Furor erupts over Web site monitoring of Middle Eastern scholars (America haters whine)

For instance, instead of sticking to clear facts such as "government has gotten bigger", on which open-minded people would at least hear them out, Libertarians tend to rapidly dive into the tin-foil land of lies such as "everything that government does is unConstitutional", or "everything that Republicans do is socialist", and other such nonsense.

Hyperbole. The fact that the feds do quite alot of things that are unconstitutional is not "everything" and if you could just name one libertarian who argues the way you suggest, your claim would have much more credibility.

The above statement isn't logical given what I said. If I am angry it is with government officials who have made extremely bad foreign policy decisions. How that "blinds" me is anyone's guess.
You refuse to accept that therea re leftists who hate America and are standing up for them.
Just because opposing a policy does not make you an enemy of the country, it does not follow that opposing a policy means that you are not an enemy. Teh communists are enemies.

Certain Communist HATE the US and will oppose virtually any action by it

Which is why we have so many US government officials openly embracing communism? If MFN (which George Bush wholeheartedly endorses) is not openly embracing communism, what is?

You are confusing Post-nationalist corporatism and communism. If you haven't noticed, the commmunists oppose Free Trade, GATT, teh WTO, the World Bank, IMF....
Not all socialist ideologies are the same.

"The complete conversion of an entire industry over to government control - airport security - (communist plank)"

You reveal yourself to be ethicly bankrupt by making that statement.

Earlier, you pretended that Bush was opposed to arming pilots, however, the provision to arm pilots was IN THE VERY SAME BILL that federalized airport workers.

Yet after I pointed out that Bush had signed two "arming pilots" bills into law, you now bash Bush federalizing airport workers.

If Bush had vetoed the "federalizing airport workers" bill, then you would be screaming that Bush was against arming pilots and therefore against the 2nd Amendment. In reality, for Bush to support our 2nd Amendment rights, he had to sign the bill that managed to make it through a Democratic Party-controlled Senate, which included the federalization provision that you are now bashing Bush about.

Typical. You're just another ideologue who will say anything if it makes anyone in the established 2 parties look bad, even if you have to contradict yourself about pilots rights and 2nd Amendment rights in order to make your next point.

"The insistence upon a new cabinet beaurocracy to handle "homeland defense" with broad powers to jail people without probable cause or due process."

You've obviously misunderstood the concept of a war zone.

Battlefield combatants can and have been detained in all wars, up to and including the Revolutionary War, without trial and regardless of citizenship. American citizens who answered Hitler's call for Aryan American volunteers found themselves locked up in American POW camps by the hundreds during WW2, for instance, and those who didn't wear a Wehrmacht uniform were shot on sight per the Geneva Convention as spies and sabatuers, with the exception that those spies and sabatuers who were arrested on American soil during WW2 were given trials by military tribunals, precisely what has been proposed in broad daylight today.

If you are in a war zone, then war rules apply (and no, it does NOT depend on any "war declaration" from Congress).

Bush pulled the U.S. out of the International (Socialist) Criminal Court, for another. - Southack

"No he didn't. He merely postponed it and demanded some changes in its charter. He fully supports it otherwise since he is asking it to prosecute Hussein. He will probably use his former demands as a bargaining chip if the UN doesn't cede to his plans for Iraqi invasion." - Demidog

America Leads By Leaving The ICC - CATO Institute (Libertarian Thinktank) Praises President Bush For Formally Withdrawing From The International Criminal Court - Click Here For Source

"Good grief man, stop kissing Bush's butt long enough to see what he's done to advance socialist/communist agendas."

Again, I'll state that you are ethically bankrupt. Ask Communist dictator Castro if he thinks that Bush's firm stance against lifting our embargo on Cuba is pro-Communist.

Clearly such a thought is absurd, as are your knee-jerk anti-Bush rants.

I've provided a link above from the CATO institute that flatly contradicts you, yet it is clear to me that mere facts aren't going to get in the way of your mindless anti-Republicanism.

Go away. Anyone who is so unpersuaded by facts has no business further disrupting FR.

You refuse to accept that therea re leftists who hate America and are standing up for them.

