Gap widening between Bush and conservatives

Townhall.com ^ | January 23, 2004 | Jonah Goldberg

[the gillman@blacklagoon.com]

...why not buy a tank for your backyard?...

Since I'm moving, I don't need any more big things to carry.
Besides, for serious home defense I already have a cannon.

So you have admitted, you have no use for the Constitution.
You think liberty is for nuts, and you would have us all slaves.

Great.

[Mr. Mojo]

I won't be fooled by a thinly veiled hit piece disguised as "conservative concern".

So, what do you think Jonah's motive was for writing this "hit piece" (since you completely dismiss that his being a concerned conservative is an option). What exactly, iyo, is his "agenda." Is he a closet liberal? A DNC mole?

[prairiebreeze]

See my post #256

Also, "socialism" is rather broad and since I have limited time, I'll only have the time to address a small aspect of this complaint. In the SOTU the President made it clear he promotes competition-driven health care. That represents capitalism not socialism.

In the SOTU he also states he can reduce the deficit by half in 4 years. I'd like to hear more specifics about that plan, but he's clearly thinking about and mindful of the deficit.

The ban of partial-birth abortion is the biggest anti-abortion step made by ANY President. We can all agree that more needs to be done, but why forget or minimize the important of this (hopefully) first big step?

I am unable to address your comment on illegal aliens. I have been traveling and am just not sufficiently versed in the subject and need to find some reading time. I WILL say that the President clearly stated in the SOTU that he is AGAINST amnesty. He supports a work-related program (my words here) that he made distinctions about.

I am skeptical of the authors motives for writing this article. To me it appears to be a "Let's see who we can stir up on FR (or other conservative venues)" stink piece. Reading it made me feel like Jonah was trying to catch and reel in fish. I struck me real wrong.

Prairie

[Apple Pan Dowdy]

"His article went straight down the tubes in credibility with his qualification of being an "intellectual" conservative. That's my point. I won't be fooled by a thinly veiled hit piece disguised as "conservative concern"."

So let see... with this logic, if there was a house on fire and a "bed wetting liberal liar" yelled, FIRE.... then you would not believe that there really could be a fire? You would not check out the facts and see for yourself just in case he was right and you needed to take some action..... nope, even if you "smelled smoke" you would say, "I won't be fooled". Great logic!

[prairiebreeze]

If the person yelling FIRE feels compelled to interject that he is the only one capable of determining that there is a fire or that only he is smart enough to yell about it....does that make you start smelling the smoke in sympathy?

You refuse to acknowlege my biggest complaint about the article. And that's OK if that's the way it is for you. But I didn't call him a bed-wetting liberal liar did I?

I wondered aloud if he is a mole. And I'm still curious about that.

Prairie

[BureaucratusMaximus]

If this were a perfect Country with conservative judges, I wouldn't have a problem with any of this. But it isn't -- too many people have been let out of prison or jail for a technicality, went out and bought weapons, and shot some innocent person.

And this is FreeRepublic...a conservative activist site. Should we not be out there actively engaging each other, as well as our elected Republican officials to move the nation toward a more perfect, constitutional, republic? Or do we settle for BS, band-aid solutions(and most of the time "solutions" that actually add to the problem) from people who have an (R) at the end of their name, and cheer loudly when our side wins? I don't like being played for a fool...the AWB sucks for law abiding firearms owners. It doesn't even remotely address the real problem(s) at hand (unpunished crime, repeat crime, judicial mediocrity, other stringent laws that keep the police from doing their job, etc.)

One of my biggest complaints is some of the pawn dealers who deal on the black market. I think they should be locked away permanently.

Again...this is a crime and judicial integrity issue...not a gun issue.

Personally think law enforcement should be concentrating more on shutting down the illegal gun sales then on individuals buying guns from a gun dealer.

LEO's should be concentrating more on murderers, urban gang activity, rapists, and armed burgulars. The judicial process should be "justice" enhancer...it should help LEO's rather than help criminals.

