Posted on 01/08/2008 11:25:26 PM PST by Justice
ENJOY
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
LOL, you’re not doing my heatburn any good.
I realize we have to walk a fine line with Saudi Arabia, but it strikes me as defeatist to force our citizens into storm trooper airports, but then allow potential terrorists in as a normal routine.
Are we serious about ending terrorism, or is this just some joke on the U.S. Citizen, that he has to take the brunt of the new programs?
Don’t put out potential terrorists. That would be bad. Put out U.S. Citizens. Now that’s good...
Rather sobering to consider that Hubert Humphrey, "the liberal's liberal" of his day, would, if alive today, be drummed out of the Republican party for being "too conservative to be electable."
It's absolutely sickening to see how far to the left the "G"OP has slid. I never signed on to vote for leftists, and I'll be damned if I'll hold my nose ANY more to vote for ANY of 'em. Screw it. I'm no spring chicken. I'll be 60 next year. Not a whole lot of time left to pick the lifetime's worth of broken glass out of my knees and enjoy life.
Get back with me of the old bulls at the countryclub ever decide to let a conservative get a turn at bat. Until then, I'll be fishing. Or taking walks through the woods with my cameras. Or whipping up some chili. Or watching old movies. Or picking my nose. In short, anything other than throwing away my vote for a democrat in drag.
Oh?
How's he going to accomplish that goal? I mean, other than by trying to shove his weight around, intimidate, insult, and offend conservatives, and try to boss people into doing his bidding?
That's far from a liberal position.
Sorry, I'm calling BS on that one. His tactics are classic liberal crap.
Choosing not to support the more conservative of the two is a vote for the more liberal of the two.
I firmly believe, as a Recovering_Democrat, that any time with a member of my former party in the White House is too long.
I've been a part of the brainwashed liberal masses--and I never want to see another one of their "leaders" in power again.
I'm with you, Mom!
Politics, though, is sometimes about what is possible. Right now, our real choices in the Republican party are admittedly flawed. They are BETTER than the Democrat operatives looking to move into the White House, though.
I urge you to consider this. Otherwise, we could face four to eight years of a Jimmy Carter, who made us impotent when facing down Islamic facists in Iran. Or Lyndon Johnson, who weakened us in Southeast Asia and expanded the government's reach into our lives and pocketbooks.
Sure, the American people WOKE UP after the damage was done. Let's not let that happen again.
Respectfully,
Recovering_Democrat
I agree. Trying to stop an enemy who primarily does guerrilla warfare (assassination, etc.) almost solely by way of defensive police methods at home won’t be effective. The enemy is using our current activities to buy his time, build his nukes, etc. We don’t need a police state at home. Soldiers fight wars. We need to go to the strongest source of enemy supply, training and morale, and defeat him. He must be beaten until he has no more will to fight. He must be denazified, until all of his local leaders, teachers and writers have no will to hate.
But oil would go up in the process. We might even have to ration oil in order to get it done. If we, as a nation, have no will to really fight, we’ll increasingly have a police state, until the enemy further consolidates, is ready to wake up his cells here and brings the fight to us.
Determined assassins eventually find their ways around security. We need to be aware of that and finish the War. We need to ditch the present “bunker,” defense-only mentality and attack the enemy. IMO, we’re not going to soften him up enough with social incursions (diplomats’ ho’house enticements in the Middle Eastern bazaar).
The system has been gamed. Completely.
The inside-the-beltway crowd -- the bunch that prospers under a statist government -- has maneuvered things, via judicious application of money, so that in the final analysis IT DOES NOT MATTER who "wins the election."
"We the people" have been trained to view politics as a form of professional sports. Yay, f'n team. *yawn*
Two sides, each raving mad for "their team", doing whatever they can "for the team", with NO thought given to the country -- no concept of what any of it means.
All they care about is "their" team "winning the pennant" in November.
We're about two stump speeches away from having the Party Faithful accusing "dissenters" of treason for "lack of loyalty to the party."
Get real, people. We have ONE party. It's "The Political Party."
It does NOT matter which side "wins the series" -- because whichever side wins, it's always business as usual. Good grief, the surprising thing is NOT that some people get it. The surprising thing is that most people DON'T get it.
