Bush-Bashing Conservatives Should Focus on the Big Picture

GOPUSA.com ^ | Januray.26,2004 | Bobby Eberle

[windchime]

"And in the intensity of their loathing, I see no difference between them and the Deaniacs."

It's not just the Deaniacs, MOST of the dems have expressed this irrational loathing. Their red-faced, spitting rages seem to have found their way to this forum.

Talk here amounts to the equivalent of firing your restaurant's best chef because the recipe calls for celery and you don't like celery. The chef has simply put the celery on the cutting board for the assistant chefs to address. Maybe they'll use all of it, none of it or only the best parts of it.

President Bush has put controversial issues on the table and our representatives must now address them.

[cartoonistx]

"It's hard for conservatives to smell the coffee when we're holding our noses."

With the exception of my votes for President Reagan, in the last 30 years there has not been an election I can think of where I did not have to hold my nose.

[CaptIsaacDavis]

What's an ultrapurist?

Someone who doesn't want a president who will refuse to shake out the Clintonista filth in the DoD, CIA, and FBI in time to prevent 9/11?

Someone who doesn't want to have a president pardoning 10 million criminal invaders and destroying the nation and rule of law?

Someone who wants a president that might actually side with Scalia and challenge the emergence of "comparativism" in the Federal courts?

Someone who might actually understand why the ICC must be resisted, as opposed to just making sure nothing stood in the way of transforming the ME?

Someone who wants a president that won't refuse to wage war on the only real threat from the Axis of Evil -- North Korea, because China resists action. While his uncle and brother are making too much money from the bloody butcher of Beijing and his son -- in a semiconductor equipment initiative that the CRS and DoD have declared to be a national security threat? The Dems and Commerce were penetrated by Ziang Zemin's spies (he was, and still is, head of the Chinese Military Commission -- chief warlord after all), so now Neil Bush gets to peddle influence and get, like Prescott, unusual wavers from Commerce for sensitive technologies previously embargoed?

Someone who wants a White House that won't hesitate to seal off Tora Bora and end the war?

Someone who wants a White House that won't side with bellicose tyrants in Beijing against the right of a free nation (Taiwan) to express its desire to defend itself? -- and thus go down in infamy alongside his treacherous father who offered the infamous "Chicken Kiev" speech castigating "suicidal nationalism" -- at the very moment of the greatest triumph of nationalism and republican ideals in the history of mankind (after our glorious revolution, of course)!

Someone who doesn't want a White House foreign policy run by a foreign policy Tsar, Condoleeza Rice, who openly proclaimed her support for wiping out Western Civilization reading from the core curriculum at Stanford, and challenges Sam Huntington's thesis about a "Clash of Civilizations" to promote what she calls "global culture," embracing her fantasy of "Islam," and globalist revolution abroad ("spreading democracy in the ME").

Someone who wants anyone, PLEASE, who won't throw $87B into the blowing sands of Iraq (UTTERLY WASTED)?

Someone who wants a White House that will actually support semiconductor research subsidies, instead of cutting them (see above for the likely reason behind the very unusual move), in an era when spending like drunken sailors is the norm?

Someone who wants a White House that might have a sense of balance on domestic spending (threat of a real conservative challenging them in a future election on spending and taxing policies)?

Someone who wants a WH that won't kiss up to Teddy Kennedy, like Bush did when advancing the education plan?

Someone who wants a White House that won't advocate $5K GRANTS to minorities (HOUSING SOCIALISM) to help them buy houses and then pull back quickly, and quietly -- hoping no one would notice (few did), to propose a vague no-go targeted tax cut.

Someone who doesn't want a White House that will declare war and then fight police actions? War, as Clausewitz pointed out, is about targeting the "will" of the enemy -- here the institutions that foment new recruits faster than our global cops can pick them off. We are not fighting a real war. A real war would see regional campaigns to redraw the maps of the world and the utter annihilation of the institutions advancing radical Islam (not just picking off the MINOR axis powers).

