Posted on 10/03/2005 11:11:34 PM PDT by sine_nomine
That seems to be a pretty accurate group of assessments. At one time, I thought the 1%ers had mostly gotten banned or had left FR in a huff, but I see now that they changed names, invited their friends and transformed Ronald Reagan into some sort of pre-incarnate Pat Buchanan.
At least they've been flushed out of the weeds in the past 24 hours.
And this is President Bush's fault ..... how?
Thanks but GW still isn't much of a conservative once you omit the War on Terror.
Hey...there are conservative Democrats who have made the official jump to the conservative camp...I spent some time on the dark side in the late 80's before planting my feet firmly in the GOP camp...and ask anyone who knows me, I am as rightwing as they come...and proof that a few missteps along the way do not define us completely....
" Reagan did nothing to halt terrorism. He pulled us out of Lebanon; remember?"
He bombed libya, remember?
" The disgusting truth, is that many on FR are not Conservatives at all, are fair weather friends, "
The truth is that many here on FR value party over principle and are complete hypocrites in many cases.
The ultimate test is simple: Would you support the same things GWB has done if they were done by Clinton?
If people respond 'yes', then they're likely liars or aren't really conservatives.. If they respond 'no', then they're just hypocrites.
Reagan was by no means perfect, but he was far better than GWB has shown him self to be.
Please, do I have to draw a picture? Who controls the executive and legislative branches of the federal government? Republicans.
What we cannot have on the Supreme Court is someone who is wishy washy in what they believe. That is Sandra Day O'Connor.
We do not need someone who is easily influenced by whatever person she is dealing with. What if she becomes mesmerized by Darth Vader Ginsberg?
I am not saying I think Meirs is going to do that, but can we afford to waste this rare chance on someone with so many questions?
I agree to more than a little trepidation...but I want to learn more before I either take a comfortable breath or start to panic.
Like many here, I wish that W had put forth a full on, no doubt about it Scalia type nominee...I frankly, after handing him a second election, and not thrilled to have to wonder and guess at the leanings of his choices...we won the right to not have to do that and I am certain that a Madame Hilary would make no such subtle moves..
Having said that, I also think that W has been stealth and politically shrewd many times, sometimes when I didn't even realize it....so I am going to get out the paper bag and breath deeply until I know a little more.
Prove to the Bush voters, backers and supporters that he indeed named a Scalia/Thomas like nominee, which is what he promised.
It's so nice to see a fellow "old timer", who remembers what things were like and can see clearly what things are now; none of it "pretty" and all of it troubling.
Yes, Reagan had Libya bombed. That was just slightly better than when Clinton bombed an empty al Qaeda camp. He did less than nothing about the attack of our troops in Lebanon.
Hmmmmmm...you weren't happy/didn't support it when Clinton ( after two times turning it down ) went for the welfare cuts and a balanced budget?
You are the hypocrite. You are spinning so much, that it's a wonder you aren't dizzy.
I really hate posting Reagan's warts, but making him into some demi-god, so that you can smear President Bush, is just disgusting! And if you place the list of what President Bush has accomplished, that Southack has on his personal page and has posted all over FR, against Reagan's accomplishments, President Bush is Reagan's equal or better.
For a liar and a hypocrite...........look into the nearest mirror.
True.. the word means "same old, same old"..
And the "old" is democrat party government largess for at least sixty years(or eighty)..
I think, You've nailed it..
I showed you, with the Clinton examples, that your post was stunningly absurd; yet you not only fell into the trap, but then went back to being illogical and flaming me to boot.
If anyone here doesn't understand...it is you.
You keep changing the issue and claiming to be constant. Go read your own posts, since it appears that you have no idea, from posting them, to replying to the refutations, what you previously said.
According to you, Reagan could do NO wrong. When the facts are posted, you change the topic;yet again. And them you have the gall to call others liars and hypocrites. LOL
You're all emotion, no thinking, and silly.
If and when you can manage to calm down, get back to me. Otherwise, you're a waste of bandwidth and time.
More of your oh so insightful, thoughtful, "factual" ( >B>NOT ), well reasoned post, I see. LOL
You are the lightweight,my dear.
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.