Posted on 01/10/2007 7:09:18 PM PST by onyx
Edited on 01/10/2007 8:01:20 PM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
It is reported that Senator Lott has a list of 10 names of GOP senators who have elected to stand with the democrats, instead of supporting our own WAR TIME, GOP POTUS.
Brownback;
Coleman;
Lugar?;
Snow;
Collins;
Hagel;
and likely
Voinovich;
Smith;
Two have not yet been named (outed).
.
Republican Sens. George Voinovich of Ohio and John Warner of Virginia also might be persuaded. Warner said he supports the Iraq Study Group recommendations, which strongly cautioned against an increase in troops unless advocated by military commanders.
Thank you! :-)
I aim to please, as well as to educate. :-)
All we have to do is keep the people away from the oil fields.
While you're at it please explain just how we can make oil out of coal? They tried to make gas (Methane) out of it in the mid '70's, but oil was not possible. Did some new miracle technology just spring up out of nowhere?
The same way the Germans did in WWII, it's easy, its just costs a little more than crude does now. Could you be confusing coal with shale?
The libs would go nuts. They said that was our purpose in invading Iraq in the first place. We should have listened to them.
And just HOW do you propose that the military not only do that, but also work the fields and ship the oil back home? That IS theft, BTW, and also so completely an implausible and unworkable suggestion, that I must ask ask you....HOW OLD ARE YOU?
Basically push the population away from the oil fields and if that isn't possible destroy the oil fields. It isn't theft, if they start the fight. I am old enough to know how to win the war.
Oh wonderful...let those who don't support us starve. And just HOW do we know WHO supports us and who doesn't?
The populations that don't give us any trouble. For example if the kurds keep minding their own business and keep their area under control with a stable government we give them a portion.
Are we now responsible for feeding every single Kurd and Sunni and Shia?
We are now. Under my plan we would mostly ignore them until they have a functioning government, with law and order.
Remove your fingers from the key board, back away sloooooooooowly, and go do a whole lot of research on the Middle East, oil, warfare, and American history before you post again.
I have done a lot of research. The simplest solution may be to simply destroy Irans oil fields, seize their platforms, and tell the rest of the area that we will do the same to their oil fields if they attack us, declare war on us, support our enemies (proxy warfare), etc. I don't care if they refuse to sell us oil or to anyone else for that matter. They have a lot more to lose than we do, we will survive with $5-10 a gallon gasoline. Without oil revenues radical Islam will collapse. If they sell to anyone, that will simply help us because oil is a fungible commodity.
If Bush wants to prevent more 9/11's, his 20,000 troops would be of more use stationed on our borders with Canada and Mexico than stationed and getting blown up in Iraq. Which is the smarter investment of blood and treasure towards the goal of protecting America from terrorism? Regime-changing, nation-building, and street-fighting in the the middle of the terrorists' hive, or fortifying our borders, airports, ports, and immigration system such that no matter what nation happens to be today's safe-haven for terrorists, they can't get inside of our country, and if they do, we make it next to impossible for them to carry out their mission and promptly kill them.
Bush can send 1,000,000 troops to Iraq and we can't come close to killing every Islamist. By simply enforcing points of entry and tightly controlling who and what enters and stays in America, we can prevent terrorism without starting hopeless wars in Arabia.
I can guarantee you that my friends in the military did NOT sign up so they could patrol our borders. That is what the Border Patrol is for. You wanna add more people to the Border Patrol? Fine. But leave our military out of it. It's not what they've trained for and it's NOT what they want to do.
Essentially all it takes to convert coal to crude is hydrogen and heat. A nuclear reactor can provide both and produce excess electricity at the same time.
There are basically two reasons we aren't doing it. First no one wants to build anymore nukes, the environmentalists have made it too expensive. Secondly gasoline is too cheap to make it economically viable. The Saudis cost of producing a barrel of oil is around $2 (they have the cheapest production costs in the world) to be economically viable the cost of crude needs to stay above $60 a barrel. No one in their right mind is going to invest in the process until they are sure that they aren't going to get priced out of the market.
Do they want to defend their country? America is getting invaded by Mexicans, drug lords, and terrorists and her military is half a world away defending Iraqis.
