Replies

>>>All the facts are on my side. Time for you to quit before you embarrass yourself further. BTW, your username does serious disgrace and offense to the great man who bore it as President during the 1980s.<<<

I didn't lie about the Bush record. I rattled off the accomplishments of the Real Bush Record over the last 14 months. Let's look at what you specifically had to say.

>>>Began implementation of his plan to unilaterally disarm the US...

This is a total joke. The President has called for a reduction in America's nuclear forces, because much of our nuclear deterrent and first strike capability, is getting old and costs too much. The pricetag to upkeep certain older weapons systems is cost prohibitive. Besides, the United States has enough nuclear arsenal to launch a first strike attack and wipe out any and all adversaries. And this talk of supporting anti-nuke wacko's, is wacko itself!

>>>Agreed to continue the Democrap Congress mandated ban on nuclear testing, which his father opposed.<<<

Underground nuclear testing should be resumed.

>>>Supported a Clinton initiated Army Transformation plan...<<<

First off, you're no military expert and neither am I. Sec.Rumsfeld and the DoD, did a top to bottom review of the US military. I trust Rumsfeld and the military brass to make the right decisions to protect and defend America. From the results in Afghanistan, I'd say Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld are doing a first class job when it comes to America's armed forces. Those are the facts.

>>>Attempted to forge a strategic partnership with prime terrorist state sponsor Iran in the misnamed “war against terrorism.”<<<

Exactly, what partnership is that? And the war on terrorism, has been labeled in many ways, by many different entities.

>>>Appeased Communist China and embarrassed his country by disgracefully apologizing to the Communist Chinese hostagetakers who kidnapped the brave crew of the EP-3 recon plane they forced down.<<<

The EP-3 plane encounter with Red China was handled in a dipolmatic manner. The end result, was a success. This talk of embarrassment and disgrace, has no merit to it. The crew was returned safely and the plane was also sent back. There's no evidence of any secret equipment or classified info, falling into the hands of the communist Chinese.

>>>Appeased Communist China with an executive order legalizing the sale of computers...<<<

I'm no computer expert, but I trust the Bush administrations high technology experts. I don't agree with your contention, that top of the line computers were sold to Red China.

>>>Forced a vote in Congress on permanent Most Favored Nation trade status with and WTO membership for Communist China...<<<

China doesn't deserve being given what is now called, PNTR, Permanent Normal Trade Relations. Many Republicans and Democrats, agree on this issue. US membership in the WTO, at this time, should be based on a go slow policy.

>>>Refused to support repeal of the 1994 Clinton gun-ban and championed tougher implementation of all draconian gun-control legislation now on the books by pledging to throw gun-control violaters into prison and throw away the key.<<<

President Bush strongly supports the right for American's to keep and bear firearms. Bush has the full support of the NRA. Nuff said.

>>>Forced a stealth vote on the amnesty of two million illegal aliens in the House of Represenative as the first step in a much broader amnesty plan to effect millions more.<<<

Provisions contained in section 245(i), of HR 1885, is in no way, shape or form, to be confused with an amnesty program. An amnesty is considered an act by authority, in which a pardon is granted to a large group of individuals. A pardon, is a release from the legal penalties of an offense, as in excusing an offense without exacting a penalty. The provisions of section 245(i), call for those foreigners who have overstayed their visa's, to pay a penalty of $1,000. This will allow them to legally apply for reinstatement and not have to leave the US. I personally do not support 245(i) under our current state of terrorism alert and homeland security efforts. But the truth is, 245(i) is not an amnesty program and it applie to some 200,000 individuals, not the millions that anti-immigrationists keep referring to.

>>>Passed the radical Ted Kennedy education bill which federalizes education and providing tens of billions more a year for the liberal Department of Education, NEA to foist their perverse atheist liberal dogma upon our children.<<<

Agreed!

>>>Appointed as the head of the Supreme Court Justice nominee search team and announced that the front-runner for his first Supreme Court pick is White House Counsel Albert Gonzales, a pro-abortion liberal who as Bush’s appointed Texas Supreme Court Justice found Bush’s own tepid parental notification on abortion legislation to be constitutionally impermissible. Why didn’t Bush appoint earstwhile pro-life champion Attorney General John Ashcroft to lead the Supreme Court nominee search team?<<<

First off, President Bush has made no announcments about who he might nominate to sit on the USSC. In the past, Bush has said, his idea of a SC Jusitce, is someone who is like Antonia Scalia and Clarence Thomas. No one knows if Alberto Gonzales is pro-choice, or pro-life. If you have a quote to that effect, by anyone, post it. Otherwise stop fabricating your own facts.

>>>Championed a Kyoto Lite Plan to appease the environmental wackos.<<<

President Bush has opposed Kyoto. Period. He isn't appeasing anyone, especially not the wacko environmentalists. Stop lying already.

