Replies

True?! Hardly. Frankly, nothing of your inflammatory remarks were true. But I see, you've got yourself convinced otherwise. Congrats.

Let me get this straight. You believe nothing I wrote was true? So you disagree with my assertion that Bush’s signature of the Daschle/Gephardt/McCain/Clinton Democrat Incumbent Protection Bill was a betrayal of the promise which he made to his Republican supporters that he would veto such unconstitutional legislation. You think he made the right call. You think that Bush breaking his campaign pledges and chucking his alleged conservative principles out the window in the interests of short-term political gain is a good thing. You think that him helping the Democraps recapture control of both Houses of Congress permanently is a good thing. You think killing the GOP’s ability to win elections was a good thing? Well, my friend, your opposition to Republican and conservative principles especially something as critically important to preventing the Republicans from getting elected and being in the majority at all after 2004, merely goes to prove that you are not only not a conservative, but are nothing more than a RINO particularly in terming my passionate and principled defense of the Republican Party as in anyway “reactionary absolutist.”

Talk about contradicting oneself!!! I seriously suggest, you start using a dictionary. Merriam-Webster defines neoconservative as, a former liberal espousing political conservatism. One of the founders of neoconservatism, some even call him the father of neoconservatism, is Irving Kristol. Kristol, along with his wife Gertrude Himmelfarb are well known for their neoconservatism dating back to the 1950`s. BTW, their son is the editor of the neoconservative magazine, The Weakly Standard, Bill Kristol.

So let me get this straight. You think Irving Kristol is a neoconservative because he was once a Democrap, but his son who espouses exactly the same neoconservative philosophy is not because he was never a “liberal” Democrap? That is seriously demented. Based on your statements here, there are only perhaps tens of thousands of neoconservatives. Well, sorry to inform you, but Merriam-Webster needs to be updated to reflect the current usage of this political descriptive term. Let me define neoconservatism for you since you seem not to be aware of the true definition. A neoconservative is someone who is generally socially conservative who believes in frequent US military interventionism abroad and support of UN peacekeeping missions who supports globalist managed “free” trade with religious ferver. Neoconservatives support open-borders immigration. While neoconservatives oppose Communism, they support big govt at home and are New Dealers economically supporting the modern welfare state. If this describes you as I suspect, then SURPRISE, SURPRISE you are a neoconservative! It certainly describes Bush and that is why I used that term to describe him.

The remainder of your rant is typical of someone who knows nothing about politics, power and the presidency. You may be on the rightwing of American politics, but your rhetoric and ideology is more in tune with that of a reactionary absolutist and not with the mainstream conservative movement in America today. But nice try, bucko.

Actually, it is painflully apparent that I know a great deal more about politics, power and the presidency than you do! On the other hand, you are correct, I am not a “mainstream conservative” which is defined as a mushy moderate at worst, moderate conservative at best. I am a traditional conservative both in social and economic terms. I am not a New Dealer neoconservative like you and President Bush. I reject the socialist welfare state which we adopted in the 1960s. I BELIEVE THAT THE US SHOULD PUT AMERICA’S INTERESTS FIRST AND FOREMOST, not some of the time, BUT ALL THE TIME!! That means no US involvement in UN peacemaking missions which have nothing to do with US interests and military intervensions only where the US vital interests are threatened. I believe the US participant should put US jobs, productivity, and the economy first, which means that we engage in free trade and fair trade (tariffs) with those who put tariffs on our goods and try to destroy our vital strategic interests and manufacturing base.

Let me get this straight.

Man oh man. You haven't changed, since our last encounter. You're still as dense as ever and you still sound like a broken record. You enjoy rehashing the same worn out crap over and over, again and again. Then, when I don't agree with your irrational, illogical and unreasonable assessments, you start throwing in the ad hominem attacks. Indeed, you're holding true to form, once again. You always seem to find it necessary, to send out a clarion call for your fellow extremist and malcontented buddies, to come and support this fringe political ideology you all espouse. I guess that gives you some comfort, knowing there are a few people around, who think like you do. LOL.

As I've told in our past exchanges, I don't look at everything in life, in an absolute fashion, nor do I overreact to everything, as you do. That's why I consider you a reactionary absolutist, with extremist fringe overtones. You prefer to look at the world through a form of tunnel vision. I do not. You may be politically active in Virginia State politics, but you really lack basic common sense. Anyone that can call George W.Bush a neoconservative, is either ignorant of the facts, plain stupid, or is living in a delusional world of their own making. President Bush is the same type of mainstream conservative, that Ronald Reagan was. Bush hasn't surrendered his conservative principles. Those individuals who follow the core traditional values of the national conservative movement, remain strongly in support of President Bush and his policy agenda for America. And Republicans continue to overwhelmingly support President Bush. It is you, who is out of sync with the Republican Party and the conservative movement.

Whether I disagree with President Bush about CFR, is now a moot point. The USSC will soon hear the arguments set forth by anti-CFR lawsuits, that have been filed over it being unconstitutional. They will most definitely shoot down those portions of the legislation that infringes on our guaranteed right to free speech. I'm confident of that, as is 75% of FReepers who answered the poll question. And Republicans will not be prevented from getting elected and being in the majority in 2002 and 2004. Stop being so paranoid. A little optimism goes a long way in the real world of American politics.

Actually, it is painflully apparent that I know a great deal more about politics, power and the presidency than you do!

According to whose standards? Yours? That's a joke.

When you think of something relevent to say, I'll be around. Until then, have at it.