The conservatives are outraged -- about Bush (CPAC ArticleBarf Alert)

Salon ^ | 27 Jan 04 | Michelle Goldberg

[Warrior Nurse]

The conservatives are outraged -- about Bush At the annual Conservative Political Action Conference, foot soldiers of the right rail against the big-government, free-spending ways of the White House By Michelle Goldberg

[Southflanknorthpawsis]

if you want Conservative governance, you have to convince most of the people to become Conservatives. You don't even want to do that, so, like the Deanies and the Naderites, you threaten to take your ball and go home.

In the middle of the greatest struggle of our times.

How freaking pathetic. Next thing I know the Right will declare jihad over the fact that the Bureau of Weights and Measures is overfunded.

Absolutely on the money, Chris. I do not know what fantasy world these people live in.

[Southflanknorthpawsis]

So, I see. You actually do believe that you and a handful of fellow cranks are brighter, more principled, etc. and thus hover in a special place above the rest of us.

Now that IS funny. Nothing else needs to be said. You have demonstrated exactly why you folks will never move from where you are and will never succeed in persuading very many others.

What is amusing is that with all your brilliance (cough, cough) and sterling "principle", you are clueless about human nature and are little more than background noise.

[HalfIrish]

No matter how long it is between visits, I am always heartened to see alot of the "two percenters" still here. (Funny that she thinks the right wing is only two percent of the GOP. Apparently she is as delusional or politically reckless as GWB.)

What is the Constitution Party's position on sodomites marrying? Do they support the effort here in Mass. to define marriage as exclusively the union of a man and woman?

[RiflemanSharpe]

Exactly, I posted something similiar a few days ago and it drove the BushBots insane.

[RiflemanSharpe]

I looked at the Constitution Party website and liked what I saw. I have decided to give them my support.

[Rebelbase]

Looks like the voting choice is turning out as this:

Socialism with Security = Bush.

Socialism without Security= Whoever runs against Bush.

[AGreatPer]

"He's (Dean) the kind of guy to announce a run as an independent."

You are exactly correct. You called it. Dean wants revenge from being sandbagged by the Clintons and the Press. And, he has the money to do it.

[The_Eaglet]

What is the Constitution Party's position on sodomites marrying? Do they support the effort here in Mass. to define marriage as exclusively the union of a man and woman?

Here is the plank on the family:

The law of our Creator defines marriage as the union between one man and one woman. The marriage covenant is the foundation of the family. We affirm, therefore, that no government may authorize or define marriage or family relations contrary to what God has instituted. Parents have the fundamental right and responsibility to nurture, educate, and discipline their children. Assumption of any of these responsibilities by any governmental agency usurps the role of the parents.

[The_Eaglet]

Looks like the voting choice is turning out as this:
Socialism with Security = Bush.
Socialism without Security= Whoever runs against Bush. I don't like socialism, and the federal does not have the authority to force it upon every state.

Presidential candidate Michael Peroutka seeks to remove socialism from the federal government and let the states and the people decide according to the reserved powers described in the Tenth Amendment.

[HalfIrish]

Now that sounds like something a "two percenter" could sink his teeth into.

[ravingnutter]

Google is cooperating this morning, thank goodness:

TIMES NEWS NETWORK[ MONDAY, JANUARY 26, 2004 01:13:33 AM ] NEW DELHI: The passage of the omnibus-spending Bill with a provision to ban outsourcing by the US Senate has highlighted the central role that outsourcing or more importantly the loss of American jobs will play on the forthcoming US elections.

The Senate ban is effective only on the US companies while they are executing federal projects. This would mean that firms in the US which win federal contracts can not subcontract the project to companies outside the US.

Bush unlikely to veto outsourcing ban Bill

[ravingnutter]

If I got it correctly last night, on Lou Dobbs, these are government jobs.

They apply to any federal contractors and subcontractors as well, which I can attest as a Govt. contractor, is a VERY large group.

I heard on Fox News earlier that Kraft will be laying off 6000 employees. Has Worldcom laid off their 17,000 yet?

