Posted on 02/21/2008 10:34:10 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
Wow, you’re willing to go to war over a plane being shot down. That’s great that you’re willing to expend many young lives over one incident. If you were the POTUS we would be at war every five years or so. Lets see, I guess we should have invaded Libya when Gohdaffi bombed the plane over Lockerbee and when Gary Powers got captured we should have gone to war with Russia and when the Mayaguez Incident happened we should have went to war with Cambodia. I support us going to war when its in our national interests. In fact, I have fought in combat when its in our national interests and when it wasn’t. However, we got all of the Navy personnel back in that crisis without going to war. When we can avert a war, it is a good thing. Since you appear to be so bloodthirsty I was just wondering if you served in combat?
“You missed the “hypocrite” part. Forming the Navy and making the Louisiana Purchase (two acts that I agree with) were acts of hypocrisy since he spent the whole time of the Washington presidency railing against George Washington for smaller acts.”
You know, that’s called politics. Deal with it.
“No wonder you’re so screwed up in your discernment. It takes good people to have good government...you can’t separate the two.”
So let me get this straight. If you rewrite the Old Testament you are a bad person? So if someone steps on your religious sensibilities they are a bad person? Just to let you know, you don’t have to be a Christian who attends church every Sunday to be a good person.
“So you have no problem with the Germans sinking American ships.”
I assume that you are talking about the Lisutania? Did you know that:
1. It was a British ship.
2. It sailed into a war zone in which the Germans declared all ships would be targets of warfare.
3. The British Navy was blockading Germany.
4. The German Embassy tried to buy adds in newspapers all across America warning the Americans that these ships were subject to sinking going into a war zone. Our government pressured many newspapers not to print this advertisement. It only got out in one newspaper. (Desmoine Register)
5. The German embassy posted signs at the pier leading up to the Lisutania that it was subject to sinking and warning American citizens not to travel on it.
6. The American and British government were secretly storing munitions on these ocean liners and it is believed that the Lisutania did indeed have munitions stored on it.
We know that Wilson wanted in the worst way to get into the war but political pressure forced him to stay out of it. What better thing than to have it look as though Germany was attacking America making them look like the bad guy. This incident was so similar to the U.S.S. Main exploding to set off the Spainish American war it’s sickening. Germany did not want America to enter the war.
Again, look at the consequences of us getting involved in a European war that had nothing to do with our National interests. We had to get invovled in another one 20 years later that was far more terrible.
“No, people like you have fractured the conservative base. You’re doing it again on this thread”
So because I’m consistent with conservative philosophy I’m the one fracturing the base, not the ones who are attacking the first amendment and adhering to liberal ideas like climate change? You sound like all of these conservative leaders who are going after the radio talk show hosts.
“Pick Santorum. I saw some polls this year that have him leading in PA. “
As a PA. resident and big Santorum supporter, I like this idea!!!
I believe McCain has to go with a younger minority and/or woman pick. I dunno who would join the “snaketalk express”
Santorum would be my first choice, but I don’t see him being selected. He came out too strongly against McCain and for Romney.
I’d prefer Gov. Pawlenty of Minn. to Fred Thompson... who was at best a Howard Baker Republican.
I was a Fred supporter, but having two older, less-than- healthy white guys on the ticket would eliminate any chance the GOP would have of holding the White House.
McCain is going to have to choose someone younger and more vigorous.
You have reading comprehension difficulties. I said send in the fleet, then it's up to them if they would have wanted war.
That’s great that you’re willing to expend many young lives over one incident. If you were the POTUS we would be at war every five years or so.
Wars and rumors of wars will carry on until the end. No use being naive about it.
Lets see, I guess we should have invaded Libya when Gohdaffi bombed the plane over Lockerbee...
We certainly should have killed Khadaffy through airstikes.
...and when Gary Powers got captured we should have gone to war with Russia...
Again, you have reading comprehension difficulties. That wasn't over international airspace as I said.
and when the Mayaguez Incident happened we should have went to war with Cambodia.
There should be military action when there is military action against us...whether that is full-scale war is up to the initial aggressor.
I support us going to war when its in our national interests. In fact, I have fought in combat when its in our national interests and when it wasn’t. However, we got all of the Navy personnel back in that crisis without going to war. When we can avert a war, it is a good thing.
War shouldn't be avoided by an apology tour when there was nothing for us to apologize over.
Since you appear to be so bloodthirsty I was just wondering if you served in combat?
Nope, 80s graduate. So if a country conducts a military operation against us, we should not take military action unless the president and vice president served in combat? How is it you support the war on terrorism...Bush and Cheney never served in combat? How is it you support any military action Reagan partook in? Reagan never served in combat.
