 "Are there contradictions in our Worker's Paradise oppressing workers? Yes, but those contradictions are a good thing, since they will ensure that there will be a glorious dialectical materialist leap to a golden future utopia!" |
Posted on 09/22/2004 5:32:31 AM PDT by Dazedcat
Theodore Roosevelt, that most virile of presidents, insisted that, "To announce that there should be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American people."...........
(Excerpt) Read more at nypress.com ...
A waste of breath on one whose profile states, "A Republican and a Conservative are two mutually exclusive things....."
"She is smart, tough on forgien policy"
She's not even a true conservative on foreign policy. She basically follows the Project for a New American Century line on nation-building, interventionism etc. If I recall correctly she even supported Clinton's idiotic involvement in the former Yugoslavia including "Kosovo".
this is just a moby effort to throw conservatives off balance.
Republicans can survive a Bush loss,
Democrats can not survive a kerry loss.
Imagine how much better the conservatives will be with the grand debates being between conservative majorities.
I was going to say "paleo-Buchananite", but even Pat Buchanan has indicated that a Bush administration is better than a Kerry one, so Stop_Neocons falls into a category even lower than a Brigadier.
You have a problem with the truth?
| "Are there contradictions in our Worker's Paradise oppressing workers? Yes, but those contradictions are a good thing, since they will ensure that there will be a glorious dialectical materialist leap to a golden future utopia!" |
I thought that quoting Hegel was a little strange, but .. hey, who am I to trash someone's heroes?
I hate to say this, but that's really not true at all. The Defense Department under the Bush administration was dominated by a civilian leadership that had been advocating a U.S. invasion of Iraq long before 9/11 -- long before Bush was even elected, in fact.
Bush's faults aside (no, I don't worship at the Crawford altar), a second Bush Administration is the ONLY opportunity that we have this election cycle to make certain that we even have a shot at making positive change.
That possibility will not exist with a Kerry Administration. We will have no voice, nor opportunity to create change. On the contrary, all those things that we have issue with, from immigration/border issues to tax and spend policy will be tossed to the four winds under Kerry.
Of course, that's provided Ketchup Boy doesn't get us all killed first.
So are you saying that you SUPPORT a Kerry presidency?
"tell me why I should vote again for GWB, feel free."
The choice this election is between Bush and Kerry. There are other minor candidates on some state ballots that are surefire losers. And, yes, you could write in a candidate. Both of these options are tantamount to throwing your vote away at best, and allowing Kerry to win at worst.
Bush may not be your ideal candidate. Candidates never are. Even Reagan had problems. But when you run in a pluralistic and diverse nation that happens to be the leader of the free world you can't run purely on ideology. Pragmatism has to rule the day. Their are unholy alliances that will be made and Hobson's choices to be decided on. As the Rolling Stone's sing "you can't always get what you want, but you get what you need."
Let's look back to 9/11. Imagine if Al Gore was president. He'd get up on his pulpit. Rant and rave. But would he actually do anything other than issue a few subpoena to Al Qaida? Maybe start up a few union based agencies. Saddam would still be in power, paying of homicide bombers in the West Bank, and trying to steal nukes from some Soviet breakaway state, or maybe even China. Do you honestly think Kerry would act differently? They have the same exact mindset that terrorism is a legal matter.
You can vote for whom you like, but only one candidate, George W. Bush, has the record of taking the fight to the terrorists. One one candidate has the record of supporting the troops. Only one candidate has the record of consistently supporting Israel against the terrorists who seek to destroy her. One only candidate has a record of fighting for tax cuts for ALL taxpayers.
In addition to this record, Bush has nominated suburb judges; ones that Kerry has vote to prevent from being seated. By not voting for Bush, you must have great confidence that Kerry will nominate such judges that believe in the text of the Constitution as its written rather than as they want it to be written. If you like the decisions of Ginsburg and Breyer, then vote for Kerry, but don't call yourself a conservative if you do so.
In the end, this election is not about conservatism though. Its about America. One candidate want to preserve our freedoms and way of life, the other thinks we should delegate it to the UN.
The choice is clear. It may not be perfect, but it is clear. If you need to be reminded or educated about this you just are not paying enough attention to events.
If your that confused, then I say vote for kerry.
Your either with us or against us!
And you think they have learned nothing since then? Dream on.
The West Point classes had been taught that the US was a union of sovereign states. That is not taught anymore.
And keep in mind that the this class SPLIT on the issue. The current classes would probably not split.
Not going to argue it any more. When I was younger and single, it wouldn't have bothered me much. Nowadays, I have MUCH higher priorities that worrying about the Republican candidate not being a real conservative.
Been there. Conservative or not, troops tend to obey their orders. If ordered to suppress an insurrection or rebellion, they WILL supress it to best of their ability. The first Civil War was bad enough. A civil war with modern weaponry does NOT bear thinking about.
________________
Remember the Bonus Army that marched on Washington during the Depression was fired on by troops led by General MacArthur.
Post #106 was meant for any ideologue who says: "Embrace defeat in order to gain victory! Let's all do the Dialectical Materialist Leap!"
That's an excellent point. When you belong to a political party that supports principles that are well-founded in logic, reason, and Constitutional law, it is much easier to function in an opposition role than in a governing one -- because these principles are self-evident and easily defended. There wasn't a more "conservative" era in modern GOP history than the two-year period from 1993-94 when the Democrats controlled the White House and both houses of Congress.
Great post. I've been advocating the "reverse packing" concept ever since the Democrat stonewalling process in judicial nominations began.
Mark Steyn put it much better than I ever could in two articles recently. Search Mark Steyn and you will find the two. first, he lays out the fact that most of the rest of the world really doesn't "get it' about fanatical Islam. They just don't see it for the threat it really is.
In the second, he compares the future (if they are not stopped) with what has happened with Yassar Arafat and the Palestinians.
In the early fifties, I read my first article on Arafat. He was a terrorist/militant leader in Palestine. Over the years, through negotitions, he became a "statesman", finally given place at negotiations with the highest world leaders, being feted in our WH. I believe he spent more nights in the Lincoln bedroom during Clinton's years than any other world leader. While he negotiated, Palestinian terrorism kept going apace, under his aegis. He never kept his word on any of the negotiations.
If the world leaders, as Kerry wants to do, keep negotiating with terrorists, instead of wiping them out in a combined world effort, in 15 or 20 years, maybe sooner, most of Europe is going to have a 20% plus Muslim population demanding and getting a place in govts. While they negotiate, negotiate, negotiate, terrorism will continue apace. The world of John Kerry and the American and European left will keep treating each incident as a criminal one and just keep talking.
Vote for Bush--he gets it! No, he isn't perfect, but he is a good leader for our times. Evil will not go away just because people refuse to fight it and WANT peace. You cannot talk peace into existance.
vaudine
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.