Confederacy.
Again, I know of no historian who has taken a position that a Southern defeat was a foregone conclusion until well into the conflict, and very few who would have written off the South until after Gettysburg and the fall of Vicksburg.
Been there. Conservative or not, troops tend to obey their orders. If ordered to suppress an insurrection or rebellion, they WILL supress it to best of their ability. The first Civil War was bad enough. A civil war with modern weaponry does NOT bear thinking about.
At best we would forfeit our status in the world. The damage to our infrastructure would be immense. We might even get invaded by Mexico and the UN. We would not be better off after the war.
So you say, but, if you give a liberal a gun and dare him to use it against you in a kill-or-be-killed situation, are you confident enough that he won't?
And, remember, that many of the overwhelmingly conservative members of the military take their oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States and to follow the orders of their superiors take that oath very seriously. I wouldn't be too confident of their defection to the side of what would be considered "rebels".
The only thing we can do is work hard to get more conservatives elected to Congress, use political pressure against him when he strays, and make sure his successor isn't John McCain, Rudy Giuliani or Schwarzenegger (I know I know, he's not a citizen - but the Constitution can be amended and idiots like Orrin Hatch have discussed this).
I'd like somebody like Tancredo or Condi Rice to run in 2008. We will be certainly facing Hitlery.
LOL, I'm such a nerd. I thought when I read this, "Well, what if we could elect a linear combination of the two."
But then I realized that any JFnK in GWB would only water down the positive aspects of the Prez. :)
The COnfederate States of America would have been an economic basket case even if initally survived the Civil War. It's entire existence was based on a doomed institution--human slavery. The rest of the United States would have completed its manifest destiny, industrialization and population explosion. It would have also fostered turmoil, especially amongst the black population. Ultimately the CSA would either have begged to be reunited with the rest of the USA, or it would fall piecemeal by force, against a United States armed with late-19th century weapons. USA=North Vietnam (Sort of) CSA=South Vietnam (sort of).
Woah! Condi is not conservative. She is smart, tough on forgien policy, but have you ever heard her speak on domestic issues? Definitely from the Rockefeller school of thought, on on the left side of that even.
"Been there. Conservative or not, troops tend to obey their orders"
That is what the Leftist government in Spain though in 1936. The resutl: Francisco Franco.
That is what the Romanovs and Kerensky thought in Russia in 1917. The result: Lenin.
Abe Lincoln thought West Point grads and veterans of the Mexican War would never violate their oath to the US Constitution. We all know what the result of that line of thinking was!
BUT, after four years of socialism, the United States as we know it will no longer exist. No, thanks. I don't want to take that chance. Go Bush!
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.