Skip to comments.
Conservatives, Cut Bush Slack
The Chicago Sun-Times ^
| June 22, 2002
| Thomas Roeser
Posted on 06/22/2002 9:46:05 AM PDT by quidnunc
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 2,121-2,140, 2,141-2,160, 2,161-2,180 ... 2,241-2,242 next last
To: Lazamataz
Don't sprain your arm.
To: Lazamataz
I've pulled back on being jovial and being funny. It might be a wise tack for all of us that appear to be in a minority viewpoint -- that viewpoint being, it is important to try to hold President Bush's feet to the fire as regards his conservativism,Hmmmm...
For the most part, I've been ignoring these 2100+ replies of petty squabbling...
But then out pops this ray of sunshine!!!
Not really sure what precipitated it, but that's beside the point... progress is being made.
It wasn't that long ago, Laz, that I told you that you were 2 years behind regarding statehood for Mexico...
Now you're cutting back on the wisecracks and getting more serious...
Excellent!!! (Must be that married life is working its magic wonders on you! Congratulations!)
We just might get into those Maglev cheerleading lessons a lot sooner than I thought!!!
To: DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet
If this is the plain truth, there's no reason to break out in hives over it. Nobody here thinks the creator of this anti-Bush stuff is really a Democrat. What they might think is that his materials are being used by the opposition - and whether they think that's good or bad probably depends on whether they, too, have a problem with this Republican president.
I think it's bad when Republicans provide ammunitiuon to the opposition.
For illustration, in this forum I've often encountered the justification, "we're taking the Democrats' issues from them," whenever President Bush makes a leftward turn. I and other posters have suggested that instead, these actions concede the premise of the issue to the Democrats, as they use the Presidents actions as justification for demanding even harder Leftist turns.
An example...
Bush Proposes Doubling U.S. Support for Education in Africa
Gene Sperling, former President Clinton's chief White House economic adviser and now head of the Center for Universal Education at the Council on Foreign Relations, said 75 million of the children out of school worldwide are in Africa.
"The Bush announcement proposes spending $20 million more each year for education in all of Africa, which is the cost of building just one large high school in the United States," Sperling said. "This proposal is very disappointing."
There was another example on one of the $500 million African AIDS theads last week, but somehow the whole thread got deleted. Lotta that going around.
Bush's Section 245(i) Amnesty trick is another example. Americans are in no mood for another Amnesty. There was no groundswell for it, it wasn't on the radar. Then Bush tries to have it attached to the Homeland Defense bill this Spring, and there's an uproar.
So the Democrats pull it and are now working an a 245(i) Amnesty proposal of their own.
Doesn't really seem like the President has taken their issues away, does it?
To: Miss Marple
I didn't mean to give the impression I don't approve of Kyoto. I don't know that I like the replacement winding it's way thru the legislative process about points that one corporation can sell to another to get them under the environmental wire. It's kind of like Kyoto, but can be gotten around by buying points.
To: Reagan Man
You are doing the equivalent of wrapping yourself in the flag. By pasing the farm bill whose main beneficaries are a select few large farmers doesn't exactly broaden his base of support. Most Iowa farmers are conservative, and well proportioned into Democrats, Republicans, and Independents. Sum total however their number is far higher than large corporate farmers. How is appealing to the select few going to gain the votes of many?
if you don't compromise your principles to some extent, you'll never accomplish a damn thing.
And completely capitulating your principles and walking away with nothing means accomplishing even more? How? Please explain. Again, on the farm bill we walked away with NOTHING, nothing that helps bring the farm prices up and seeks financial independence for farmers and lets the free market work. That is not compromise, that is capitulation. How do you accomplish anything by giving up territory to the opposition? How will you make gains by giving up territory and pushing yourself into the minority, creating a bigger battle for yourself not only to gain new territory, but reconquer the territory you just gave up?
How do you build coalition by capitulation? How do you build coalition by giving up territory (policy, in this case) and letting the enemy occupy it? Where then is your place in the coalition? A coalition implies equality, how do you maintain equality by giving up ground and making yourself the minority? How will you ever gain majority by putting your principles in the minority on any given legislation?
Essentially you are saying that we got to lose to win. How is this any different from the very people you blast against, who run people like Pat Buchanan, and Alan Keyes, etc? Their philosophy also is that sometime you got to lose to win. How is that any different?
To: MJY1288; Mo1; Lazamataz; anniegetyourgun
go back and look over his contributions here and on AGYG's compliment thread and and freepmail me your answer
I really don't understand the reference to the Compliment Thread. I've read just about all of it, and don't honestly recall seeing anything from anyone that was objectionable.
I saw a lot of Laz's comments, and fact he and I were horsing around a bit early in the thread, but I don't remember seeing things that were not in the spirit of Compliment Weekend.
To: Willie Green
But then out pops this ray of sunshine!!! Not really sure what precipitated it, but that's beside the point... progress is being made. Now you're cutting back on the wisecracks and getting more serious... Excellent!!! (Must be that married life is working its magic wonders on you! Congratulations!)Well, to be fair, give GW Bush some credit here. His leftward lurch shocked me out of my complacency-zone.
You will NEVER get me to write "Go Pat Go!", though.
