Posted on 09/21/2005 4:54:29 PM PDT by goldstategop
The Contract was great and our current GOP plateform is great. You can read it, obviously for the first time, here. 2004 plateform
We believe that good government is based on a system of limited taxes and spending. Furthermore, we believe that the federal government should be limited and restricted to the functions mandated by the United States Constitution. The taxation system should not be used to redistribute wealth or fund ever-increasing entitlements and social programs.
That's left wing? Only if you are so far to the right that 99.8% of the population is to your left.
The sheeple, like you and democrats...babbling...and Bush and his father are tampons..
You assume 99.8% of the population disagrees with you because THEY are ignorant and your so smart. We are done talking. I don't need to educate you. Wallow in your ignorance.
Obeying the law. Something the previous rat President found troublesome.
What is the criteria for a veto supposed to be?
It's supposed to be the Presidents prerogative. Go read your Constitution. Then re-read it.
Unbelievable.
Looks like the hose has dug himself into a hole from which he can NEVER extricate himself.
I look forward to using his own words against him in any future 'discussions.'
(He makes it SO easy, doesn't he? :)
If a=b and c follows b, then c will always equal a...or something like that. Anyway, once you get your opponent to dig his/her own grave, it is incumbent upon you to ALWAYS force feed him/her their own words. And this debate produced some dandy ammo; I must say. :-)
And you can be sure that in response to our reminders of what he has said, he will resort to insulting us about watching Oprah (I don't, do you?), and being silly females.
It must hurt for the guy to have so many females on this forum so much more intelligent and knowledgable than he. ;)
As to being "silly females", we both may be females, but "SILLY"? LOL
If we were truly "silly", then neither of us could debate him so easily, nor refute his SILLY posts, with such aplomb and acumen.
(I'll bet he didn't understand those words you just used............I don't think Oprah uses them. ;)
I didn't use any weird/difficult/arcane words; just simple English. But since he doesn't know what RINO means, you're probably correct. LOL
(lol, spitting out coffee)
Dearie, Bush isn't even JFK's "equal".
Firstly, Reagan was a Statesman. Bush is NOT. Reagan inspired. Bush does not. Reagan was a man of conviction -- bending on principle to NO ONE. Bush wilts in the face of MSM and Democratic pressure...
Bush could have vetoed CFR, but didn't (Reagan would have vetoed that legislation in two seconds...or ANYHING for that matter...)
He has become a HUGE fiscal liberal...
Even after 9/11 has allowed a massive invasion to go unimpeded, thereby rendering "Homeland Security" a joke...
Honors Bubba Clinton with an ambassadorship -- a man who's dissed Bush 41 AND regularly dissed 43....Without rebuttal! Btw, did the same with Teddy the Swimmer...
And he NEVER uses the bully pulpit to inspire his party OR point out the hypocrisy of the Dems or any of their idiocy...Reagan did it -- with style. And still had the Dems eating out of his hand.
Mark Levin is the CREAM OF THE CROP, as far as knowing Constitutional law and knowing all about the SCOTUS is concerned, of Conservative punditry."
Fine...
The day Mark Levin is appointed a SC Justice, you may engage in your fantasy debate...
But for the moment, Scalia IS the "Cream of the Crop" and actual SC Justice.
"Roberts is one of THE best known nominees any president has EVER made to the SCOTUS!"
Have you a crystal ball, OR are you peering cross-eyed into your empty vodka tonic glass again? ;-)
You're either too young to have actually lived through that era, or you swallowed the propaganda whole.
You have NO idea, none at all, what the two terms of the Reagan presidency was. The mythography, which keeps getting posted to FR, is beyond ridiculous and bordering on idolatry. Reagan caved, many times, to the Dems and was even MORE friendly with them ( Can you say Tip O'Neil ? ), after hours, than President Bush has been; yet President Bush is castigated for that and Reagan put on a pedestal and gilded.
REAGAN GAVE BLANKET AMNESTY TO EVERY SINGLE ILLEGAL ALIEN !
REAGAN RAISED TAXES AND WAS NO FISCAL CONSERVATIVE.
REAGAN CONTINUALLY PRAISED FDR WITH UNALLOYED AND UNABATED ARDOR.
Gee, emotion over acts and substance, really dazzles you; doesn't it? I bet you just LOVED Slick Willie's speeches too. Do you enjoy Hitler's stirring speeches as well?
President Reagan was a good president, but he wasn't anything at all like you and the other's here, who have either no memory of him, ore just enjoy parroting the mythography attest he was. If FR had been around back then, you would be one of THE loudest and nastiest of Reagan's detractors.
How about the Bases?