BTW -- semi automatics I don't have any trouble with at all. Just don't see the need for someone in my neighborhood to have a fully automatic rifle. Maybe if I lived on a mountaintop somewhere I might see things differently. But then I don't see where deer hunting is a sport when you put up a deer feeder, hide in a blind and pick them off as they come to feed.

Again...the AWB does not cover automatic weapons. With the exception of governmental approval, fully automatic weapons were banned from public ownership in the 30's.

[Reelect President Dubya]

So you believe everything you read from any Liberal rag?

[Dead Corpse]

To me, in my opinion, he see Bush slidding too far towards the left. Bush needs to be reminded that there are lines you cannot cross and still be considered a viable candidate for conservatives.

[cyncooper]

Bush does not want people thinking for themselves

What?????

Wow, talk about a skewed perception and faulty evalution.

LOL

[BureaucratusMaximus]

Did Bush just support a drugs for seniors plan that will saddle our children and their children with an even bigger boon-doggle than social security?

Thats no big deal...alot of cheerleaders here are retired or will soon be retiring anyway. /sarcasm

[Apple Pan Dowdy]

I don't want to debate whether or not the author is liberal or conservative, I don't really care. The fact still remains that there are issues, very important issues where Bush and a LOT of conservatives do not see eye to eye. We do need to remind him of these issues and not let fear keep us from doing so.

[cyncooper]

Look, she is not a frightened little rabbit and your assinine characterization was baseless and out of line.

Get it?

(I notice some of you adopt the "leap to conclusions" tack, which hardly speaks well for anyone thinking your opinion is worth a bucket of warm spit)

[cynicom]

Cyn Please keep it non personal. cyni

[Dead Corpse]

She is the one who "jumped to the conclusion" that only criminal thugs would want an "assault weapon".

Will you now step up to the plate and try to convince us that a regurgitation of the Brady Campaigns talking points should go unchallenged?

[cyncooper]

Why should I? I haven't even ventured an opinion, but you demonstrated my point that instead of sticking to logic and facts, you LEAP to conclusions about what others are thinking and saying.

[cyncooper]

You're right, cyni.

I was so taken aback I dashed off my note. But I truly can't think of how you could make such a conclusion.

At any rate, my apologies.

[Dead Corpse]

Why should I?

Since this is a forum, and you came to her defense, I assumed you had on opinion on the matter. I would like to hear what it is. Is that too hard to understand? That is why I phrased it as a QUESTION, instead of making it an outright statement.

Care to give it a whirl?

[cyncooper]

Yes, I have an opinion. You leaped to the conclusion of what it is.

I was merely reading along and commenting on the tone of certain posts.

Those are the comments I wished to make.

[Dead Corpse]

You leaped to the conclusion of what it is.

I asked you a question. I reached no conclusion. I have my suspicions... but I'm waiting until you answer to confirm them.

Are you going to? Or not?

[carton253]

Well, I clicked on your link and found this post from PhiKapMom.

You just did one of the "let's paint a broad picture here!"

I guess owning a rifle, shotguns, and a handgun doesn't qualify for Right to Bear Arms which I am 100% in agreement. I am also believe that people buying guns should have to have evidence of a safety course completed or go to one before buying the gun. I also don't believe in instant gun purchases where some hothead can go down and get a gun immediately and then shoot their spouse or whoever because they are mad. Don't see why waiting 24 hours matters.

No one will ever convince me that the same assualt weapons our military use should be in the hands of private citizens.

So sue me for my opinion.

Then I read this part of your post...

Advocating bans and licensing is the same as saying, "You are either too criminally evil or too stupid to own a firearm of this type."

Which tells me two things...

#1... PhiKapMom did not say that you were stupid, evil, or both.

#2... You, yourself, recognize this fact by posting... it is the same as saying...

I would quit while I was ahead because this is a battle you are going to loose. You defamed PhiKapMom's character and your own post admits as much.