[rightwing2]

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.

[Reagan Man]

>>>I continue to like President Bush on a personal level. He is a very likeable guy.<<<

You're not only a liar, you're a hypocrite too. Your disdain for President is obvious and real! Your disdain for Bush supporters is obvious and real!

>>>Unlike you, I am a proud Reagan Republican...<<<

Stop wrapping yourself in the Reagan Legacy. You don't act like a Reagan man, you don't talk like a Reagan man, you are not a Reagan man. You're nothing but a liar and a hypocrite.

Unlike you, I have been entirely truthful and accurate in this discussion.

ROTFLMBO! Do you always stick both feet in your mouth so often? You wouldn't know the truth if it ran up to you and bit you in the cojones.

You don't know how ridiculous you sound. You have lied and distorted many of the facts and much of the truth about President Bush's record, during his first 14 months in office. You've employed conjecture, supposition, innuendo, scurrilous allegations and rank hypocrisy to make your points in attacking Bush and myself. Face it, you have left yourself with no way out. Your credibility is damaged beyond repair.

If you're not a libertarian, then why call for help from self-professed libertarians like "OWK"? Not to mention self-professed conspiracy theorist wacko's like "Black Jade". If you're not a libertarian, then your a far right wing reactionary absolutist. Either way you're on the fringe of American politics. You've said nothing to improve your standing with the truth, or enhance the legitimacy of your arguments.

For the record, I'm through with any more tit-for-tats with you. So I'll leave you to say whatever you like. I know most of it will be lies and distortions. So be it. BTW, I'd watch those ad hominem attacks, if I was you. They serve no good purpose.

Have at it!