>>>Signed the Democrat Incumbent Protection Act which will have the effect of permanently reducing the Republican Party to minority status and making it much more difficult for Republicans to get elected nationwide.<<<

I do not support CFR. There should be no lilits placed on political contributitons, but there should be immediate and full public disclsoure. The CFR legisaltion signed by President Bush was bad policy. Banning ads against incumbants in the 60-days prior to an election, is an infringeme on the people's second amendment rights to freedom of speech. I'm confident, the USSC will shoot down those portions of CFR that are unconstitutional. Increasing the cash limits from $1,000 to $2,000 will help Republican's more then Democrats, since Republican's receive higher contributions of hard money.

>>>Left 99.9% of Clinton’s last minute unconstitutional executive orders in place.<<<

That's simply not true. I don't have a list of how many last minute Clinton EO`s Bush repealed, but your figure of 99.9%, you musta pulled outta your butt. LOL.

>>>Championed and increased funding for Clinton’s ~~fascistic~~ AmeriKorps national service program.<<<

Yes he did, much to me disappointment too.

>>>Approved continued federal funding for the harvesting of stem cells from aborted babies.<<<

This is a bold face lie. President Bush banned further funding for the destruction of additional human embryo's. Period!

If I was you, I'd stop lying and distorting the facts about President Bush. All your whining makes you look weak and cheap.

I'm a lifelong republican, a Reagan conservative and a staunch Bush supporter. I agree with Bush more then I disagree with him. You hate President Bush, period!

Few facts are on your side, bucko and I'm no quitter. But when you attack my screen name, I know I've won the argument! When you call in your buddies for help, many who are fringe libertarians, I know you can't fight your own battles. Ain't it the truth. Yea. LMAO! Now I see what your problem is. You're a fringe libertarian too. LOL. How's that 0.367% candidate Harry Browne doing these days? Once a loser, always a loser!

For the record, I detest Libertarians, they are far left social extremists and anarchists, but then you knew that didn’t you? Just ask a guy here on FR who goes by the username of Thomas Jefferson, another case of a serious misnomer. Most of my FR buddies are rightwing conservative Republicans like myself. There I caught you on another lie. LOL! Unlike you, I am a proud Reagan Republican, not a pathetic Bush mushy moderate Republican as you are. Reagan was a great President who sincerely tried to pass a conservative agenda. Bush is neither great nor committed to conservative principles although he has done a good job winning the war in Afghanistan.

Besides, the United States has enough nuclear arsenal to launch a first strike attack and wipe out any and all adversaries. And this talk of supporting anti-nuke wacko's, is wacko itself!

Enough nuclear arsenal??? Didn’t I warn you not to embarrass yourself by making statements about things that you know little to nothing about? Bush while not an anti-nuke wacko himself is busy implementing the very same unilateral nuclear disarmament schemes that they and varied Communist-front think-tanks like the Center for Defense Information have been pushing for the last two decades. The US has enough nukes to deter nuclear attack from any country today, but that was not my point. My point was Bush is busy implementing his plan to unilaterally disarm our strategic nuclear deterrent from 7200 stratnukes as recently as November 2001 to a mere 1700 stratnukes in 2011. He is doing this despite the fact that Russia already possesses a nuclear arsenal that is four times as large as that of the US TODAY and has a national missile defense system which consists of 8500 S-300 ABMs capable of shooting down as many as 2000 incoming strategic warheads more than enough to shoot down our measily planned 2011 level deterrent EVEN IF WE STRUCK FIRST, which of course we would not. If we ever go that low, the Russians will either take out our nuclear deterrent with a nuclear first strike or more likely use nuclear blackmail to force us to accept them as the new global hegemon.

First off, you're no military expert and neither am I. Sec.Rumsfeld and the DoD, did a top to bottom review of the US military. I trust Rumsfeld and the military brass to make the right decisions to protect and defend America. From the results in Afghanistan, I'd say Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld are doing a first class job when it comes to America's armed forces. Those are the facts.

In point of fact, I am a military expert having served three years as an Army Reserve Officer in the Armor Branch (that means TANKS for civies like you). Now I am working for the Department of the Army and have briefed Army Transformation to several general officers, US and otherwise at the Pentagon and abroad. I even published a treatise on Army Transformation on the internet for which I can provide you the web address if you like so you can learn more about why a tankless Army is such a bad idea in the first place. As for Rumsfeld, I have never seen a better Secretary of Defense in action, but he has proved powerless to stop Bush’s insane unilateral nuclear disarmament of our strategic arsenal, which was announced by the President over his protest, and I believe him to be misinformed and poorly advised on the issue of Clinton-initiated Army Transformation.

There's no evidence of any secret equipment or classified info, falling into the hands of the communist Chinese.

Actually, the evidence indicates that pretty much everything was compromised to the ChiComs, but Bush is not to blame for that. He is only to blame for kowtowing to the ChiCom kidnappers with a letter that said the US was “very sorry” TWICE again over Rumsfeld’s objection.