Someone who wants a WH willing to wage war on the institutions backing radical Islam (Saudi and Pakistan) -- insteading of embracing "Islam"? Yes, maybe GHWB and brother Neil might no longer get $300K payoffs for speeches in Saudi, but hey, sacrifices have to be made.

Someone who doesn't want the White House to compromise to get "fast-track" authority to ram through an expansion of NAFTA and get what promises to be a massive new SOCIALIST entitlement for wage stabilization/subsidies called "wage insurance?"

The panty-waisters are in the White House..."Compassionate conservatism" is Christian Socialism, pandering to warlords in China, and global democratic revolution at the tip of multi-cultural bayonets (an American Liberal version of the Brezhnev Doctrine).

Real leaders would not hesitate to deal with the North Korean crisis NOW!

Real leaders would not scheme to see James Otis, John Adams, and all of the patriots of old roll over in their graves to give up the 4th Amendment simply because they don't have the guts to enforce VISA law!

The White House is putting real Americans in a very difficult spot -- by design. They seem to think we would never vote for a Democrat. Of course, NEVER for a "Liberal" of the Clintonista mold. Kerry, never. Dean, never. Lieberman, never. However, there is still one outcome the WH seems to have failed to factor in -- massive numbers of Republicans (even in that 49% support column) can still vote -- none of the above. Indeed, that is my prediction: for every one Hispanic vote he gets with his amnesty gimmick, 2 Republicans will stay away from the polls or vote for a third-party candidate. The surprise of this election might be the rise of a third-party candidate from the sub-basement to the basement (marginal, but still enough to make a difference with the popular vote spread so narrow these days).

[Capitalist Eric]

"Ignorance is bliss" I guess that explains how you're able to throw your vote away, and the fate of this country, over one or two things which bend your nose out of shape.

It was one or two things... and then more, and more and more... And each time, I told myself I'd hold my nose, and still vote for W., even though he barely qualifies as a conservative in any meaningful way (judging by actions, rather than words). But the alien-amnesty, with his in-your-face attitude to 87% of American citizens who support law and sending the lawbreaking aliens home....?

He's gone too far.

A vote for him- as it is for any of the leftists running for the White House- is a vote wasted. Because there is nothing substantially different between him and the rest. I watch actions, and ignore the diplomat-speak (strategery and "religion of peace," for example).

Tell me, when selfishness and narrow-mindedness became such stellar "conservative" values?

When the conservative leader blatantly panders to illegal aliens, by trashing the economy, our culture and the legal system of the entire country...? All in an transparent (and vain) attempt to garner the alien vote???

Yep. Pretty selfish and narrow-minded...

Enjoying your kool-aide???

[Dane]

It was one or two things... and then more, and more and more... And each time, I told myself I'd hold my nose, and still vote for W., even though he barely qualifies as a conservative in any meaningful way (judging by actions, rather than words). But the alien-amnesty, with his in-your-face attitude to 87% of American citizens who support law and sending the lawbreaking aliens home....?

So you like the satus quo? Anyway it is up to congress to make the decision. Clinton would have issued an executive order giving amnesty. I guess you think that is better.

BTW, IMO, you seem to be the kool-aid drinker with your distortion of the facts.

Also BTW, what is your plan to round 10 million.

You may say round up 10,000 and they will go away on their own.

No they won't. The reason they are here is to make a better life for themselves. Put pressure on Mexico to gets its economy in gear and they wouldn't be here, but you seem to be of the ilk that a twitch of the nose and poof they all are gone.

JMO, you are being simplistic, reactionary, and knee jerk.

[Capitalist Eric]

The White House is putting real Americans in a very difficult spot -- by design. They seem to think we would never vote for a Democrat. Of course, NEVER for a "Liberal" of the Clintonista mold. Kerry, never. Dean, never. Lieberman, never. However, there is still one outcome the WH seems to have failed to factor in -- massive numbers of Republicans (even in that 49% support column) can still vote -- none of the above.

Exactly.