>>Gosh you’re right
Somehow it feels better when a republican is screwing you.<<
In that case, I’m really more concerned with gender than politics.
On the one hand, he truly is a frightening "type and shadow" of the biblical representation of the AC. I used to read that stuff, and wonder how any one person could "unite" all the major religious factions. I mean, OK, "the Catholics and the Protestants", that's one thing. But, the Muslims? No way could anyone appeal to them too.
Then along comes Barack Hussein Obama, with a face for every crowd.
Yes, chilling.
But, on the other hand, we've got this nominal Christian who goes around mouthing endless platitudes about "the beautiful religion of peace"...
"Any Republican is far superior to this nightmare"?
Maybe, maybe not.
I tell you what. You vote your conscience, and I'll vote mine. If mine is "none of the above" -- or a write-in of someone I believe to be qualified for the job -- then you don't condemn me, and I won't condemn you.
(I very well may say "I told you so", however...)
I'll be honest. I'm tired of politics. Maybe it wouldn't be like this if there was some variety to the "political diet" -- but when both sides are merely two sides of the same coin -- when two sides give different pep talks, in order to get their fans to get them into office -- but once there, they all do the same thing (and no one can argue that the current "conservative" has NOT accomplished stuff that Clinton could only have dreamed of getting passed while he was in power), then I have appetite fatigue.
If I'm going to be ruled over (and our "leaders" have morphed into "rulers"), them I'm not going to kid myself into playing the game, pretending that it makes a difference. There are lots of things I'd rather do in my declining years. I enjoy fishing. Haven't done a lot of it. I think it's time for me to dust off the ol' flyrod, tie on a leader, and practice my casting. I like taking landscape photographs. Haven't done much of that either. I like cooking. I've been putting off boning up on the regs so that I can get a General Class ham license.
There are plenty of things I can enjoy doing, without giving myself ulcers over whether "my" candidate will be the one to slip his iron fist into the velvet glove.
Scalia is getting up in age needed someone younger to endure the newer regimes!
Actually, I think we’ve done a good job in Iraq. All the regional idiots who thought they were going to pull another Vietnam because Nancy and Harry said they could, were wrong. They were drawn in and eliminated. That didn’t put an end to terrorism, but it sure eliminated a lot of idiots willing to die on the promise of 72 wirgins.
I just wish we’d get our act together at home.
There are two major flaws in Bush’s WOT. He has left the homeland wide open. I believe he has been less than stellar at diplomacy in Europe and especially Russia.
I agree Don Joe.
I’m not sure you got my point. Reagan did a lot of good things but so did Bush. Bush did a lot of bad things but so did Reagan. and W Bush was much much better than H W Bush. Everything good will be replaced by bad with Hillary or Obama.
yes, Reagan did raise tax rates on social security in 1983 and in the 1986 tax reform
We have a president who stood his ground on embryonic research. We got out of the treaty against missile defense. We have Alito and Roberts in the SC. He vetoed schip expansion as well as other attempts by democrats to spend more money.
The Mexican Fencing Team scores again!
(And the "G"OP continues playing their own games -- guaranteed to prevent any possibility of putting an end to the ongoing fencing competition.)
I did up a pic....thought of that before reading your post, lol.
Hey, folks, let's get a grip on reality here.
This is not 1896 when bigwigs from "this party" and "that other party" got together and then decided "Hey, let's nominate William McKinley" and "William Jennings Bryan is our man".
Today, "the GOP" does not decide who will be the Republican nominee for President. Average American voters do.
As Winston Churchill once observed, "The strongest argument against democracy is a five minute discussion with the average voter."
The idealogical perfection in American politics that many of you demand is simply not possible in America or in any other nation where the "average voter" and not a political aristocracy has the final say in the political process.
So, the average American voters are not seeing things 100% our way in 2008.
Well, suck it up and, at least, try to put whichever VIABLE candidate will do the LEAST damage to America and to your children's future in the White House instead throwing away your vote and being far dumber than the average voter that Churchill was not overly impressed with.
The part that makes it any different from "business as usual."
What part of:"WE'RE GOING TO TAKE THINGS AWAY FROM YOU FOR THE COMMON GOOD"-H. Clinton
do you not understand?
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.