So you think George W. Bush is not a conservative?

SOTU transcript ^ | 1/22/04

[Sabertooth]

Another example of Reagan's support of Isreal against the UN

OK, look, you don't seem to get, or seem to hope that others don't get, that you dug yourself a big rhetorical hole with your "Reagan never dids."

I don't have to show that Reagan "always," "usually," or even "sometimes" did any of those things to disprove your statements. I only have to demonstrate it once. Once trumps "never," when the assertion is "never," as yours were.

As to Israel, Reagan, and the UN: You said Reagan never stood up to the UN. I gave a few examples where he did. UNESCO, funding, abortions, and Israel.

You're now giving an example of where Reagan didn't side with Israel in the UN. That would be sufficent if I'd said Reagan "always" stood up to the UN on behalf of Israel. However, I didn't.

Like "never," "always" is a claim to avoid making, as it can be easily disproved.

All I have to do to support my claim is show that Reagan stood up to the UN on behalf of Israel even once. This is actually pretty easy to do, for any U.S. President, GOP or Dem, as it's part of our UN Ambassador's unofficial job description to give Israel some cover against the cabal of anti-Semites infesting the UN.

Here's the example for Reagan I've chosen, to support my claim that he stood up to the UN on Israel:

Approximately 35 Americans working with the U.N. peacekeeping force in southern Lebanon (UNIFIL) were removed from their jobs out of fear they would be attacked by Shiite Muslim guerrillas. Fears of an attack have heightened since February 28, when the U.S. indicated that it would veto a Lebanese-sponsored U.N. Security Council resolution condemning Israel for its new "iron-fist" policies in southern Lebanon.
A Chronology of U.S.-Middle East Relations
March 2nd, 1985 - wrmea.com

[Texasforever]

Houston. Where in Canada are you collecting your benefits?

[PSYCHO-FREEP]

Nanodik.....

Democrat mole since 12/05/'2003

[Nanodik]

Interesting that even you won't take Bush back. Are you going to be as kind to his brother Jeb when he gets in office and decides to go to town like a drunken sailor on shore leave?

[tpaine]

PSYCHO-FREEP wrote:
This guy belongs on our "A" list Luis..


_____________________________________


Hey, way kool!!
How bout you guys publish your 'lists'?

Got the guts? -- I'd bet not..

[George W. Bush]

Bush I broke his tax pledge in order to get some much needed budgetary concessions from congressional Democrats. His broken pledge helped balance the budget, and helped fully realize the Reagan economic recovery. Thinking challenged right wingers failed to understand what was happening, and allowed themselves to be led away from the GOP by the Democrats, and in fact, handed the bragging rights to the combined efforts of Reagan and Bush I, plus the greatest economic boom in recent history, to William Jefferson Clinton.

This is some really bizarre spin. I have to admit, I've never heard it spun this way. But then, I never liked or trusted Spook Daddy. I actually like the present Bush much better as things have turned out.

I'm not sure exactly where you get this interpretation of economic policy. I don't think I've ever read this before, even here at FR.

So your position that Bush lied to us and broke his no-new-taxes pledge was actually a Good Thing? That campaign promises should be broken whenever they like? That their word is meaningless?

If so, why should we ever vote again?

I think we have to hold them accountable. When they promise something over and over and over and over (like Bush I did), then our ability to keep them accountable will disappear if we vote for willful dissemblers.

The biggest problem with your theory is that the voters just don't like blatant liars.

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

Amusing. The Soviet government classified some of its critics as mentally disordered also. Doesn't say much for your line of reasoning...

[Nanodik]

Houston. Where in Canada are you collecting your benefits?

Interesting, I know some people in Houston. I used to collect them from southern Ontario. Interestingly, they all thought I was too American and you think I am too Canadian.

[Texasforever]

Yep and when we took casualties he promptly abandoned the field. Look, you tried to make your stand on the flimsiest evidence. Regan NEVER signed a bill limiting abortions in any way, and he NEVER stood up to the UN in anyway other than withholding dues. Now, do you want to try to take on the other 5 or 6 "never dids" I posted? You may do better with those.

[Texasforever]

The Soviet government classified some of its critics as mentally disordered also.

However they didn't need evidence. Now don't take this personally, but there is a LOT of evidence on a few around here.

[Nanodik]

Then get yourself over to DU, they need all the help they can get getting a Democrat elected.

That would be like preaching to the choir. I prefer to make some converts. You may not believe this but most of my family is RP down the line and most of them are totally pissed off at Bush right now so I know it can't just be me.

[Texasforever]

I used to collect them from southern Ontario

So you just collect them here I guess.

[Luis Gonzalez]

So Jim, we have a guy in here trying to get votes for Democrats.

[Jim Robinson]

Doubt he'll have much luck.

[PSYCHO-FREEP]

Here's the link I gave him Tex: click

[Nanodik]

So you just collect them here I guess.

No, I'll probably have to wait for the Bush amnesty program for that.

[Republican Wildcat]

I think that's quite obvious from the posts you have placed on this thread. Don't play dumb now. You've made your comments, now they are to be scrutinized--and no, I'm not going to 'shut my mouth'. If you don't want your statements scrutinized, don't make them. I don't post things on a public forum and then expect no one to comment on them. Your response indicates you yourself aren't exactly comfortable with your own statements.

Furthermore, let me add to what I said before: you don't care about the troops, either. Think of how demoralized they'd be if one of the Dems defeats Bush. Think of how that would affect those that are deployed in dangerous places, and how it would affect our national securtiy.

The fact you won't defend your own statements and try to deflect the implications of them proves the weakness of your position.

[George W. Bush]

Give them enough rope...

Luis, you are an hopeless optimist.

I'll merely point out that there are certain divisions of responsibility, federal/state/local, that are a part of divided government.

When the Dims finally get back into power and seize control of Bush's federal intrusion into education, I think you're going to regret your naivete. Hopefully it won't happen. But I've seen this stuff happen too many times.

Federalizing anything other than defense and highway systems is, in general, a liberal tactic. That's the Dim's game, not ours.

You should understand, Luis, that for me Bush's federalization of education is personal. Because of Bush's agenda in education, I will not run for a third term. It would be entirely futile. Maybe eight years is enough anyway. I know a lot of other conservative education activists who have reached the same conclusion.

The Clinton gang never defeated us. Bush has.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Which part of the scenario did you not understand...I can type slower if it helps you.

Are you so naive to believe that Bill Clinton's economic policies were the accelerant behind the economic boom during his presidency?

If you do, then you likewise believe that the recent downturn came about as a result of Bush's economic policies.

In other words, you believe that a multi-gazillion economy turns on a dime.

Clinton's boom was Reagan's and Bush I's boom, Dubya's recession is actually Clinton's.

Now, you may not like the answer, but it does not change the facts.

[Nanodik]

So Jim, we have a guy in here trying to get votes for Democrats.

Now you are exaggerating. I said my guy was anybody but Bush. I would actually prefer that all my converts vote straight line LP.