An Open letter to Jim Robinson: Can the Bush-Bashers

You two were not around to hear our howling and whining because the democrats licked Clintons boots and agreed with everything he said and did. It is called a personality cult, very fitting for socialists, hardly fitting for conservatives. Most of us came here as conservatives, not republicans, not to be anyones cheerleaders, the country first, not Bush first.

All of it. It's elitist and it would make some of us animals more equal than others. Monitoring such a program would be completely subjective at best.

I assume you would be first in line to offer your services as a Forum Czar. There may be an opening for such a job here:

Shake-up at the Senate Press Gallery

No; WebTV's. LOL

no-mo-4-you! :)

Not at all. I am a LADY ; you just don't know any, if you think I'm not one. : - )

"Sorry, but facts are that President Bush is not acting on his conservatism."

So what exactly has Bush done since he's been in office to advance the conservative movement?

GWB killed the Kyoto Treaty on Global Warming, for one.

GWB pulled the U.S. out of the CCCP-U.S. ABM Treaty, for another.

GWB backed and got our National Missile Defense program funded.

GWB Killed the International Criminal Court.

GWB repealed Clinton's CO2 rules that were choking off electricity production in California and causing electricity rates to spike.

GWB repealed OSHA's new ergonomic regulations that were about to put every home-based business in America out of commission.

GWB appointed Ashcroft and Ted Olsen, who just wrote to the Supreme Court that the 2nd Amendment is an INDIVIDUAL right, not the "collective right" that liberals have maintained for decades.

GWB signed the bill into law that gives pilots the right to arm themselves with firearms, a pleasant pro-gun victory on a national level (currently being stalled by Democratic Party holdover bureaucrat Norm Mineta in the DOT).

GWB killed the Left-Wing ABA's role in vetting federal judges for Congress.

GWB instituted the first top-down review of our military in years, which concluded (prior to 9/11), that asymmetric attacks were our biggest future threat.

GWB killed the $11 Billion Crusader unguided munitions artillery boondoggle.

GWB killed federal funding of foreign "family planning" activities.

GWB ordered the Justice Department to finally enforce the SCOTUS Beck decision, giving union workers the right to recover any of their union dues that are used for political purposes with which they disagree.

Frankly, if you aren't aware of all that GWB has done to advance the Conservative movement (including implementing steel tariffs in order to encourage European nationalism via trade wars), then you simply aren't Conservative.

Only a liberal could be so blind as to not realize what all GWB has done for our cause (oh, did I mention that GWB got taxes cut twice, once for individuals and another for businesses - or that GWB has been OUTSTANDING prosecuting the War on Terror in Afghanistan??).

Thank YOU , my friend. : - )

How about the most damaging one to grass roots conservatives that was the wet dream of liberal thugs and totalitarians for decades: CFR.

CFR as passed will do far more harm to the Dems than the Republicans, and after the SC gets thru with it, the Dems will have screwed themselves yet again. You must have missed those threads though, or were too busy being negative to understand anything, as usual.

"I don't think Bush has any TOUGHNESS. Or SPINE. He's weak."

I can't fathom how you arrived at that conclusion.

For instance, a spineless leader might lob a few cruise missiles at a few tents in Afghanistan rather than send American troops in on the ground.

A weak leader would hardly tell the UN to go get stuffed regarding their anti-Second Amendment Small Arms Trafficking Treaty, but Bush did.

Also, it would take a tough leader, someone stronger even than Ronald Reagan, to pull the U.S. comletely out of the U.S. - CCCP ABM treaty so that we could fund, test, and deploy our national missile defense system by 2004.

they go vote third party in the election and get 8 years of Billary. a house divided can not stand.

You just lost your fight and showed your real intent. I bet you think a vote for third party is a Dem vote also. Well lookie here what did I find in the Constitution about that very issue?

Second Article I do believe.

The electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for two persons, of whom one at least shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves. And they shall make a list of all the persons voted for, and of the number of votes for each; which list they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates, and the votes shall then be counted. The person having the greatest number of votes shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such majority, and have an equal number of votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately choose by ballot one of them for President; and if no person have a majority, then from the five highest on the list the said House shall in like manner choose the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by States, the representation from each state having one vote; A quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. In every case, after the choice of the President, the person having the greatest number of votes of the electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal votes, the Senate shall choose from them by ballot the Vice President.

Where is it I can't seem to find the place that says only the Democratic and Republican Parties shall inherit the House, Senate, and Oval Office? It's not there. Nor was it intended to ever be there. IOW the Libertarians, Constitution, Reform, and yes even the Wacko Greenes have as much right to run canidates for office as does the Democratic & Republican Parties. That is good for this nation that is very good for it. It is good because it helps discourage what is happening now. One or two major political parties running a government of tyrants. If you think about it they were pretty smart to do this. They left us many means in which to change governments correction and correct wrongs. The ultimate and last resort being the very founding words themself the Declaration of Independence.

I try hard in here to respect all parties points of view and refrain from slang words for party supporters. But I will post on policies and directions I see wrong or right.

