Posted on 08/28/2002 9:16:46 AM PDT by sixmil
Try again. Your guilt by association only works on those who don't know any better.
I'm not such a one.
But listening at you, I guess we can throw away all that Dr. Thomas Sowell has written, since he started out as a Marxist. So did Ronald Radosh. So did David Horowitz. In my teens I would have made Farrakhan proud and Malcolm X smile.
People change.
But you won't allow people to change.
Whatever.
Your brand of "conservatism" isn't worth a bucket of warm spit. Your brand does not attempt to convince. It only casts out and repels.
But like I said, I'm up in your grill just like I'm in the face of the most rabid Leftist.
And I won't be moved.
Thanks for the advice, however, I do not take clues from Neo-cons. I march to moral principle and only moral principle. It so happens Israel has the high moral ground on this and I can logically destroy anyone's argument that says otherwise -- including Buchanan. Would you care to defend the Palestinian terrorists? I'm well versed in this arena and I am ready for any of you. I don't believe in "moral equivalence" in the Israeli/arab conflict.
But, moral aspect aside, since I am a Christian, I do believe that the jews are there for a reason, that they have won numerous miraculous victories for a reason, but secularists like Buchanan and others can't see it because they are spiritually blind.
I agree with many of his points, so I guess that makes me some kind of wacko.
His preoccupation with Isreal is bothersome and I think he does disregard some practical realities regarding the place & role of the world's only superpower, but I am in near total agreement with him on domestic issues.
Scary, huh?
I didn't change the subject. I defended my previous position, which I maintain. You are the one who refuses to support your assertions with fact.
What you said couldn't be done in years and without tens of thousands of dead Americans was done in months with 40 casualties
What, exactly, "was done" in Afghanistan?
Mutually assured destruction vs. they kill us and we do nothing.
Deterrence might work if Iraq itself were theatening to invade the US or neighboring states, but that's not what we're afraid of this time. We fear that Saddam is arming and sheltering al Qaeda. We need to define any Iraqi military facility that Saddam refuses to let us inspect as a facility that won't be there tomorrow morning.
And to that I say, "Ooh-rah!" Normally I would say, "Hooah!" But I was not a jarhead. ;-)
Actually, I always thought I was 'mainstream.' I AM a reagan Republican...so I was right: posters like Zviadist ARE saying that if we don't agree with THEIR ideas of 'conservatism'...we are Nazis.
That IS a leftist tactic.
Whew. I sit corrected....the BS is getting so hot and heavy in here with this neo-con crap that I wasn't sure.
--A Republican is for tax cuts first and never criticizes Bush. Lott is a Republican.
--A Neo-Con is for Israel first and never criticizes Sharon. Kristol is a neo-con.
--A Conservative is for America first and criticizes both Bush and Sharon. Buchanan is a conservative.
I will try to make this simple for an mind that can't seem to grasp complex ideas.
TALIBAN = ENEMY & AL QUAIDA
TALIBAN IS GONE FROM POWER in Afghanistan.
While it would be nice to "get" Osama bin laden, ONE person ALONE didn't do 9/11. Do you even know about the training camps in Jakarta Indonesia in the late 80's? Because if you do/did, you would know that this threat is a complex set of training camps and dispersing of terrorists around the world. It was not caught and stopped in time, and spread like a wildfire. To think that all our problems lay only in Afghanistan is the epitomy of ignorance.
Are we now forcing our great fighting men to play bodyguard to their unelected and ridiculous "president"? Yep. And it's degrading and disgraceful to the United States Military.
I speak to them often, and I can assure you, OUR GREAT FIGHTING MEN AND WOMEN RESPECT AND LOVE THIS COMMANDER IN CHIEF! Same goes for the Sec. of Defense Rumsfield. You really need to SPEAK to a few of them. And let me tell you something else.. it DOES matter that they are willing to fight and die at this mans words and commands.
They were NONE TO HAPPY under Clinton. His futile attempts and reactions to pervious terrorists attacks frustrated them in their inadequacy. They knew he hated people in uniform. He even asked the military people coming into the white house to come in civilian clothes. Nice huh?
Also, had they done what he did in lying under oath, they would have been court martialed. They also knew that he had protested against "our own military" while in England as a young man. He said he was going to join the Gaurd, then never did. He is a draft dodger pure and simple. And a traitor!! There never was, nor will there ever be respect for Clinton by our Nations Military! But there IS for President Bush.
As to your claim of the "UN-ELECTED President".. good GOD!!... You have GOT to be kidding? Next time put a </sarcasm so we know when you're done with the sarcasm and false innuendo's.
Or do you think we should CONTINUE to spend tons of money PROVING FOR THE FOURTH TIME, that the count was accurate and President Bush won, and further PROVE what a SORE LOSER GORE IS?
It is very obvious what your agenda is on this forum. But you are in way over your head. Next time do some research before stating such blatantly ignorant dribble.
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.