They ARE defending their country. The purpose of the militar is not, and never has been, to patrol the border. You are utterly ridiculous.
You're right. The purpose of the military is not to patrol the border. The purpose of the military is to defend America. And America is more directly threatened by what is coming and can come across her border than by militias and killing squads in Iraq.
That's the dumbest thing I've heard all night.
We found strong, elected officials who were "true conservatives" to take on both Chafee and Specter, who are 20X more liberal than Lindsey Graham will ever be. What happened? Oh yeah, we were told we HAD to support Chafee & Specter, because they were "electable". And for all the whining about McCain constantly on FR, what "true conservative" ran against McCain? NOBODY!! (Actually there some token opposition in the form of a write-in campaign, which was ignored on this forum). If McCain is pure evil like you guys claim, you think Arizona conservatives would get off their butts and find at least ONE candidate to oppose him. Nobody ran against McCain or Graham, so those who "regret" voting for them are saying they would prefer if the RAT had won. Fine, join the RAT party and get it over with.
>> Lindsey Graham may have a 90% Conservative voting record in the Senate, but his 10% liberal vote is too much! <<
Really? Someone who votes conservative 90% of the time ain't good enough? Let's see if you apply the same standard to other Senators. Here are some Senators with the same amount or even more "liberal" votes than Graham: SHELBY, GRASSLEY, ROBERTS, McCONNELL, BOND, BURNS, GREGG, DOMENICI, BURR, SMITH, SANTORUM (88%, 3 points less than Graham), THUNE, ALEXANDER, HUTCHISON, HATCH, BENNETT, THOMAS, ENZI, and so on.
I must have missed all the vanity threads pointing all the times they "betrayed" us by voting with the Dems. BTW, George Allen, who got nothing but worship on this board for a while, scored a lifetime conservative record of 92% -- a whooping one percent higher than Graham. Can you say double standard? Graham votes conservative 91% and is a traitor. Allen votes conservative 92% of the time and we should nominate him for President. What about the 10% of the time Allen "voted with the Democrats" and "agreed with McCain"? Why not post vanities about it and call for his head in the primary? Hmmm.
>> He claims to be an independent thinker, but check his rhetoric...he's a mouth piece for John McCain.
Ah, you Graham=McCain people sound just the Tancredo=Buchanan ranters on this board. Fine, let me take your advice and compare their voting records on "key conservative issues" Here's just 2005 alone:
Tax Cuts -- Fiscal 2006 Budget Resolution.
McCain OPPOSED Tax Cuts, Graham SUPPORTED them
Climate Change -- Energy Policy. HR 6 (Roll Call 148) “Greenhouse gas” emission levels
McCain SUPPORTED Clinton-era emission levels, Graham OPPOSED them
Mercury Emissions Rule -- Passage. S J Res 20 (Roll Call 225)
McCain SUPPORTED strict mercury emission standards, Graham OPPOSED them
ANWR Oil and Gas Leasing -- Budget Reconciliation. S 1932 (Roll Call 288)
McCain OPPOSED drilling ANWR. Graham SUPPORTED it.
Raise Tax Increases on Oil and Gas Development -- S 2020 (Roll Call 332)
McCain SUPPORTED higher taxes. Graham OPPOSED them.
Federal Interference in Energy Markets
McCain OPPOSED federal intervention, Graham SUPPORTED it
Those were the major votes where the two of them deviated from the "conservative line" McCain voted the "wrong" way on the first 5, but correct on the last one. His rating last year was 80% conservative. Graham voted the "right way" on the first 5, but wrong on the last one, for a 96% rating. At no time did they even vote the same "liberal" position. If Graham is really McCain's little puppet, he must have somehow forgotten McCain's position on tax cuts and ANWR because those are two HUGE issues in the Senate.
In reality, all this "Graham is a traitor and McCain's evil henceman" crap is based SOLELY on the following two votes: 1) Gang of 14 compromise, 2) Terrorist detainee methods. The Graham haters are on a fishing expidiction to "prove" he's liberal and ignore the other 90% of his record.