BTW I can say this as well if a GOP canidate stands on good footing I will vote for the person. If not I will look elsewhere. Now I ask you if you had a GOP canidate who was let's say the caliber of Jeffords or an Independent running for the same office who represented 85-90% of your core beliefs which would you vote for? Which one deserves your vote & support?

Broonm Hilda brought up a post about Dems being so loyal that is why they win. Maybe so. That as well serves to keep thieves, thugs, and other trash in office. That type of loyality no matter how tempting it looks is not a desirable political trait for good government. The best way to stop a person from going third party is to offer enough substance in their interest to make them stay. The Libertarians, Constitution, and Reform share enough common ground to make it possible. But for a former POTUS in a political convention to say Where else can they go is uncalled for arrogance that will make any self respecting person to tell that party to take a hike. The man deserved the canidates public rebuke. None was given. That was GOP convention 2000.

If you have a constructive criticism of the idea please identify what specific parts(s) you don't like and explain why you dislike it.507

All of it. It's elitist and it would make some of us animals more equal than others. Monitoring such a program would be completely subjective at best.

Really, all of it? Why don't like that every lurker and poster could read every forum? Pleases be specific about what you dislike and why you dislike it?

it would make some of us animals more equal than others.

Do you think that the quality of a Freeper's posts that frequently attack other Freeper's is equal in quality to the posts of a Freeper's that never attacks other Freeper's? Or do you think that one is of greater quality and thus greater value to the forum than the other, if so which is of greater quality/value, the attack posts or the non-attack posts?

Are you saying Bush is beyond ALL criticism? I supported Bush and still support him, but with reservations and some moderate criticism. One can support a person and still respectfully criticize him, can't he? If you say not, then Hitler could have used good citizens like you.

Do you think that the quality of a Freeper's posts that frequently attack other Freeper's is equal in quality to the posts of a Freeper's that never attacks other Freeper's? Or do you think that one is of greater quality and thus greater value to the forum than the other, if so which is of greater quality/value, the attack posts or the non-attack posts?

You might want to loosen that top button. (Oops, sorry for the personal attack). Society, and consequently FR, is messier than what you would desire. If you don't like what someone writes, either flame 'em or scroll past. Lighten up, my friend.

If you have a constructive criticism of the idea please identify what specific parts(s) you don't like and explain why you dislike it.507

All of it. 523

Really, all of it? Why don't you like that every lurker and poster could read every forum?

...I said that geonocide of Christians is part of the agenda mentioned in Revelations.

I have some questions for you.

1. Does your copy spell it Revelations or Revelation?
2. Does your copy of Revelation(s) state the following in Chapter 1 Verse 4: John, To the seven churches in the provice of Asia?
3. In what year was Revelation(s) written?
4. Are you aware that there was an event in AD70, that fulfilled much, but not all of Revelation(s)?
5. How do you rectify the conflict of verses that say the second coming will be without sign(s) to that of supposed prophecies in Revelation(s)
6. Are you aware that there are at least 3 other views on the interpretation of Revelation(s) besides the Futurist view, and that all are far older, and don't take a Jack Van Impe to interpret, or re-re-interpret when things don't fit the previous interpretations?
7. And lastly, what verse(s) are you refering to that have to do with Christian genocide?(Answer this one, if one is all you answer, please.)

Thanks In Advance.

comments?

Yeah, sure. I have several. First off, I am not bashing President Bush or attacking you personally, but your ridiculous post is absolutely the stupidest and most NAZI-like thing I have ever seen posted of the FR (and I have been here much longer than you). It's just so absolutely wrong-headed and infantile that I don't have anything close to the time necessary to tell you just how wrong it is. At first reading your puerile post I was absolutely flabbergasted, but your subsequent posts were even MORE inane and commie-like than the first. You actually sunk lower than the bottom of the barrell! Unbelievable! If I ever posted or said something like you, I would have to hide in shame for the rest of my life. How pathetic! How utterly disgustingly pathetic!

To me, it's both interesting and comforting to see both opinions here. The formost purpose of this forum is to promote conservatism. Spliced unto that notion is the pursuit of the truth. We receive opinions and facts from a variety of sources here, certainly different, but most are undeniably conservative. I believe it's great that we can have so many different perspectives on how to promote conservatism. I see it as that we have many roads to choose from, many options, but in the end, we all have the same destination: The preservation of Constitution, of Freedom and Liberty, and the legacy of leaving a USA intact for our children to enjoy. As long as we keep in mind that we all have the same objective, we can work together to overcome the differences. We can remain united and work together to ensure all our hopes are realized.

All that, plus the people who vocalize discontent contribute greatly to keeping our leaders on their toes. Certainly we're all pleased that our President is a good and decent man, but it also serves to remind him that while it's good to try and bring all our people together, that we have an agenda as conservatives that must be formost in his mind.

This moment was brought to you by at least 2.5 cups of Walmet "Great Value" Arabica Coffee. Use a percolator, the "drip" machines can't produce the same quality.

If it doesn't have caffeine, it's not worth drinking. Caffeine...ahhhhhhgggg!!!