Posted on 08/02/2005 5:06:38 PM PDT by 4.1O dana super trac pak
Not at all. Simply tit for tat. You want to debate like an adult, fine. I'll be happy to do so. You want to act like a child, fine. I'll treat you like one.
Great! You should have no trouble being satisfied with the outcome of '08. I believe an American will be elected.
"He has already alienated two voting blocks"
Illegal aliens and Islamophiles?
If you are speaking about Bush 43, You mean like the World Court, or Kyoto? Or putting conservative judges on the bench? Or putting people like John Bolton into the UN? Or pulling out of the ridiculous North Korea talks while NK was violating every agreement ever reached with Clinton?
So far I have not seen UN blue helmets patrolling my streets, nor have I seen our forces given over to the UN or Nato to conduct military operations as was done under Clinton. As for CAFTA, so far I have not been instructed to speak in Spanish. Now if you are referring to Clinton, I agree.
Didn't know illegals could vote.
"Didn't know illegals could vote."
Yeah, I know they're not supposed to. So, does that cut it down to one voting block?
"It is unhelpful and silly."
Yes, it was rather insensitive wasn't it? It sure stirred sh*t up though. I want a president that's in touch with his inner self and is sensitive to the feelings and needs of others. I want a president who cares about the environment and the poor (especially the poor from Mexico) and doesn't mind wearing his heart on his sleeve. Oh, wait a minute, that was Bill Clinton!
Only if all of the Hispanics in the US are illegal.
I lost respect for him with the "nuke Muslim cities" comment. It is unhelpful and silly.
How would we sell a major retaliation to the world that does not even understand Afghanistan or Iraq. Glib answers (Bomb the B@stards) seem satisfying but they don't work when there are 1.3 billion Muslims, 2/3's of who would cheer a nuclear terrorist attack on America.
The terrorist have no central base, such as a state or country. - What about Syria and Iran?
The terrorist have no financial institutions. Pakistan and Saudi Arabia?
"Only if all of the Hispanics in the US are illegal."
First, if by this remark you mean that Hispanics here legally will not support a candidate who insists on enforcing the immigration laws, then I choose not to pander to those Hispanic voters and instead vote for someone who will uphold the rule of law.
Second, IIRC polls show that Americans of Hispanic descent favor enforcement of the immigration laws.
I realize that someone like Tacredo would not win the Islamic vote or the La Raza vote. However, for each one of those he would lose, I bet he would pick up three American votes for the courageous positions he takes.
Nuking Mecca was one of the best statements Tancredo has ever made ~ it doesn't affect his unelectablity.
Be Ever Vigilant ~ Bump!
He might. But in any case he does start out (assuming a lot) with baggage, that's all. When you talk about bombing cities and mosques, it does give pause to some. Both sides need sacrificial lambs to say what the candidates or the President can't. Do you think that if Kennedy or Durbin were running for president, their rhetoric would be the same as it has been?
I support free trade, as long as its fair trade. Some have made the argument that under the extenuating circumstances of western hemisphere-third world political gamesmanship, passing CAFTA was the only sensible thing to do. My guy Cong Joel Hefley voted for CAFTA. I wish he would have gone along with Cong Tom Tancredo on this one by voting NO. I wouldn't place so much emphasis on this one vote. While there are many Republicans who call themselves conservative by talking the talk, there are other Republicans who act like a conservative by walking the walk.
So stop the juvenile rhetoric and control yourself. Either apologize for acting irrational and emotional and move on, or reaffirm your admiration for Clinton and be done with it.
So was Pee-Wee Herman.
Specious and convoluted? Heck, I thought I was being pretty straightforward telling you that you were acting like a child. Nothing convoluted about it.
And yes, Clinton had the skills to be a great president. And no, you are incorrect in saying that I was praising him. I despise the man. But then, I'm beginning to feel similarly toward you.
So stop the juvenile rhetoric and control yourself.
You mean juvenile rhetoric like "take a hike"? LOL.
Either apologize for acting irrational and emotional and move on, or reaffirm your admiration for Clinton and be done with it.
You left out the third option...to ignore idiots!
No I didn't.
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.