Is this the kind of country you want? A letter to my Republican friend. ---(hurl alert)

The Crisis Papers ^ | 12.1.03 | tuckrdout

[Conspiracy Guy]

Be honest, now: would you trade your investment portfolio today with the one you had when Bill Clinton left office?

Yes I would but because I bailed at the peak 2 years before Clinton left office. But wait now. When did the E-Commerce Boom bust? When did Worldcom, Enron, etc.. establish and run their book cooking schemes? How can the left continue to say that false jobs created in a false environment that started, grew, and began failing under Clintoon are GWB's fault. Is it just because GWB doesn't rub elbows with the Ed Asners of the world or play the sax like crap, that the left hates him so.

[Always Right]

Can you, as a defender of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, support the Patriot Act, and the fact that under its provisions, at least three of your fellow citizens are today incarcerated without charge, without access to counsel, with no prospect of a trial and release – all this in violation of the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Eighth articles of the Bill of Rights?

Obviously confuse between the Patriot Act and those being held at Guantanamo Bay. The Patriot Act mostly makes it easier to obtain search warrents, tap phones, etc for those suspected of terrorism.

[weegee]

I think that it deserves a cut and paste response too (that way all libs who email bomb people with this can get a quick response to make them swallow their pride).

That said, this thread got ZOTted (and pulled) the last time this was posted.

[redbaiter]

As a philosopher, my convictions strayed from religious faith of my childhood. You have remained steadfast in your religious convictions. So, of course, we have different views on the relationship of church and state.

What? Why would one person's being religious and another's being irreligious result in their developing different views on the relationship of religion to the state? How does that follow? My theory: This is pure projection. This is the author telling you that if he were religious he would be ramming his dogma down everybody's throat, and that he suspects everyone who is religious of plotting to do just that. By this point the author is weaving like Ted Kennedy on Chappaquiddick bridge, a few grafs later he sails over the side with all that 'stolen election' malarkey.

What a condescending jerk.

[AZPubbie]

There's so many idiotic things in this screed (and a few intelligent ones). Even so, this inanity stood out:

Can you, as a defender of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, support the Patriot Act, and the fact that under its provisions, at least three of your fellow citizens are today incarcerated without charge, without access to counsel, with no prospect of a trial and release – all this in violation of the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Eighth articles of the Bill of Rights?

Setting aside, for the moment, whether it's accurate to say that at least three "citizens" are being held, and whether it makes a difference if the "citizen" was captured in a foreign country in the uniform of an enemy combatant - the Patriot Act has absolutely nothing to do with this. Regardless of whether the administration is correct in asserting this power, it is not a power claimed under the auspices of the Patriot Act, but under the Constitutional Power of the Executive Branch to wage war. If you want to challenge it on constitutional grounds, do so (I may agree with you in part), but I really wish that the civil-libertarian left would please quit raising the bugaboo of the Patriot Act to encompass everything that you don't like. It's tough to take these arguments seriously when their premises are built on nothing but crap.

[ArGee]

He basically states that he has a well-rounded and experienced life view and his conservative friend has a selfish limited view.

And yet, for all that, I'd love to see his list of what Academics have contributed to the welfare of the world as compared to, say, small business owners.

Shalom.

[Always Right]

Conservatives insist upon responsibility and accountability. Can you then allow exceptions by such well-placed individuals such as Ken Lay, Dick Cheney and Karl Rove?

Ken Lay is not a Republican and donated huge sums to the Clintons. Cheney and Rove are responsible for all their actions, they just don't have to bow down to the liberals in the Senate. Creating crap where there is none.

[MegaSilver]

For this reason, I refuse to describe the ideology and policies of the controlling faction of your party as “conservative.” Far better to describe it as “right-wing” or “radical right.”

He almost got it there.

The real problem with the GOP nowadays is that it sucks up to corporations. Of course, the Democratic leaders do that, too, but they like to make people think they don't.

What we need are not moderates, but just... conservatives. People who won't stand for corrupt leadership. People like Ronald Reagan and Barry Morris Goldwater. The Republican Party still has the moral high horse, but the GOP leaders need to stop acting so wussy.