You know, that’s called politics. Deal with it.
Ha! So if it's one of your heros like Jefferson it's politics, but if it's Bush having to do what he does with CFR and AWB because of politics, then he's one of the worst. You're Mr Double Standard, aren't you.
So let me get this straight. If you rewrite the Old Testament you are a bad person?
Certainly not fit for office.
So if someone steps on your religious sensibilities they are a bad person?
If it's ignorance, no. If it's outright rebellion as Jefferson did, then that's another story.
Just to let you know, you don’t have to be a Christian who attends church every Sunday to be a good person.
I've never been to church a Sunday in my life, that's not the issue. The issue is outright rebellion against the written Word.
I assume that you are talking about the Lisutania? Did you know that: 1. It was a British ship. 2. It sailed into a war zone in which the Germans declared all ships would be targets of warfare. 3. The British Navy was blockading Germany. 4. The German Embassy tried to buy adds in newspapers all across America warning the Americans that these ships were subject to sinking going into a war zone. Our government pressured many newspapers not to print this advertisement. It only got out in one newspaper. (Desmoine Register) 5. The German embassy posted signs at the pier leading up to the Lisutania that it was subject to sinking and warning American citizens not to travel on it. 6. The American and British government were secretly storing munitions on these ocean liners and it is believed that the Lisutania did indeed have munitions stored on it. We know that Wilson wanted in the worst way to get into the war but political pressure forced him to stay out of it. What better thing than to have it look as though Germany was attacking America making them look like the bad guy. This incident was so similar to the U.S.S. Main exploding to set off the Spainish American war it’s sickening. Germany did not want America to enter the war. Again, look at the consequences of us getting involved in a European war that had nothing to do with our National interests. We had to get invovled in another one 20 years later that was far more terrible..
Nice history lesson, but I'm talking merchant shipping sunk by the Germans before we entered the war. Those are acts of war. What's a few sailors, eh?
So because I’m consistent with conservative philosophy I’m the one fracturing the base, not the ones who are attacking the first amendment...
In your own words: "Politics...deal with it".
...and adhering to liberal ideas like climate change?
Bush has resisted Gorebull warming tremendously.
You sound like all of these conservative leaders who are going after the radio talk show hosts.
Um...in case you forgot, this thread is about McCain and my posts here are about me not voting for him, that's what started this argument between you, Terpfen, and I. I'm with Rush and the others on this and voting Constitution Party if their candidate isn't too kooky.
You keep blaming Bush for fracturing the base, here's a couple of test questions to see if you can pass: Am I a conservative? Is Bush a conservative?
“War shouldn’t be avoided by an apology tour when there was nothing for us to apologize over.”
You are the one with a reading comprehension problem. I have said many times that when it is in our national interests we should go to war. The war on Islamo Fascism is in our national interest. Keeping the free flow of oil is in our national interests. Going to war over a naval aircrew is not in our national interest. What is in our national interest is to negotiate with China to get them back. Bush did the right thing here. The U.S. apologized for being responsible for causing the death of the Chinese pilot and for landing in China without authorization. However, they never apologized for spying on China.
“How is it you support the war on terrorism...Bush and Cheney never served in combat? How is it you support any military action Reagan partook in? Reagan never served in combat.”
I don’t believe I ever stipulated that the POTUS had to be a military person or served in combat to be an effective commander in chief. In fact, two of our best commanders in chiefs were Lincoln and FDR neither having any military experience. What I was talking about is you personally. Your apparent lust for combat. When I asked that question, I already knew the answer. Someone who has been in combat, who has smelled burned bodies, who has seen bodies blown to pieces is not so quick to run into combat at the drop of a hat.
Going to war is serious business. It is not something to be done without looking at all options. You go to war when it is in your national interest and when all other alternatives are worse. I don’t expect you to understand this since the only time you have seen combat is when renting a DVD.
“Ha! So if it’s one of your heros like Jefferson it’s politics, but if it’s Bush having to do what he does with CFR and AWB because of politics, then he’s one of the worst. You’re Mr Double Standard, aren’t you.”
You really don’t understand much do you? Jefferson’s policies as President is why I like and admire him. Among the many other accomplishments in his life. Bush’s policies are what is at issue here. It is your opinion that Jefferson was a backstabber etc... That is the politics that I’m speaking of. Of course you point out differences with your political opponents. You call it backstabbing, I call it politics.
“I’ve never been to church a Sunday in my life, that’s not the issue. The issue is outright rebellion against the written Word.”
