Free Republic

Thanks. Looking back Wpin looks to me like a conformist. He made these posts when such comments were popular on talk radio (not Rush thank goodness) and here even. After the election he starts complaining about McCain as the crowd does. I see very little original thoughts in his posts.

I am anti-conformist. Back before the election I was scared that if I was too tough on McCain, Id get kicked off here, so I did it carefully. Tried to warn election day would not be happy.

If wpin was a bit more polite, I would not of bothered.

And that means NO MORE RINOs like George W. Bush.

3rd parties ALWAYS lead to Democrat victories. They're historically a disaster for conservatism.

You are absolutely right. The only solution is to move the Republican party back to conservatism.

Those comments are breathtaking. They’d be hilarious if meant as satire.

Bush on a par with Reagan? John McCain led us in the right direction? I guess an R next the name is only qualification for greatness that is necessary in a commander in chief? WPIN? I have to disagree. I give low marks to the Bushes, Ford, Nixon, Ike, and Hoover.

Reagan and Coolidge were the last 2 good Presidents in my opinion. Who else left the nation in better shape than they found it? What other GOP Presidents left the GOP in better shape than they were at before he took office? The low regarded Warren Harding was apparently a much better President than most of his successors. Warren Harding the third best President of last 90 years. Take that Presidential historians. I wish we would return to normalcy in 2012 and nominate an ardent proponent of small government.

I don’t know what we are arguing about. I didn’t suggest anyone should support RINOs. I said RINOs lead to disaster just like democrats.

It may be hard to get the GOP back on track but it seems to be 1000% times easier than any other scenario for conservative government. Do you have another scenario? If conservatives can’t take over the Republican party they certainly can’t form a third party that would drive the GOP put of existence.

Nope. You started it. You end it.

I thought you already 'ended it' by 'surrendering'?

LOL, the Mad Puppy LIVES!

Dearest rabs,
I have requested no more posting encyclopedias from you. You're filling up my "My Comments" page with clutter.
You have your groupthink pals around you for moral support. Post to them. They'll pat you on the back and help your flagging self-esteem.
Thanks.

You're a coward.

Thanks for the informative post Rabs, I was struck by this sad story:

2006-12-02: DUI illegal kills Marine home on leave from Iraq (WND)
One week after he slammed his Nissan Sentra into a car waiting at a stoplight, killing a U.S. Marine and his female passenger, Eduardo Raul Morales-Soriano, whose blood alcohol level was measured at .32 – four times the legal level in Maryland for intoxication – has been identified as an illegal immigrant by the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Office in Baltimore.
Marine Cpl. Brian Mathews, 21, of Columbia and his date, Jennifer Bower, 24, of Montgomery Village were killed Thanksgiving night, shortly after 10:00 p.m. when Bower's Toyota Corolla was hit from behind by Morales-Soriano, 25, of Mexico. Mathews and Bower were on their second date and were planning to take part in the June wedding of friends who had introduced them to each other.
Mathews had served 8 months in Iraq and completed another tour of duty in the Pacific. He was stationed at Camp Pendleton, Calif., and had come home to Maryland for the holidays. He was scheduled to leave the Corps in June 2007. Mathews' fellow Marines are upset over his death.
"It's more anger than anything," Cpl. Garrett Farris, 21, of Texas, told the Baltimore Examiner. "A guy goes to war and has no problems with that. He comes back to the States, and it's supposed to be our safe place."

Say there oWf, has it occurred to you that it could have been YOUR boy, that Bronze Star recipient, that was killed by an illegal as was Marine Corporal Brian Mathews?

And if that had been the case, it would have been due to the pro-illegal amnesty position of then-President George W. Bush, and his failure to defend our borders, and uphold the Law.

Thank God your family didn't have to suffer the grief the Mathews family endured due to the malfeasance of the Bush Administration.

Nope. You started it. You end it.

Peace.

“FReepers are suggesting that the Italians lock up an American girl for the rest of her life based on the total fabrications of a corrupt and despotic government official and you think I’m unhinged for pointing out their ignorance?”

Except she’s only going to spend 26 years of her life in Prison, instead of contemplating suffering some of the pain, humiliation and fear her victim felt, as she spends the last few minutes of her life standing pinioned and hooded on top of a wooden trapdoor as she deserves, thanks to Italy’s (in common with most of EUrope’s) phaggot justice system....

Dearest rabs,

I have requested no more posting encyclopedias from you. You're filling up my "My Comments" page with clutter.

You have your groupthink pals around you for moral support. Post to them. They'll pat you on the back and help your flagging self-esteem.

Thanks.

More amusement for your group-think support team, bud?

I didn't even ping anyone, so take that 'group-think' mantra and shove it, ok? Even when someone does NOT ping anyone else, you still have to whine about something don't you?

Just one point for you.

That'll be the day, you could no more confine yourself to 'one' point than a woodpecker could confine itself to one peck on a telephone pole.

You chastise me for worshiping the Lord too overtly, then accuse me of worshiping President Bush. Confused, are we??

Not at all. And get it right: I have not chastised you for 'worshiping the Lord too overtly', I have pointed out that you USE your religious beliefs to bash other Freepers over the head, and/or to shield yourself from your inability to defend your political beliefs.

Your ad hominem insults have tied your brain in knots.

Au contraire, you are projecting once more.

Once again, I can't "out mean" you, bud. So my choice as an extremely conservative American patriot, is to let you screech to the wind.

How childish. I inform you that you are not my 'bud' (a term of familiarity that YOU chose to employ) so now you're going to use that term in hopes of irking me. Nice try little one, some warm milk and cookies before nappy time will calm down your naughty behavior.

You win. I lose. I surrender to a master con man and give up the fight.

Nonsense.
You'll be back as always, you are FR's "Mad Puppy that Can't Let Go"

Say, at what college are you an 'adjunct professor'? You should provide those attending your classes with some of these FR threads in their entirety to see what they think.

Say Rabs? How about some more interesting facts about the RINO Administration of George W. Bush eh?

I think it's feeding time for the congregation again.

Enjoy.

There's more where this comes from.

---

2001-01-24: Bush Amnesty Plan Threatens U.S. Economy (Fox News)

Three weeks ago there was no one among Republican voters who would have said that fixing the problem of illegal immigration to the U.S. meant granting amnesty to an estimated eight million illegal aliens, the majority of whom have entered the U.S. without a visa by walking across our border with Mexico.

But that is precisely what President Bush said last week he intends to do, as he posed for pictures before a Mexican flag in Monterrey, Mexico. To his left was Mexican President Vicente Fox, who -- in an even more alarming image -- was framed by the Stars and Stripes as he smiled for the cameras.

Americans should get used to scenes like this, and all they portend. Despite an enormous backlash from core Republican voters, conservative groups and a growing number of Congressional Republicans, the Bush administration seems determined to curry favor with Hispanic voters, and has chosen an immigration amnesty as the means to achieve that.

2004-02-19: Bush Amnesty Sparks Surge in Border Crossings (Fox News)

On Jan. 27, the Copley News Service reported that shortly after President Bush announced his plans to amnesty millions of illegal aliens in the U.S., more than half of the Mexicans trying to sneak into the U.S. through San Ysidro (search) told authorities they were doing so to position themselves for the amnesty.

As one member of the U.S. Border Patrol (search) told me, “They believe that they are only responding to an invitation.”

2006-12-02: DUI illegal kills Marine home on leave from Iraq (WND)

One week after he slammed his Nissan Sentra into a car waiting at a stoplight, killing a U.S. Marine and his female passenger, Eduardo Raul Morales-Soriano, whose blood alcohol level was measured at .32 – four times the legal level in Maryland for intoxication – has been identified as an illegal immigrant by the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Office in Baltimore.

Marine Cpl. Brian Mathews, 21, of Columbia and his date, Jennifer Bower, 24, of Montgomery Village were killed Thanksgiving night, shortly after 10:00 p.m. when Bower's Toyota Corolla was hit from behind by Morales-Soriano, 25, of Mexico. Mathews and Bower were on their second date and were planning to take part in the June wedding of friends who had introduced them to each other.

Mathews had served 8 months in Iraq and completed another tour of duty in the Pacific. He was stationed at Camp Pendleton, Calif., and had come home to Maryland for the holidays. He was scheduled to leave the Corps in June 2007.

Mathews' fellow Marines are upset over his death.

"It's more anger than anything," Cpl. Garrett Farris, 21, of Texas, told the Baltimore Examiner. "A guy goes to war and has no problems with that. He comes back to the States, and it's supposed to be our safe place."

---

2009-01-09: Bush Praises Results of 'No Child' Law; President Cites a 'Closing' Achievement Gap, Increased School Accountability (The Washington Post)

Bush argued that No Child Left Behind has "forever changed America's school systems" for the better, forcing accountability on failing public schools and leading to measurable improvements among poor and minority students.

. . . . .

With No Child Left Behind, Bush clearly left his mark. Passed with bipartisan support and signed into law seven years ago yesterday, it marked an unprecedented federal foray into locally controlled public schools and transformed the education system for teachers, administrators and nearly 50 million public school children.

2006-10-05: Bush: No Child Left Behind Closing Achievement Gap (The Washington Post)

"How do you solve the problem until you measure the problem," Bush said, touting the merits of annual testing. "The No Child Left Behind Act demands results for every child."

2000-11-01: “My concern about the role of the federal government is that an intrusive government, a government that says, ‘Don’t worry, we will solve your problems’ is a government that tends to crowd compassion out of the marketplace” (The New York Times via OnTheIssues.org)

---

2009-09-15: GW Bush: "There is no [conservative] movement...I redefined the Republican Party" (The Washington Examiner via FR)

2006-03-27: Counterfeit Conservative (American Conservative)

President George W. Bush took office to the sustained applause of America’s conservative movement. In 2000, he defeated the liberal environmentalist Al Gore, abruptly terminated the legacy of the even more hated Bill Clinton, and gave Republicans control of both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue. A few cynics were suspicious of Bush’s understanding of and commitment to conservative principles, but most on the Right welcomed his inauguration.

Five years later, the traditional conservative agenda lies in ruins. Government is bigger, spending is higher, and Washington is more powerful. The national government has intruded further into state and local concerns. Federal officials have sacrificed civil liberties and constitutional rights while airily demanding that the public trust them not to abuse their power.

The U.S. has engaged in aggressive war to promote democracy and undertaken an expensive foreign-aid program. The administration and its supporters routinely denounce critics as partisans and even traitors. Indeed, the White House defenestrates anyone who acknowledges that reality sometimes conflicts with official fantasies.

In short, it is precisely the sort of government that conservatives once feared would result from liberal control in Washington.

. . . . .

Although modest in scope, Impostor is a critically important book. Bartlett demonstrates that Bush is no conservative. He notes: “I write as a Reaganite, by which I mean someone who believes in the historical conservative philosophy of small government, federalism, free trade, and the Constitution as originally understood by the Founding Fathers.”

Bush believes in none of these things. His conservatism, such as it is, is cultural rather than political. Writes Bartlett, “Philosophically, he has more in common with liberals, who see no limits to state power as long as it is used to advance what they think is right.” Until now, big-government conservatism was widely understood to be an oxymoron.

. . . . .

However, it is on spending that the Bush administration has most obviously and most dramatically failed. Bartlett entitles one chapter “On the Budget, Clinton was Better.” Not just Clinton but George H.W. Bush, Ronald Reagan, Jimmy Carter, Gerald Ford, Richard Nixon, and even Lyndon Johnson, depending on the measure used.

. . . . .

Like the typical Democratic demagogue, Bush has used spending to buy votes whenever possible. In this, of course, he has been joined by the Republican Congress. But his lack of commitment is evident from just one statistic: Bush has yet to veto a single bill. One has to go back almost two centuries to find another full-term president who did not veto even one measure.

In fact, the Republican president and Republican Congress have been full partners in bankrupting the nation. The low point was undoubtedly passage of the Medicare drug benefit, to which Bartlett devotes one chapter. The GOP majority misused House rules and employed a dubious set of carrots and sticks to turn around an apparent 216 to 218 loss. Worse was the administration’s conduct. The administration shamelessly lied about the program’s costs, covered up the truth, and threatened to fire Medicare’s chief actuary if he talked to Congress. The bill is badly drafted and, more importantly, adds $18 trillion to Medicare’s unfunded liability.

In Bartlett’s view, this might be the worst single piece of legislation in U.S. history, which would be quite a legacy. Writes Bartlett, “It will cost vast sums the nation cannot afford, even if its initial budgetary projections prove to be accurate, which is highly doubtful. It will inevitably lead to higher taxes and price controls that will reduce the supply of new lifesaving drugs.” In short, an allegedly conservative president inaugurated the biggest expansion of the welfare state in four decades.

2005-05-03: The Grand Old Spending Party: How Republicans Became Big Spenders (CATO)

2009-01-26: Bush Was a Big-Government Disaster; He expanded the state, and the idea that the state is incompetent (Reason)

2003-08-15: A 'Big Government Conservatism'; George Bush hasn't put a name to his political philosophy, but we can. (The Wall Street Journal)

The White House needn't have bothered. The case for Mr. Bush's conservatism is strong. Sure, some conservatives are upset because he has tolerated a surge in federal spending, downplayed swollen deficits, failed to use his veto, created a vast Department of Homeland Security, and fashioned an alliance of sorts with Teddy Kennedy on education and Medicare. But the real gripe is that Mr. Bush isn't their kind of conventional conservative. Rather, he's a big government conservative. This isn't a description he or other prominent conservatives willingly embrace. It makes them sound as if they aren't conservatives at all. But they are. They simply believe in using what would normally be seen as liberal means--activist government--for conservative ends. And they're willing to spend more and increase the size of government in the process.

2004-09-13: New Era of Big Government (American Conservative)

Each administration, it seems, must have a central theme around which its policies and actions revolve, and which provides a constant excuse for or explanation of why it does what it does. Who can forget the constant invocations by the Clintons that whatever the former president or his administration did, it was “for the children”? For the current administration of George W. Bush, any program, policy, or power grab—domestic or foreign—is justified because it furthers the War on Terror. Both the current and the immediately past administrations have fallen back on this ploy whenever criticized or attacked for their actions. After all, rather than bother to defend their actions as consistent with a core philosophy, it is much easier simply to label critics as “extreme” by claiming that if they are opposed to something the president or his employees are doing or have done, then by definition those critics must be against children or don’t support fighting terrorism.

Hang on. Are you saying that Bush's nomination was a good thing?

Not exactly. In one way, it WAS a good thing because it was a prime demonstration of the inner RINO lurking inside him.

I am saying it was a MISTAKE. Why do you disagree?

I don't disagree, my view is that Bush knew full well that Ms. Harriet was utterly unqualified to sit on the highest court in the land, but he intended to reward a Bush family crony with a sweet political plum and a lifetime position, salary and the requisite perks.

And when she didn't work out, he had Alito at the ready.

That alone demonstrates his poor judgment that he actually thought that wannabe Justice Miers could actually make it through the Senate.

President Bush's two SC Justices ON THE BENCH are better than Reagan's choice of SDO'C. That is a fact that cannot be denied.

And once again, I point out that O'Connor's drift to the left was completely unexpected and that she was nominated and confirmed with the unconditional backing and support of two of the greatest conservatives of all time, Senator Barry Goldwater and President Ronald Reagan.

You seem to be displaying RudyBot behavior, one of the distasteful tactics of the now departed supporters of the liberal RINO from New York, i.e., during the famed 'FR Bug Zapper' thread, said RudyBots went out of their way to sneer and insult the Gipper, usually by comparing Rudy-Tooty's marital shenanigans with our 40th President's divorce from actress Jane Wyman in 1949. I see similarities between those RudyBot tactics and your snide comments about Reagan's SCOTUS nominee, it's not a very sophisticated tactic when you either subtly or blatantly tear down Reagan in order to build up your own failed RINO idol, GWB. Unless you think you were some kind of clairvoyant, there was no way to know what kind of Judge Sandra Day O'Connor would turn out to be, so don't be bashing Reagan (and by extension Barry Goldwater) with your sneers in that regard. FYI, a similar situation happened to no less than President Eisenhower regarding former Chief Justice Earl Warren, described by Eisenhower as "the biggest damn fool mistake I ever made."

And in being responsible for two of the most conservative Justices on the SC, it cannot be accurately stated that George W. Bush did nothing conservative.

Even the proverbial blind dog occasionally finds a tree to lift his leg on.

More amusement for your group-think support team, bud?

Just one point for you. You chastise me for worshiping the Lord too overtly, then accuse me of worshiping President Bush. Confused, are we?? Your ad hominem insults have tied your brain in knots.

Once again, I can't "out mean" you, bud. So my choice as an extremely conservative American patriot, is to let you screech to the wind.

You win. I lose. I surrender to a master con man and give up the fight.

As a person who has worked more for conservatism than you probably have ever dreamed of,

Bragging again. No surprise. With all of your hot air, global warming might yet become a real threat.

I am nothing but amused by your ad hominem idiocy.

Amused you say? Sounds like it's time for me to rebuke you in the Name of the Lord again, that seems to get you to straighten up and fly right for a while, LOL

But then again, you just play a mean old hostile, hateful conservative on the internet, so who can be surprised by anything you say?

NOW who is dragging out the ad hominems? Pot meet Kettle.

Enjoy your group think pals. If you ever decide get up the courage to work to oppose Obama and his Marxist policies, let me know, and you can join me.

I don't join up with Bush-worshiping RINOs, and I'm already opposing 0bama and all that he stands for, the difference between you and me is that I don't have the psychological need to brag about what I'm doing, I just do it.

Until then, enjoy your cute little con game. It's all you've got, bud.

a.) It was your idol GWB who conned the American people into thinking he was a conservative.

b.) I am not, and never will be, your 'bud'.

Hang on. Are you saying that Bush's nomination was a good thing?

I am saying it was a MISTAKE. Why do you disagree?

Seriously here...... you misunderstood what I said, so I'll elaborate. I didn't say that President Bush thought it was a mistake when he made the choice. I said that it WAS a mistake, and it obviously was because she wasn't able to make it past the Senate hearings.

And when she didn't work out, he had Alito at the ready, and the mistake was corrected.

I don't think any further clarification needs to be made.

President Bush's two SC Justices ON THE BENCH are better than Reagan's choice of SDO'C. That is a fact that cannot be denied.

And in being responsible for two of the most conservative Justices on the SC, it cannot be accurately stated that George W. Bush did nothing conservative.

That is now, and always has been my point.

I think you are SO cute, mk!

As a person who has worked more for conservatism than you probably have ever dreamed of, including living a conservative life, supporting and working for very conservative candidates, working for Tea Parties, financially supporting very conservative candidates, I am nothing but amused by your ad hominem idiocy.

But then again, you just play a mean old hostile, hateful conservative on the internet, so who can be surprised by anything you say?

Enjoy your group think pals. If you ever decide get up the courage to work to oppose Obama and his Marxist policies, let me know, and you can join me.

Until then, enjoy your cute little con game. It's all you've got, bud.