U.S. Military Bases and Empire
by The Editors
The Bases of Empire
Empires throughout human history have relied on foreign military bases to enforce their rule, and in this respect at least, Pax Americana is no different than Pax Romana or Pax Britannica. “The principal method by which Rome established her political supremacy in her world,” wrote historian Arnold Toynbee in his America and the World Revolution (1962),
was by taking her weaker neighbors under her wing and protecting them against her and their stronger neighbors. Rome’s relation with these protégées of hers was a treaty relation. Juridically they retained their previous status of sovereign independence. The most that Rome asked of them in terms of territory was the cessation, here and there, of a patch of ground for the plantation of a Roman fortress to provide for the common security of Rome’s allies and Rome herself.
At least this is the way Rome started out. But as time passed, “the vast territories of Rome’s one-time allies,” originally secured by this system of Roman military bases, “became just as much a part of the Roman Empire as the less extensive territories of Rome’s one time enemies which Rome had deliberately and overtly annexed” (pp. 105-106).
Britain, in its heyday as the leading capitalist power in the nineteenth century, ruled over a vast colonial empire secured by a global system of military bases. As Robert Harkavy has explained in his important work, Great Power Competition for Overseas Bases (1982), these were deployed in four networks along sea corridors dominated by British naval power: (1) the Mediterranean through Suez to India; (2) South Asia, the Far East, and the Pacific; (3) North America and the Caribbean; and (4) West Africa and the South Atlantic. At the British empire’s peak these military bases were located in more than thirty-five separate countries/colonies. Although British hegemony declined rapidly in the early twentieth century, its bases were retained as long as the empire itself continued, and its base system even expanded briefly during the Second World War. In the immediate aftermath of the war, however, the British Empire crumbled, and the great majority of bases had to be relinquished.
The fall of the British empire was accompanied by the rise of another, as the United States took Britain’s place as the hegemonic power of the capitalist world economy. The United States emerged from the Second World War with the most extensive system of military bases that the world had ever seen. According to James Blaker, former Senior Advisor to the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, this overseas basing system at the end of the Second World War consisted of over thirty thousand installations located at two thousand base sites residing in around one hundred countries and areas, and stretching from the Arctic Circle to Antarctica. U.S. military bases were spread over all the continents and the islands in between. “Next to the U.S. nuclear monopoly,” Blaker writes, “there was no more universally recognized symbol of the nation’s superpower status than its overseas basing system.”*
Article continued here.
http://www.monthlyreview.org/0302editr.htm
The ancient Roman Empire collected taxes from all of the nations it rules over. They changed the governments, imposing their laws and culture throughout the world, and placed their men in charge. Later, the British Empire was no different.
Now, it is true that after WW II, American had and still has military bases in Germany, Japan, etc.; however, even though we changed Japan's government and made Japan into a capitalistic society, we never did get tribute nor taxes from anywhere we have military basis and Japan is the ONLY place whose form of governance was made over. Neither has America EVER placed American governors over a nation, where our basess are.
And neither you nor the author of the tripe you CCPed ( I guess that you are incapable of using your own words and knowledge to refute another's post...pity that. ) acknolwledged that fact that the USSR also had nuclear bombs, after WW II, which utterly blows away the erroneous claim that it was America and America only, who was a nuclear superpower.
Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat?
Is that supposed to be an argument or an example of your level of maturity?
I gave you a good example which you don't want to deal with.
You'd rather pretend I said something else.
You only pretend to win by misrepresenting my position.
I wish we had some money riding on this.
"Japan is the ONLY place whose form of governance was made over"?
Now that's funny!
And we HAVE gotten Reparations and Resources from many that we've occupied.
DID THE USSR OR DID THE USSR NOT HAVE NUKES AFTER WW II?
They did and yet the article or essay you posted claims otherwise. Did you bother to read what you CCPed ?
"Maturity level"? I replied/refuted your post with an accurate, correct, historically factual reply and you question my "maturity level" ? ROTFLOL
I can hear the crickets :)
It depends on what year, or what paragraph is being talked about.
I hadn't counted on your having such poor reading and comprehension skills.
You must be just pretending.
Nobody could be that stupid, unless it's on purpose.
I'll try to explain.
It's our sole Nuclear Superpower Status at the end of WWII that's being described in that paragraph.
I suppose the article just assumes the reader to know that we did not stay permanently stuck in 1946.
And I "CCPed" the first article that came up in an internet search because I wanted only a quick reference to the fact that we maintain thousands of bases in countries all over the world.
You refuted my post that maintaining thousands of bases around the world might be one example of empire?
Gee, I must have missed your brilliant refutation amid all your misspelled words, overuse of caps, and long single letter chainssssssssssssssssss.
I suppose from time to time you've managed to get some people's goats by using such tactics.
To me it sounds like some tot sticking their fingers in their ears and going "La! La! La!"
Time to let you have the last word, no matter how dumb it might be.
No crickets.
I just needed a few moments to roll my eyes.
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.