Where in any of our founding documents does it say you have to adhere to the Christian word of God in order to be a good president??? I’ve also never heard of someone who does not go to church but has such reverence for the Bible. You are very stange indeed. What are you Catholic and always go to Church Saturday night? I don’t get you. I think you just like to argue.
“Nice history lesson, but I’m talking merchant shipping sunk by the Germans before we entered the war. Those are acts of war. What’s a few sailors, eh?”
Did you know that we were shipping munitions and war supplies to Germany’s enemy Britian and France. Is that not an act of War?
Did you know that Britian and France asked us not to ship munitions and war supplies to Germany and did not allow us through their blockade. Doncha’ think we were playing favorites?
Wilson was begging to get into the war. He wanted it and thats why he did not prevent the shipping from going through. We should have honored both sides, not just one. By picking a side, Wilson was begging the Germans to attack us. It is Wilson who is to blame.
Look what it gave us, a second world war that cost 25 million lives. Whats 25 million lives though eh? War! War! WW II had to be fought by us, but it could have been prevented except for Wilson’s stupidity. Read “The Kings Depart” by Richard Watt. You’ll see how incompetent and stupid Wilson was.
“Bush has resisted Gorebull warming tremendously.”
That was in reference to McCain.
“Um...in case you forgot, this thread is about McCain and my posts here are about me not voting for him, that’s what started this argument between you, Terpfen, and I. I’m with Rush and the others on this and voting Constitution Party if their candidate isn’t too kooky. “
We started arguing about Bush being the third best President. My position is he was not and has fractured the party and that is why we have McCain. Obviously I’m not happy with McCain either. The only way I’ll vote for him is if he has a strong conservative as a VP. If he were to pick Lindsey Gramnesty then I will not vote for him. I’ll put my energies towards conservative congressmen.
We don’t have differences except for your apparent belief that Bush has not significantly caused where we are as conservatives today. He deserves a large part of that blame. Your going to defend him to the death so there’s no point in discussing this with you. You have drunk the Bush koolaid.
Where we have a big problem is how you believe we should be constantly going to war over every international incident. You’re being a good American when you support our Country in it’s war efforts. When you advocate going to war all the time, then I say pick up a rifle and help the cause. Don’t just cheer from the sidelines to constantly go to war.
Agree, it would be worse than watching paint dry, not so much for me, but for the uninformed voters with the short attention spans. Romney, JC Watts, Santorum, Hutchison, ANYBODY with some magnetism please. We have a WOT going on.
God bless you.
Thanks, I could us God’s help. : ) I don’t ever even talk about stuff like that. I don’t even like to remember it. I just could not believe that someone wants to casually go to war as often as he does.
War is unfortunately a necessary evil, but it should not be taken as lightly as that guy apparently does.
We can have our disagreements about how good of a President Bush has been. However to say that he screwed up by not provoking a war with China over a downed spy plane is just ludicrus in my opinion...
This is not a bad idea. Fred Thompson would bring presence and conservative credibility to the ticket. His age could be a problem, however.
This is what I wrote earlier today about McCain’s VP pick:
I’ve been saying for months now that Governors Tim Pawlenty of MN and Mark Sanford of SC would be the two best choices for McCain’s runningmate (I also mentioned Congressman Mike Pence of Indiana, but McCain probably wants someone with executive experience); while I supported Fred Thompson for President, and think he would also make a great VP, I think McCain needs to find someone younger (and name Fred as Attorney General).
As for those who believe that Pawlenty isn’t conservative enough to be McCain’s runningmate, they should keep in mind that Pawlenty is as solidly conservative on right-to-life, RKBA and immigration as they come, and that he was able to be reelected in Minnesota despite the state’s Democrat lean and the horrible political environment for Republicans in 2006. I believe that John McCain will be able to carry Minnesota (48% for President Bush in 2004) and Wisconsin (49% for Bush) with Tim Pawlenty on the ticket, and that Pawlenty’s blue-collar background will help McCain carry Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania to ensure a large Electoral College majority.
I agree. I like Fred. But John needs someone a little younger on the ticket. Fred for AG.
Too many years ago for me to remember all the details clearly, but when he was Okla Corporation Commissioner before his election to congress, JC was tagged in an FBI corruption sting accepting "walkin' around money". Don't recall anything coming out of it other than some local publicity that blew over.
Also, and I'm really fuzzy on this, there was some shady dealing on a business JC owned in Norman Ok. Apartment complex financing, IIRC.
“Fred for AG.”
Yes, that would be good.
But I think Fred would nicely fill any upcoming vacancy on the Supreme Court.
I don’t think Sen. Thompson would accept the offer. I’m not sure he’s really right for the job.
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.