[Always Right]

Consider next, the corruption of our politics. The right wing has repudiated our tradition of civic friendship, and instead regards its political opponents as “traitors.”

Reading Democratic websites and seeing them trash our military and cheer on Saddam's militia, I can only say they are many traitors on the Democratic side. These sickos are skeptical of US victories and are openly excited when more of our troops die. DUers were actually disappointed and in disbelief when the initial report of claimed no US fatalitites.

[Bloody Sam Roberts]

At no time in my memory, or yours, I suspect, has the rivalry between the two major parties been more mean-spirited and poisonous.

And whose fault is that? Hmmm?

I have the impression that the Republicans, in the Senate in particular have been rather subdued and civil.

It's the people like Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, Tom Daschle, Dick Gepherdt, Howard Dean, Carol Moseley Braun, Al Sharpton that have been nasty, venomous and vitrioloic. Not to mention Michael Moore and all his sycophant DemBots in Hollyweird.

What do all these folks have in common? C'mon...you can say it...They're DEMOCRATS.

[MegaSilver]

And whose fault is that? Hmmm?

I have the impression that the Republicans, in the Senate in particular have been rather subdued and civil.

It's the people like Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, Tom Daschle, Dick Gepherdt, Howard Dean, Carol Moseley Braun, Al Sharpton that have been nasty, venomous and vitrioloic. Not to mention Michael Moore and all his sycophant DemBots in Hollyweird.

What do all these folks have in common? C'mon...you can say it...They're DEMOCRATS.

Michael Moore endorsed Ralph Nader. He's not a Democrat.

[weegee]

Short answer response:

Who cares what communists think? America is a soverign nation.

"Clinton haters" despised what X42 did with the office of the presidency (and knew before he was elected that he was a lying liar). The Right Wingers never once said that the Presidency as an office was evil though (anarchist-socialists and communists do).

That distinction between the far left and right is what makes this criticism different. Bush haters make no bones about it that they hate him, his family, his political party, his political supporters, corporations, and the notion of a FREE and INDEPENDENT America.

Mr. Clinton and the DNC have been sowing the seeds of hate for a long time. They drove fictional wedges of racial and class envy/hatred. There was a big investigation into the internal threats to American security (while external threats were ignored repeatedly). Even the FBI was brought in to trumpet the issue of "racially motivated" church fires but at the end of the day the issue proved to be false.

Americans may one day be civil with one another but we have to get the congressmen who call Republicans "Nazis" on the floor out of office.

Americans may one day be civil with one another but we need to media to be honest about their left leaning bias and the awarding of a "Best Documentary" Oscar for a hoaxed up work of fiction (a film that won for political reasons, not quality or honesty).

There are some baiting the public into outragous riots and protests in the streets. Their end goal is the destruction of our government. Are all dissenters communists? No but the ringleaders quite often are. The rest are just Red Dupes.

[Bloody Sam Roberts]

So much for "civility."

And look at the byline next to it:

Justin Raimondo.

[dighton]

Yep.

[LiteKeeper]

INTREP - read again later

[CyberCowboy777]

It seems the greatest achievements of the 20th century were of war and capitalism.

Not Harvard classrooms.

Question: Do you think Wright brothers would have succeeded under the current breadth of government?

[hirn_man]

What you said.
When congressmen start attacking each other with say canes, viciously clubbing one almost to the point of death, now that would be uncivil. We still have a way to go to get back there.

[headsonpikes]

American "Liberalism" is progressive - just like cancer!

[Becki]

Sadly, much more is required if we are to restore our republic to its former health and vigor. For our country and its founding political principles are gravely endangered by a radicalism that has taken control of all branches of our government as well as our mass media.

The radicalism is the socialist/anarchist enviroment being promoted by Democrats. If the writer doesn't like that, he needs to leave that party.

Becki

[TankerKC]

Can you support an Administration that assumed power through election fraud, the disfranchisement of thousands of our fellow citizens, the violent disruption of official vote counting, and an arbitrary and incoherent ruling by five partisan judges?

He lost me there.