Posted on 03/21/2006 5:56:45 AM PST by areafiftyone
"This is the best anyone in memory has bitc* slapped Helen. She was in need of this for a long time."
Yeah -- it was even better than sticking her in the back of the room and ignoring her!
:-D
ping- so I can read it later
The spending issue is no reason NOT to support the president on the War on Terror in Afghanistan and Iraq. The Global War on Terror is THE most important issue. We must deal with this issue. Acting in the manner of the Clinton administration's Global Annoyance with Terror is not a viable option.
Total war, Total victory; first and foremost.
He didn't ask your opinion either, but you gave it to him didn't you? Don't want to talk about that do you little man.
Little embarrassed aren't you? I know, I can tell.
Little insecure about the work you do as well. Don't worry, you can always change carriers. Being a nerd doesn't have to be the end of it.
You'll graduate to something better eventually. At least something better than picking on newbie's just because you're BIG BAD PROGRAMMING MAN. GOODY GOODY
Boy are you a looser.
Yes, and Helen Thomas played her predictable moonbat self. It made a great sound bite for the Pres to look good.
Strategery... :-)
Truth is dependent upon Republicans being in power.
How witty....
Thank you. I'm very funny.
Many of my posts on threads like this are usually over the average partisan's head.
You are in awe of your own abilities. That makes one of us.
Wow a recap speech of all the other sales speeches...
Its still not impressing me as brilliant. Just another unthinking attack by a malcontent with nothing of substance to back it up.
Bush is nothing more than a politician.
He's the first President of the 21st century, the leader of the free world, and the man who is keeping my family safe from foreign attack. He has received more votes for President than any man in history. The light of God shines upon his countenance while millions of people pray for him each and every day. The effects of his existence will be felt for generations and beyond.
As a 3rd party voter your effect may extend to which dish to pass at the next constipation party convention at the VFW in Hickory NC
President Bush's presentation yesterday morning was outstanding. This was superbly delivered.
Please show me the verified link where President Bush stated that he had a conference yesterday for the sole purpose of boosting his sagging "ratings". Can you do that please? I didn't think so. Therefore his, and your, statement is wrong. Accept it and move on. The whole "poll" thing is stupid and, if you used that logic, he'd have a conference every day.
All I ever hear from these people are that every time his ratings drop the White House pulls out the terrorist card. I'm sick of hearing it and said so.
By the way, "loser" has one "o" not two.
The president submitted the budgets to Congress that were highly socialist, i.e., huge spending increases in existing social programs and initiating new ones. This is before Congress even starts inputting their leftist ideas. Also, Bush did not veto any Congressional appropriations. Congress is controlled by Republicans as is the WH. This is not a "party thing" since our guys are in control. This is a "liberal versus conservative thing" and we all should be outraged at what has emerged from this Republican Congress and Republican WH. We are a conservative forum, not a RNC rally hall.
I think we can continue to work on this without handing Congress to the left.
But Congress is already controlled by the left. When you add the RATs to the leftist Republicans, and when you see what type of legislation emerges from Congress, nobody here can doubt that the left already controls Congress. Everybody here on this forum should be working to make our guys stop legislating as leftists.
This is why we need a president to override the leftist Congress, and that has not happened. We need to work on the here and now, not worry about the next election. We need to show these leftists in Washington that the voting public demands conservative agenda. After all, we did vote in Republican control in all three branches. The problem is that Republican does not guarantee conservatism as we have witnessed.
The spending issue is no reason NOT to support the president on the War on Terror in Afghanistan and Iraq.
We all support the WOT. Not all of us support the tactics. For example, I was outraged when Bush sent aid and charity (taxpayer money) to Iran on two occasions directly (in addition to indirect money from us through other sources), even after Iran was building IEDs that are killing our troops, as Iran funnels terrorists into Iraq, and as they develop their nuclear weapon program. Giving money to Iran (that probably was used to help their nuclear weapon program) should not be supported by any conservative.
Also, there are tactics that are not being used in the WOT. We are not waging financial warfare with the nations that support the terrorists, i.e., we have not cut off IMF and World Bank money to them, we have not frozen their assets, we have not stopped trade with these nations (including food and medical supplies), we have not disrupted their currencies or markets, and other ways to fight them that does not cost 18,000 lives and $400 billion dollars. We could spend very little and do great damage to them, but Bush has chosen not to do that.
When we occupied Japan and German after WW II, we controlled their media to prevent new brainwashing and to "de-brainwash" the citizens. In Iraq, we refuse to control the media, and the results in Iraq versus the results in Japan and Germany following WW II speak for themselves.
Do not mistake "support for the war on terror" with legitimate criticism. There are better tactics that can be used.
Total war, total victory.
Again, we all agree. The reality is there has not been total war. We allow the use of mosques as bunkers. We do not control the media, as stated above.
In World War II, there is again a striking comparison. Japan was a very cultured society as was Germany. "Culture" here refers to modern day knowledge, study, education, etc. Iraq, by comparison is in the stone age. We napalmed Tokyo as we did Dresden. We carpet bombed. Our goal was to make the nation (the NATION) incapable of winning and to demoralize the citizens. We killed millions of civilians. We even nuked two cities. The tactic worked. They fought to the end, but we broke the back of the enemy. The enemy in in WW II was defined as the nation fighting us.
Why can we destroy two cultured societies in order to achieve victory in WW II, yet we treat Iraq, a stone age nation, like we can't touch them???
We know what nations are fighting us today--Iran and Syria to name two. We are doing nothing against them, let alone the tactics we used in WW II. If we can attack Japan and Germany in WW II, being cultured as they were, why can't we attack these nations at war with us who are back in the stone age?
As long as we fail to break the back of the enemy, "total victory", as you say, will never happen. A war should be fought to win. Win means total victory. Giving Iran and Syria a free pass can never give us a total victory.
Had we used today's tactics in WW II, had we let Germans take sanctuary in churches, had we not broken the back of the German and Japanese nation, and had we not caused pain and suffering to the people and caused them to lose spirit, we may not have won.
I'm not advocating all these tactics today, but take just one--surely, we should have taken 100% control of the media.
Do not mistake "support for the war on terror" versus legitimate criticism of tactics used. Sending aid and money to Iran, for just one example, while they are killing our troops and building nukes is nuts in the minds of any conservative.
If Gore or Kerry were the president using these same tactics, my views would be no different. If Congress were controlled by the RATs, my views today would be no different.
Too many people here on this forum look at everything through party-line glasses. This causes them to support leftist agendas and to withhold criticism of Congress (Republicans) and the president (Republican).
I am a conservative. This is a conservative forum. I have never forgotten that fact in my postings. A high percentage of members here forget they are conservatives and forget this is a conservative forum. since every post they make is filtered through the party-line sifter. Sean Hannity looks at things as "Democrat versus Republican"--that is a horrible way to look at things but that is what too many here on this forum do. We SHOULD all look at things as "liberal versus conservative", not "RAT versus Republican". Check out the home page of FR. This is a CONSERVATIVE forum.
We know you do not fight liberal agenda. We know you don't care about the leftist drift. All you care about is bashing RATs.
The one thing you are incapable of understanding is that this is a conservative forum.
I can't believe you have to ask this. Isn't it obvious the newbie was just trying to make a point?????? That President Bush should KEEP DOING THESE SPEECHES. Not stop, when it's well known THEY WORK in getting the American People to see what's going on?
Didn't take a brain surgeon to see that. The President is likable and when he talks, the American People agree with him. His point, really, had nothing to do with poll watching.
I'm picking on you, because I hate when guys like you try to make your point by stating your seniority here at The Freep. Like that makes you right. That's exactly what you did because your substance was lacking.
There are plenty of newbie's that say dumb stuff. This guy was right on the money.
Besides, I saw you were quoting polls several posts back anyway. Might want to lay off the hypocrisy.
By the way, "loser" has one "o" not two.
I never use spell check and could care less. AND as you say... who asked you anyway? ( Don't get all bent out of shape, this last comment was suppose to be lighthearted )
Really? Can you show me the sarcasm tag?
If it's true then why did he NOT respond, but as with most people who say things like that ... and then disappear.
How do YOU know his intentions? Are you his spokesman? I only have YOUR word on this subject, and judging by the way you react, your word means very little.
Tell you what, I made the comment to him, not you, why not bow gracefully out of this and let him stick up for himself, okay? Thanks.
After Appomatox, everyone remembered that they had always supported Lincoln, just as (I am told) every Steelers fan now recalls prophesying the triumph of their team in the middle of the season when the playoffs looked hopeless. Such fans, such supporters, are welcome to the party. It is human nature to lose hope in tough times and then to forget that loss when those times change. Nobody would judge such folk harshly, but better still to have been more a simple human, to have been a civilized man. It is the nature of a civilized man to remain undeterred by obstacles in pursuit of his great goals.
There are forty percent, we are told, of such men and women in this war. Aren’t you glad that we can always tell our children that we were in that forty percent and know it is the truth? When we look up at Rushmore and see George W. Bush there, wouldn’t you be glad that before victory was obvious to even a Democrat you saw it coming? These are good days to support the President!
I am proud to be one of that 40 per cent. I have no respect for your opinions, and the reasons I gave in my earlier posts.
Conservatism has many variations. Yours is the "glass is empty, things are crap" wing of conservatism, and you are carrying water for the Rats.
I have nothing further to say to you, and further posts you make will be taken in the spirit which you obviously intend.
Isn't partisanship grand? You don't have to think for yourself and you can take your talking points from the party's mouthpiece. I'm sure 220 years later that's exactly what the Framers had in mind for our nation to have devolved to.
and the man who is keeping my family safe from foreign attack
Really? All by his lonesome? Guess everybody in the Armed Services can go home then?
He has received more votes for President than any man in history.
Well that's sort of logical isn't it, considering there are more people in this nation of states than at any other time in history. Of course he would have received the most votes.
The light of God shines upon his countenance while millions of people pray for him each and every day
Okay really, he is just a man, and a politician at that. Did you read my highlight? Oh I'm sorry I just noticed I didn't put the author of the quote the first time,,,,
The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual--George Washington
With statements like yours, you would do well to remember General Washington's words.
The effects of his existence will be felt for generations and beyond.
Oh great. Just what we need, Another politician ignoring the limitations of his office and putting a 'stamp' on history. Sort of like FDR? Wilson? Teddy Roosevelt?
Partisanship is what gets people elected. You have no interest in that goal, so I must discount your statements.
Reporters like Helen Thomas and David Gregory are so filled with misguided hate that they can't control their evil actions when it comes to the president and Republicans. Just like dems on the Senate judicial committee during hearings and the Feingolds and Deans of the world, when Americans have the chance to see the left's behavior, we always win.
Helen Thomas doesn't care what she does or says as long as the Leftists keep kissing her butt and praising her every time she opens her mouth she'll keep it up. She never even got this much attention from the Leftists when Clinton was president but as soon as Bush was in office all of a sudden the leftists thought she was the greatest thing since sliced bread. She's a sucker! If a Democrat gets in office and she even DARES say something that disturbs their little world she will be hated as much as she is loved by them now. She doesn't even realize that she is being played by them.
You're big into these tags aren't you. Show me the smart tag on your post.
If it's true then why did he NOT respond
If I remember correctly he did respond. I thought I saw it in there somewhere. Chk your comments. I guess this makes you a liar too.
Are you his spokesman?
What, do I have to reiterate to you what I wrote? Read my last post. I told you why I responded. You can read can't you?
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.