Oh B.S. There are leftists who hate America and wish to turn it into a communist state. Bush is helping them immensely by supporting most of their planks.

Just because opposing a policy does not make you an enemy of the country, it does not follow that opposing a policy means that you are not an enemy.

And? This is important why?

Teh communists are enemies.

The Communists have been wildly successful in getting their planks passed as law in America. Enemies? Not to the state they're not.

You are confusing Post-nationalist corporatism and communism.

No I'm not. You can't actually be suggesting that China is not really communist anymore. Absurd.

If you haven't noticed, the commmunists oppose Free Trade, GATT, teh WTO, the World Bank, IMF....

The institutions you mentioned are communist in nature. They seek to control the means of production on a global scale. GATT and NAFTA are not "free trade" by any stretch of the imagination. They are trade controls. The fact that there are alot of folks who oppose these organizations is not an indication that communist leaders oppose them.

Earlier, you pretended that Bush was opposed to arming pilots, however, the provision to arm pilots was IN THE VERY SAME BILL that federalized airport workers.

So? Congress often combines issues. The FACT remains that Bush did oppose arming pilots. It just so happens that Bush wanted to federalize airport workers more than he wanted to oppose arming pilots.

The problem for you is that the facts don't support you. Rather than considering what is being done, you want to take some small "conservative" issue and ignore the larger picture. The larger picture shows the Bush administration to be spending money like there was an endless supply.

I will give you this regarding the communist issue: Bush isn't a true communist since he doesn't openly reject religion. Then again, he couldn't get away with that. So, he'll continue to support the income tax and the control over religion that it asserts. He'll attempt to federalize religion via the "faith-based charities" plan.

He'll grow government by unprecedented leaps and bounds and people like you will still claim that he's conservative. Your eyes are shut.

"The FACT remains that Bush did oppose arming pilots. ... The problem for you is that the facts don't support you."

You are confused. Bush signed two, count them, two pro-gun bills into law (regarding arming pilots). In addition, Bush ordered Ashcroft and Solicitor General Olsen to inform the Supreme Court that the official U.S. position on the 2nd Amendment was that it protected individual rights rather than the "collective rights" of the Communists on the Left. Further, Bush signed a concealed carry bill into law while governor of Texas.

But in clear oblivion to those facts, you claim otherwise.

Yet you are physically unable to show a SINGLE quote or link that substantiates your wild-eyed "Bush opposes arming pilots" nonsense.

Hmmm... Facts? Who's ignoring them and who's posting them?! Did you even bother going to the Cato link that I provided you above? You know, the link that flat out debunked your claim about Bush and the ICC?

That "fact" thing sure seems to be giving your fringe-party spin some real fits...

"The problem for you is that the facts don't support you. Rather than considering what is being done, you want to take some small "conservative" issue and ignore the larger picture. The larger picture shows the Bush administration to be spending money like there was an endless supply."

Nonsense. You don't even know what you are talking about.

Facts? Bush has already vetoed $8 Billion worth of pork this year. That might be small potatoes to some, but it's real money, and it is also something that one would hardly associate with someone who is supposedly "spending money like there was an endless supply" as you groundlessly claim.

Facts?

Did you even bother to educate yourself on this subject? If you had paid the LEAST bit of attention, then you would already know that Congress has now gone about the longest amount of time, ever, without passing a budget. Instead of passing a budget, Congress keeps passing "continuing spending" resolutions from month to month.

Why? Because Democrats want a larger budget than our President, to the tune of ANOTHER $8 Billion. Since the two Houses of Congress can't agree on the Democrats larger budget, no bill can get passed save the "continuing spending" ones that lock in spending at last fiscal year's lower rate (as opposed to the mandatory annual increased amounts typical of each new year).

That's hardly the pattern of behavior of someone who acts as though he can spend "money like there was an endless supply", but you'd actually have to pay attention (read: open your eyes) to know that fact.

Anyone can rant endlessly without facts, as you've done and continue to do, but it is the people who actually take time to view what is really going on who seem to have something worth contributing to this forum. Take the hint...

"According to the Cato institute, Clinton was more conservative than Bush."

With your track record at imagining facts to support your wild-eyed rants, I would have to doubt, offhand, that even the Libertarian CATO institute would make that claim which you attribute to them.

But if they did say it, then they were wrong.

Item #1 on the Conservative Test is being pro-life.

Bush is pro-life. Clinton is pro-choice. Clearly Clinton is NOT more Conservative.

Item #2 on the Conservative Test is standing up to international socialism.

To wit: Bush killed the ICC (which I even provided you a link -above- from the CATO Institute - which flatly debunked your bizarre assertation to the contrary on that fact). Bush also killed the leftwing Kyoto global warming Treaty and the Soviet ABM treaty. Clinton, in contrast, signed the ICC treaty and favored the Kyoto Treaty so much that he wrote an Executive Order forcing all government agencies to act as though it was law (which Bush had to counteract with his own EO). Clearly Bush is more Conservative.

Item #3 on the Conservative Test is the 2nd Amendment.

Bush signed two pro-gun bills into law as President (+1 as gov) and instituted "individual rights" on the 2nd Amendment. In contrast, Clinton signed the Brady Bill and the Assault Weapons Bill and the "Instant Check" bill into law. Clearly Bush is more Conservative.

Item #4 on the Conservative Test is: Taxes.

Bush signed into law the largest Dollar-value tax cut in world history. Clinton signed into law the largest Dollar-value tax increase in world history.

And the list goes on and on and on and on and on...

Not that facts will mean anything to you. Heck, I provided a link above that flatly contradicted your own bizarre claims and you didn't even have the decency to admit that you were wrong.

Ergo, you are hopeless. You are an ideologue who will never change your stripes. Shoot, even after I finish embarassing you (And I'm nowhere near finished with you yet) you'll probably just troll as some newbie and make more of the same long-since-debunked comments. I've seen your type before, after all. The post and run, I don't have to show any sources or links type. The type who never admits to being wrong. The type that repeats disproven claims in other places. The type that claims that no on else has their "facts". No, your type isn't new around FR.

If you are in a war zone, then war rules apply. - Southack

"Show me where it says so in the constitution. Show us your work, use lots of paper."

Not that I have much faith that facts will sway you...

Article II
Section 2.
He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur;

Treaty in Question: U.S. Signed and Ratified the Geneva Convention - Which Defines War Zones, Where War Rules Apply

You are confused. Bush signed two, count them, two pro-gun bills into law (regarding arming pilots).

Make up your mind. Why were you claiming that one bill was merely the inclusion of the armed pilots issue within a broader bill? Now you want to claim it was two seperate bills. Fine. The Bush administration came out in strong opposition to the armed pilots issue early on. Fact.

If they were actually two seperate bills, you can show me the links to the bills you are talking about. I would take your word for it but you've changed your story.

In addition, Bush ordered Ashcroft and Solicitor General Olsen to inform the Supreme Court that the official U.S. position on the 2nd Amendment was that it protected individual rights rather than the "collective rights" of the Communists on the Left.

You are confused. Ashcroft doesn't "notify the supreme court" to do anything. He wrote a letter...it wasn't to the Supreme Court. He (Ashcroft) has also contradicted this opinion by his actions. If it is an individual right "not to be infringed" then the FBI and Justice department should not be enforcing laws which prevent citizens from carrying firearms aboard airplanes.

It's a "right" as long as it's convenient for Bush and Ashcroft.

But in clear oblivion to those facts, you claim otherwise.

B.S. I haven't claimed that Bush didn't sign CCW legislation in TX nor had I addressed any of the other issues apart from the pilots.

You know, the link that flat out debunked your claim about Bush and the ICC?

It didn't debunk anything. The Cato institute agreed with Bush. That doesn't debunk anything.

"The Bush administration came out in strong opposition to the armed pilots issue early on. Fact."

Source?

You have none. You are bankrupt. At best, and I mean at BEST, you can show that the media CLAIMED that Bush was against arming pilots. What you can't show (yes, that's right you can't show it because you've either made it up or actually believed some leftists in the press) is that Bush himself opposed arming pilots.

That never happened, and you are merely repeating a myth that you can't substantiate (as in: you can't post a source link).

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.