I'm no computer expert, but I trust the Bush administrations high technology experts. I don't agree with your contention, that top of the line computers were sold to Red China.

Well, then obviously, you didn’t read anything about the Chinagate scandal which led all the newspapers only three short years ago. This is not about high-technology experts, THIS IS ABOUT BAD POLICY PURE AND SIMPLE THAT PUTS US BUSINESS INTERESTS FIRST AND US NATIONAL SECURITY INTERESTS DEAD LAST!!

China doesn't deserve being given what is now called, PNTR, Permanent Normal Trade Relations. Many Republicans and Democrats, agree on this issue.

Well I am glad we can at least agree on that point. This restores some of my respect for you and makes me think that you might actually be a deceived conservative rather than a blind Bush Republican as you had previously led me to believe.

But the truth is, 245(i) is not an amnesty program and it applie to some 200,000 individuals, not the millions that anti-immigrationists keep referring to.

While you are technically correct, the effect of this legislation is the same as an amnesty because the illegal immigrants have remained here illegally and they are being granted amnesty in the sense that they are permitted to stay here legally for another year or so. It has been projected that up to two million illegals may benefit from this Bush sponsored extension, which thankfully has yet to be passed by the Senate.

No one knows if Alberto Gonzales is pro-choice, or pro-life. If you have a quote to that effect, by anyone, post it. Otherwise stop fabricating your own facts.

No one knows if Alberto is pro-choice??? First of all, if you were actually pro-life you would not use those pro-abortion weasel words, which makes you seem like you might be the very social libertarian extremist that you previously accused me of being. Killing a life is not a mere choice, it is a crime under God's laws if not man's laws! How can you say that Gonzales is not pro-abortion when he voted down President Bush’s own weak-kneed parental notification for teenage abortions law which was supported by many pro-abortionists? That makes him not only pro-abortion. That makes him EXTREMELY PRO-ABORTION!

President Bush has opposed Kyoto. Period. He isn't appeasing anyone, especially not the wacko environmentalists. Stop lying already.

Bush has pushed his Kyoto-Lite plan as a sop to the environmentalists whose support he hopes to gain in the next election. That’s a fact jack. No need to deny it. Bush just wants to be liked by everyone and that explains a lot of his center-left bipartisan initiatives as here. I don’t believe in compromising on Kyoto because it would destroy the US economcy. Bush’s Kyoto plan would, if implemented, result in another recession. We don’t need that now because that would help the Democraps get elected and they already have enough going for them thanks to Bush’s signing of CFR.

That's simply not true. I don't have a list of how many last minute Clinton EO`s Bush repealed, but your figure of 99.9%, you musta pulled outta your butt. LOL.

Wrong again! Obviously, with your latest resort to crude teenage profanity, I know I must be dealing with a pimple-faced post-pubescent teen here. LOL! The fact is that Clinton signed about 14,000 Executive Orders in the last weeks of his Presidency. Bush only overturned a handful to my knowledge. Most including some of the most offensive like the one creating tens of millions of acres of new federal lands putting them off limits to development were kept in place by the ever eager to please the liberals Bushies. Thus, my 99.9% figure is fairly scientific, thank you very much. It seems that Clinton thought that by signing thousands of radical left Executive Orders, he would reduce the chance that many of them would be overturned. Obviously, he was correct in his assumptions. You need to learn to stop denying facts for which you have insufficient knowledge to dispute.

This is a bold face lie. President Bush banned further funding for the destruction of additional human embryo's. Period!

No, it is you who are lying. Bush went on TV saying he would permit continued federal funding for stem-cell research, but only using the aborted baby bodies already being used. In so doing, he capitulated shamelessly to the abortionists. You can’t be a pro-life President and allow this kind of Nazi-reminiscent Dr. Mangele type research to be FEDERALLY FUNDED!

If I was you, I'd stop lying and distorting the facts about President Bush. All your whining makes you look weak and cheap. I'm a lifelong republican, a Reagan conservative and a staunch Bush supporter. I agree with Bush more then I disagree with him. You hate President Bush, period!

You may be a lifelong Republican, but you are obviously not a committed Republican or else you would be criticizing Bush for his decision to sign liberal Democrap legislation which knowingly eviscerates the ability of Republicans to win elections primarily for the purpose of increasing his own chances at re-election. Unlike you, I have been entirely truthful and accurate in this discussion. Unlike you, I am willing to take you at your word. I have not defamed you by calling you a Libertarian. I have just suggested that you stop your blind support of a President who is not committed to furthering conservative principles and protecting his Party from electoral evisceration. You are nothing but a Bush partisan and that doesn’t say much for your Republican credentials, let along any conservative credentials you might claim. I continue to like President Bush on a personal level. He is a very likeable guy. However, he has disappointed me over and over again in furthering Bill Clinton’s own policy prescriptions in the areas of foreign, trade, immigration policy and yes even many domestic policies. His signing of CFR was one disappointment too many.