Although the Bush-haters erroneously believe that Bush is responsible, Bush cannot be blamed for corporate decisions. Take the layoffs at Kodak for instance. If they would have kept up with digital technology, they would not be laying off thousands of workers. And you also have to factor in the IT/.com bubble that burst a few years ago, another significant source of job loss that the scaremongers say is Bush's fault, but clearly it isn't. And as much as they scream about Enron, it happened on Clinton's watch.

[ex-snook]

Hey thanks for the update on outsourcing. A step in the right direction.

A further step would be if Bush can legally restrict what countries can do business in Iraq, he could restrict who does business here.

[ravingnutter]

A further step would be if Bush can legally restrict what countries can do business in Iraq, he could restrict who does business here.

That's a little trickier...we have international trade agreements that must be abided by and industry is fighting outsourcing bans tooth and nail. However, some states, (New Jersey, Maryland, Connecticut, Washington and Missouri) have been initiating bills that sought to ban the transfer of state data processing contracts to developing nations, another step in the right direction.

An alternative plan being proposed focuses on corporate tax incentives.

[He Rides A White Horse]

Dean wants revenge from being sandbagged by the Clintons and the Press. And, he has the money to do it.

He'll have the resources to inflict serious damage on the Democrats (as you say), and when he is snubbed by them, he'll do it.

[He Rides A White Horse]

We are in the midst of a titanic global struggle among the world's great religions

That's not what I keep hearing. I keep hearing that it's a war on terror.

And what is the answer of the Right when the times call for Churchillian resolution?

I'm not feeling much 'resolution' emanating from the 'moderate' wing of the Republican Party. Or since we have apparently earned the label, "right wing", I will in the future refer to the pro-Mexico, pro-illegal alien amnesty wing as the 'left wing' of the Republican Party.

It seems some of our 'conservative' friends have adopted the language of the Democrats as well as their principals.

George Bush answered the call to arms on 9-11. We invaded Afghanistan and put paid to the regime of the Taliban. We scattered Al Qaeda to the four winds. We then invaded Iraq and destroyed the Middle East's last truly psychotic regime, taking that piece off of bin Laden's chessboard once and for all. George W. Bush instituted landmark tax reductions and nominated real, honest-to-God textualists to the appellate courts.

Right......and perhaps he should listen to his heart like he used to instead of a group demographically challenged pollsters.

George W. Bush is trying to build a governing majority using the Republican Party as his instrument. Anyone who thinks that a major political party can be all Conservative, all the Time, and build a governing majority is an asshat.

Conversely, you must have a theory that says liberals can. They can, they have done so. Yet for some reason, we can't.

I'll give you a hint as to why we can't. It certainly isn't because of any "Churchillian Resolution"

Pardon me, but Jesus Tap-Dancing Christ!

I doubt he was a tap dancer.

How freaking pathetic. Next thing I know the Right will declare jihad over the fact that the Bureau of Weights and Measures is overfunded.

This problem, this impending disaster of allowing illegals to overrun our country is of a much more serious magnitude than the cutsy examples you provide.

If can't see that, then you take the "Stupid Party" label and wear it.

[AGreatPer]

After I saw Hillary's questions and statements today, I am more convinced than ever that she will get the nomination at the conventiion.

She is starting to look as old as the Wall of China and she is losing her speaking ability. It was noted many times by Freepers today her ahhhs, and ahhh between wording is patetic.

Both Clintons want that office back ASAP. It is going to get even more interisting.

Future Democratic add: 2008 is too late, run now cow.

[Howlin]

And you pinged me to that why?

[He Rides A White Horse]

I don't think she's going to do it. She knows she'll be a sure thing in 2008 with all the new MexiDemocrats signing up by them. She probably wants to conduct some 'prepatory' groundwork in the Senate such as trashing the Electoral College and winning over the hoards pouring over the borders. Just think, by 2008, she'll have 50 million new voters on Democrat rolls.

[He Rides A White Horse]

I'm not feeling much 'resolution' emanating from the 'moderate' wing of the Republican Party. Or since we have apparently earned the label, "right wing", I will in the future refer to the pro-Mexico, pro-illegal alien amnesty wing as the 'left wing' of the Republican Party.

It seems some of our 'conservative' friends have adopted the language of the Democrats as well as their principals.

Because you refer to anyone who disagrees with the President as a "right winger".......language of the left.

So I felt it would only be fair to let you know that this was aimed directly at you.