To: Sabertooth
I really don't understand the reference to the Compliment Thread. I've read just about all of it, and don't honestly recall seeing anything from anyone that was objectionable. I saw a lot of Laz's comments, and fact he and I were horsing around a bit early in the thread, but I don't remember seeing things that were not in the spirit of Compliment Weekend.Who knows, bro.
Who cares.
To: Free Vulcan
How will you make gains by giving up territory and pushing yourself into the minority, creating a bigger battle for yourself not only to gain new territory, but reconquer the territory you just gave up? Maybe we could call it the McNamara strategy...hey, it worked so well in Vietnam!! /sarcasm
To: Lazamataz
Who knows, bro. Who cares.
Aha! You _______!
You just found yourself on another list, bucko.
To: Sabertooth
You just found yourself on another list, bucko. LOL!
To: Free Vulcan
I explained my political position to you and I've explained the political position held by President Bush and his administration. I sense you have some frustration and anger towards Bush&CO. While I can appreciate your frustration with certain decisions by PresBush, you shouldn't let your anger blind you to the realities of politics. With all due respect, I don't believe you're thinking rationally or logically. I would suggest some readings on the topic of American politics. Your assumptions look all wrong to me.
>>>capitulation... and letting the enemy occupy it?
There has been no capitulation by the Bush administartion. And the real enemy that conservative Republicans face, are liberal Democrats who promote European style socialism. The enemy isn't most rank and file Republicans, conservatives or the many independents, who find a majority of President Bushes agenda quite legitamate and acceptable.
To: Lazamataz
You will NEVER get me to write "Go Pat Go!", though.Been there, done that.
(But I think the thread was pulled, so you're off the hook.)
To: Reagan Man
Frustration? Anger? Illlogical? Irrational? Ignorant? Blinded? Why don't you stop trying to psychoanalyze me and stick to the point. If you got an argument present it, don't try to attack my character or question my mental or emotional state. That is the tactics of cheap trial lawyers and Marxists, a propaganda tool, and is not a counterargument. It's also rather elitist, and a logical fallacy.
And the real enemy that conservative Republicans face, are liberal Democrats who promote European style socialism.
Yes bud, and those enemies won a very real victory in the farm bill. They now own the farm issue, because it is their policy that rules the day, ie 'European style socialism.' That pretty much sums up the farm bill. If that is not capitulation, what is?
70% found Bill Clinton acceptable, all thru his administration. Do you find Clinton legitimate and acceptable?
To: Reagan Man
Misfits like Twodees, need not apply. Malcontents like DoughtyOne, need not apply.
Militants like tpaine, need not apply.
Why don't all you extremists, reactionaries and absolutists get together and just walk out on that political fringe a little more and jump off into the empty void of unreality. Face it, you're basically there already. Why not complete the move.
Not sure if you remember posting this, but to me it appears as an attack on anyone who doesn't agree with you and your "can't we all just get a long" speech. Kind of funny how you call for unity but then attack those you expect to unite.
It looks like you were hankering for trouble and you found it. As long as you stand by your origanal attacks I'll stand by mine.
Unless you have something meaningful to add (other then more name calling as you've obviously had a lot of practice at that--I guess when you have no friends you get good at those kinds of things), I'll assume we agree to disagree. I value various opinions on the right, whereas you only agree with whatever GW says.
To: cascademountaineer
Cascademountaineer wrote:
Looks like this thread is going to hit 2k soon. Congratulations, you posted a collosus.Yeah, I never expected it to get this amount of traffic.
To: Free Vulcan
If you want to have civil discourse, fine. But right now I don't see yo'ure willingness to engage in constructive discussion. This isn't about philosophy or ideology and it surely isn't about perfection. This is about raw poltiics. If you have something relevent to discuss about politics, fine. If you don't have the stomach for raw politics, take your anger to another forum. Getting overly emotional about politics, will solve none of the problems facing America today. When you have something to offer along political lines, I'll be around.
To: Reagan Man
Fine, take your ball and go home. No problem with me.
To: for-q-clinton
>>Not sure if you remember posting this, but to me it appears as an attack on anyone who doesn't agree with you and your "can't we all just get a long" speech. Kind of funny how you call for unity but then attack those you expect to unite.I remember it well. I don't recall using any profanity either or name calling. The words I used have meanings in politics. You may find it funny, but I was being very serious, as usual. In fact let's repeat that entire post again.
Conservative Republicans unite, not in unanimity, but rather in a common cause. To beat back the liberal and socialist Democrats in this coming election and take back the Senate, while increasing Republican majorities in the House. Let's give President Bush elected officials he can better work with. Let's elect more conservative minded individuals and move the conservative agenda forward.
Rah Rah Rah!!!
Misfits like Twodees, need not apply.
Malcontents like DoughtyOne, need not apply.
Militants like tpaine, need not apply.
Why don't all you extremists, reactionaries and absolutists get together and just walk out on that political fringe a little more and jump off into the empty void of unreality. Face it, you're basically there already. Why not complete the move.
1379 posted on 6/23/02 12:07 PM Mountain by Reagan Man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
To: Free Vulcan
I'm not going anywhere.
When you're ready to pursue this discussion further, let me know.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 2,121-2,140, 2,141-2,160, 2,161-2,180 ... 2,241-2,242 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson