Bush reaches out to conservatives to quell revolt

Forbes ^ | Feb. 20, 2004 | Adam Entous

[The American Man]

>You're remarkably confrontational and prone to personal attack for someone who is brand new.<



Thank you for your comment.

I generally shy away from “personal attack.” Those who employ personal attack: usually have a weak argument.

You will find that I don’t mind if someone has a genuine difference of opinion from myself. Nor am I unable to appreciate the other persons points of view. I do not mind criticism, if it is administered in a constructive way.

I do understand that I am someone who is new. Nevertheless: newness has no barring one way, or the other, on the validity of ANYONE‘S arguments -- including mine

[billbears]

Bush is not accomodating their little pet agendas

First time I've heard adhering to the limitations within the Constitution and smaller government called 'little pet agendas'. Of course this doesn't cover amnesty, pill bills, and myriad of other 'agendas' that don't fit conservative policy. You know, at one time, the Republican party had a lot of conservatives. Now it seems it just has a lot of Republicans

[monkeywrench]

The New Republicans -- gulianni, pataki, schwartenegger. The right are being pushed out.

[The American Man]

>I think for your honesty you have TYPOS in the bank for at least a month!<


OK., I’ll take it!

[The American Man]

Been here long? Troll perhaps?

Please see my post on personal attacks. Those who employ them: generally have weak arguments.

PS: Are you a masochist?... or do you always introduce yourself this way?

[Cold Heat]

Your remarks show a profound disrespect for those who sacrificed their all: so that YOU could have liberty. It’s obvious that if the founding fathers were here today: you would consider THEM your enemies. Frankly, there are no words to begin to describe the tenor of your remarks. Disgusting and revolting come to mind. Perhaps others can add to the list.

415 posted on 02/23/2004 3:44:20 PM CST by The American Man

No body but a troll or a ignorant would post these remarks to another obviously conservative member of this forum who is in good standing.(unless they wanted to start a flame war)

Although the remarks were not directed to me, I took offense to them.

Nuff said BUBBA!

[winker]

The Hot Button is Illegal Immigration; Push that button & Take that away permanetly and watch what happens! We will wait till Hell! freezes over!

[MissAmericanPie]

That is not a FairOpinion. Republicans and conservatives are tired of nothing being delivered election after election by chicken little republican politicians. Did they think it could just go on forever with no backlash?

Evidently so, given the sneering, "Where else are they gonna go". Conservatives are not the stay on the plantation kind, when there is nothing on that plantation they are interested in. Bush has worked against every conservative principle he could lay his pen to. Now, with the clock striking midnight, we are to believe that he just now noticed the discontent?

Why don't you lay the blame where it belongs? It doesn't lay with a fed up base who see their votes and efforts as futile in a liberal onslaught delivered by a Republican president, congress, and senate.

[b9]

Bush is not your enemy, dear.
Why are you his?

[MissAmericanPie]

Oh really, coulda fooled me. My friends don't put me at risk in order to pander to the illegal alien vote by leaving the back door open to terrorists. But then everyone has a different standard that they judge things by.

[b9]

What are you grateful for in America?

[Sabertooth]

You've got a big fallacy in your thinking. You think that after you stab Rosario Marin in the back (if she is the nominee), the Republicans are going to come groveling to you for your vote.

First, that's a straw man, that's not my argument.

Second, you don't even appear to know what a fallacy is. It's an invalid form of argumentation, not an error of fact. Do that homework I assigned to you; you'll be a better poster for it.

Becuase, as the folks whose job it is to get elected view it, debating a candidate's deviations from a party platform can be done in a primary without it becoming devisive - after all, is that not what primaries are for, deciding who the nominee should be?

Generally, yes. Sometimes, as with the case of you and John Warner, that is insufficient reason to earn your vote in the general election.

I submit that those who REFUSE to come together after the nominee has been chosen are the ones who are dividing the party

Then by your logic, you were dividing the party when you didn't vote for John Warner.

Of course, I disagree with your logic.

Your attitude particularly offends me because you are proceeding to place the blame for your divisive actions on the victim of said actions - despite that fact your fingerprints are on the knife.

Well, you are a thin-skinned one, but we already knew that.

By your logic, your hands have been on the knife twice.

Mine have not been on the knife at all. I have always voted for the party nominee in every race, and you haven't.

Your posts are really getting to be more of a joke than usual, hchutch. You take offense from me at something I've never done, but might do, yet give yourself a pass for having already done the same thing twice.

Anyway, the point of this article is that Bush is making some efforts to shore up votes on his right flank. I think that's good, and you seem conflicted over it.

[Howlin]

Well, one would think that you would be less dismissive -- and more respectful -- toward one (myself) whom holds your: “great great great great great grandfather” in such high esteem.

What one would think is that you are totally and completey FOS.

Remember what I asked you?

I asked you this: Which one of them is running in 2004?

To which YOU replied:

To: Howlin

The founding fathers didn’t“tell us" whom to vote for. They left us principles -- NOT PARTIES -- to guide us: a constitution. Your remarks show a profound disrespect for those who sacrificed their all: so that YOU could have liberty. It’s obvious that if the founding fathers were here today: you would consider THEM your enemies. Frankly, there are no words to begin to describe the tenor of your remarks. Disgusting and revolting come to mind. Perhaps others can add to the list.

415 posted on 02/23/2004 4:44:20 PM EST by The American Man

[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 388 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

You are completely out of control and having nothing except trash to offer to this discussion, no matter how highly you think of yourself.

You are Exhibit 1 for an unappeasable, self-absorbed, tunnel vision one agenda poster.

[The American Man]

The founding fathers didn’t“tell us" whom to vote for. They left us principles -- NOT PARTIES -- to guide us: a constitution. Your remarks show a profound disrespect for those who sacrificed their all: so that YOU could have liberty. It’s obvious that if the founding fathers were here today: you would consider THEM your enemies. Frankly, there are no words to begin to describe the tenor of your remarks. Disgusting and revolting come to mind. Perhaps others can add to the list.

[hchutch]

Conflicted? Wait a sec, I thought you said I was a sellout.

Make up your mind as to what I am.

Quite frankly, I don't like backstabbers. And you seem to think that backstabbing is okay. We part company on that count. In the case of John Warner, he put that knife in the back of Ollie North and every one of North's supporters in the 1994 Senate race in Virginia - and I was one of those supporters.

Is betrayal okay when YOU do it over immgiration, but I am not allowed to deal with a betrayal by the sore loser of a nomination battle? That's the message I think you are sending.

[The American Man]

>No body but a troll or a ignorant would post these remarks to another obviously conservative member<

Well, it -- his conservatism -- wasn’t obvious to me!

I took offense at what I perceived as a snide remark about OUR founding fathers: “what founding father are you voting for?” said he!

I will NOT apologize for defending OUR founding fathers!

If you think I should: bring it on!

I’m very passionate about our Constitution, and our American Traditions, that have been whittled away -- bit by bit -- by those that pose as “conservative” or “liberal” Americans etc.

Those that willfully, and maliciously, turn there backs on our constitution for money, prestige, or power: are enemies of “the people” (that’s us). And it’s high time we started labeling them as such.

“Conservative, ”Liberal,” “Libertarian,” “Independent”... A monkey with red and blue stripes and pink polka-dots running down his back: is it TOO much to ask that our leaders follow the constitution? The fact that you and I could even be at odds on this issue shows how far astray
we have drifted from what the founding fathers envisioned.

As for war: I suggest you direct your ire at our true enemies. The blood sucking Trans-National(Tranzi)creeps that would sell YOUR -- OUR -- priceless G-D given heritage for a pittance.

PS: VOTE FOR BUSH! Bush is far better than any of the DemocRats that are running. That will give us four more years to try to reclaim our country.

[WFTR]

Thank you very much!

[WFTR]

51 or 52% is not a mandate!

Okay, I spoke wrongly in calling it a mandate, but a solid 51% win is better than taking chances that could lead to a loss. Likewise, a 51% win on a clear message is more of a mandate than a 55% that is achieved by blurring the message until no one knows what the candidate truly believes or represents. Furthermore, a 51% accompanied by gains in the House and Senate will be a pretty strong win. However, actions that demoralize the base will make those House and Senate wins even less likely.

[Cold Heat]

He is a she, and a lot smarter than you.

What Founding Father is running anyway?

And what is with the Paul Revere "British are Coming" stuff?

Tranzi, as I read it is a code word for Globalist or Multi-National thinking.

Somehow I picture you with a black hood, throwing a brick through a window in Seattle.

Not my kind of people.

[The American Man]

>You are Exhibit 1 for an unappeasable, self-absorbed, tunnel vision one agenda poster.<

The idea -- that we should value and respect our constitution -- is an “agenda?”

The idea -- that we should have safe and secure borders -- is an “agenda.”

OK.

[FITZ]

I think Bush handled 9-11 very well --- but I think government social program spending should have been getting cut from the start --- at least half the federal budget is on throw-away spending programs --- less than half goes to Defense.