I could just as easily "prove" Mel Martinez is a "McCain puppet" because of his liberal votes on immigration. While I strongly disgaree with Martinez and oppose his appointment as RNC, I don't spend every thread ranting that he's an evil homosexual socialist, that the no. #1 priority for this nation is defeating him in the next primary, and that things would be so much better if Republicans voted for Betty Castro instead.
>> People in SC have plenty of reasons to dislike John McCain and Lindsey Graham. If you want to know what happened in the 2000 Presidential race, go to your local library and read some SC newspapers from that time! You might be surprised at how dishonest and disingenuous McCain and Graham were!! <<
I remember the 2000 election quite well, thank you very much. One of the things that annoyed me about McCain is Mr. "Straight Talk" claimed to be neutral on the confederate flag in SC and then AFTER the primary was over, he admitted he didn't like the flag but had been on script to win the primary. The guy is obviously a shallow media whore and a arrogant jerk, which is why I would oppose him in a primary for President. However, his voting record is fairly good and certainly isn't the evil socialist some nuts on this board make him out to be.
Graham's record is far more impressive, and while I remember 2000, you all seem to have collective amnesia about what happened two years earlier in 1998. Read David Shipper's "Sellout" for a crash course on Graham's character. Never in my wildest dreams would I guess Freepers would heap praise on the likes of Peter King over Lindsey Graham. No wonder Hillary has a shot at the White House when conservatives defend scumbags and try to purge everyone who stood up to the Clinton's. Slick Willie is laughing all the way to the bank. Graham isn't the best Senator, but he is far from the traitor the anti-Graham lunatics make him out to be. On the contrary, he has more spine than about 3/5ths of the ciphers in that body. McCain is a jerk, but he isn't the anti-Christ. Linc Chafee & Arlen Specter vote with the Dems on a regular basis, which makes them far more dangerous.
Unlike the rest of FR, I remember Graham's record during impeachment, and do apologize for standing up for the man who stood up for us and led the fight to impeach the first popularly elected President, against overwhemingly opposition from the Dems and the media.
Some freepers here think Katherine Harris was entitled to a Senate seat for simply doing her job in 2000, and we were supposed to bow down and get behind her, and ignore the fact she was an awful candidate with a less than steller record. If those people can shove Harris down our throats, I will stand firm for Graham. What HE did is far more impressive than what Harris did, hands down.
"And that is why Harry Reid runs the Senate -- alot of so-called "conservatives" would rather spend all their time and energy to remove a fellow conservative from office than consentrate on defeating liberals. We got 49 commie RATS, one admitted socialist, and four RINOs who regularly vote with the Dems, but instead of trying to throw out of any THOSE people, they're obsessed with defeating a 90% conservative Senator.
And vice versa, got a whole bunch of "conservatives" who would rather spend their time and money to help re-elect socialist Democrats than help re-elect fellow conservatives.
Just think, if all the "conservatives" who donated to Joe Lieberman out of state in 2006 had INSTEAD given than money to Senators Allen, Talent, or Burns (each of whom lost by less than 0.5%), WE'D be running the Senate now."
I actually like you post and think it makes a lot of sense, but one thing keeps nagging at me.
If we don't show the GOP that weak Republicans can't get voted in then maybe they will back a more conservative runner the next time around.
No, I wasn't one of those conservatives who stayed home on election day, I worked my butt off for Allen and worked the polls all day. The one thing I see coming his that more conservatives will be on the ticket for next election.
Brownback and Coleman are the only names on that list that surprise me.
I wrote the president last night and will write to Lindsey Graham later today.
Morning, sleuthie. I have Kit Bond to call.
If anyone cost the Republicans the majority, it was the senate and house RINOS and the "moderates" (i.e., liberal-tarian, drug lovin', homo-apologist, pro-abortion, illegal alien pandering bunch).
I just think his liberal social views and his personal marital baggage will doom him with GOP primary voters.
If there is a single issue that is a deciding one for me, it's an agressive prosecution of the WOT. I have no doubt that Rudy would be even more aggresive than the present administration. But there are a great many single issue voters on our side. They will sit out the next election if their choice is between two pro abortion, or pro-gay, or anti-gun candidates. I know, because here in the Atlanta area I hear it from people every day.
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.