I agree with 80-90% of your assessment. Probably, I fit your definition of "ultrapurist" more than any other...

Ironic- up until the 1992 election, I would have been arguing the same things as the other Bush-supporters, using the same rationales...

But the problem is that the system is rigged, and relies on people thinking only to the level of such arguments, and never further... Realistically, there are no fundamental differences in the candidates to be the next dope to sit in the White House. In every way that matters, there are no real differences. Actions do speak louder than words. Bush may have an "R" behind his name, but it's a little "r." And judging by his actions as of late, I'm reminded of two quotes:

"Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does NOT mean to stand by the President or any other public official save exactly to the degree in which he himself stands by the country. It is patriotic to support him insofar as he efficiently serves the country. It is unpatriotic not to oppose him to the exact extent that by inefficiency or otherwise he fails in his duty to stand by the country."
--Theodore Roosevelt

"A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear."
--Marcus Tullius Cicero 42B.C.

What Bush proposes, is by definition, nothing less than treason.

[Capitalist Eric]

So you like the satus quo? Anyway it is up to congress to make the decision. Clinton would have issued an executive order giving amnesty. I guess you think that is better. BTW, IMO, you seem to be the kool-aid drinker with your distortion of the facts.

The person distorting facts on this thread, is you.

I don't feel the need to restate myself over and over, for every bum who is too lazy to read the thread, and suddenly jumps on me because he can't be bothered to read.

So, before you make yourself look any more foolish (the possibility, while remote, does exist), go back and read.

If you try to harangue me from a foundation of ignorance, then I'll just ignore you- stupid people aren't worth my time.

[Dane]

But the problem is that the system is rigged, and relies on people thinking only to the level of such arguments, and never further... Realistically, there are no fundamental differences in the candidates to be the next dope to sit in the White House. In every way that matters, there are no real differences.

Yada, yada, yada. If you think there are no differences between Bush and the demos, you are mistaken. I guess you would like to have the UN and Kofi Annan run US foreign policy, which would happen under a demo President. And I guess you like the tax hikes a demo would bring.

But you keep on ranting endlessly Eric, that seems to be your strong suit.

[Dane]

I don't feel the need to restate myself over and over, for every bum who is too lazy to read the thread, and suddenly jumps on me because he can't be bothered to read.

Oh now playing the victim card. A democrat card.

If you try to harangue me from a foundation of ignorance, then I'll just ignore you- stupid people aren't worth my time

Sure seems that you spend a lot time with yourself.

[Texasforever]

What Bush proposes, is by definition, nothing less than treason.

So Bush is guilty of a capital crime?

[Texasforever]

What Bush proposes, is by definition, nothing less than treason.

I ask again. Is Bush guilty of a capital crime?

[Capitalist Eric]

Main Entry: trea·son
Pronunciation: 'trE-z&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English tresoun, from Old French traison, from Latin tradition-, traditio act of handing over, from tradere to hand over, betray —more at TRAITOR
Date: 13th century
1 : the betrayal of a trust : TREACHERY
2 : the offense of attempting by overt acts to overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance or to kill or personally injure the sovereign or the sovereign's family

[Texasforever]

Is Bush guilty of a capital crime?

[Texasforever]

Is Bush guilty of a capital crime?

[Capitalist Eric]

Is Bush guilty of a capital crime?

Technically, the only way that can be answered is when someone brings his stupid ass in front of a jury, and they say "guilty."

As I said in post 206, and then (when you try splitting hairs) I post the definition of treason in post 212, he proposes treason.

Prove me wrong.

[Texasforever]

Should Bush be subject to the death penalty based on a 30 minute policy speech?

[Texasforever]

Technically, the only way that can be answered is when someone brings his stupid ass in front of a jury, and they say "guilty."

In your OPINION is Bush guilty of a capital crime?

[Texasforever]

Under which definition of your citation is Bush guilty of violating?

[Texasforever]

Should Bush be out on trial for treason and what would be the evidence provided?

[Texasforever]

Should Bush be out on trial for treason and what would be the evidence provided?