Posted on 05/22/2006 6:16:18 PM PDT by M. Thatcher
Visionary indeed:
"The last President to stay at Buckingham Palace was an idealist, without question. At a dinner hosted by King George V, in 1918, Woodrow Wilson made a pledge; with typical American understatement, he vowed that right and justice would become the predominant and controlling force in the world.
President Wilson had come to Europe with his 14 Points for Peace. Many complimented him on his vision; yet some were dubious. Take, for example, the Prime Minister of France. He complained that God, himself, had only 10 commandments. (Laughter.) Sounds familiar. (Laughter.)
At Wilson's high point of idealism, however, Europe was one short generation from Munich and Auschwitz and the Blitz. Looking back, we see the reasons why. The League of Nations, lacking both credibility and will, collapsed at the first challenge of the dictators. Free nations failed to recognize, much less confront, the aggressive evil in plain sight. And so dictators went about their business, feeding resentments and anti-Semitism, bringing death to innocent people in this city and across the world, and filling the last century with violence and genocide."
League of Nations, New World Order, Wilsonianism. And it's reaping the same benefits it did a century ago.
The rest of this post is just overemotional fluff.
‘If you got seventy-five or eighty percent of what you were asking for, I say, you take it and fight for the rest later, and that’s what I told these radical conservatives who never got used to it.’
True Mr. Reagan. However, we're admonished to settle for 20 to 25% of what we are asking for and call it "Reaganism".
What a straw man argument. Did I ever claim it was your fault.? No. Quit putting words in my mouth. I simply made an honest mistake and I owned up to it. Period. I merely made a statement regarding my own tiredness. Absolutely no attempt was ever made to assign blame/ or responsibility to anyone else.
Now for a topic we were arguing / discussing: your erroneous claims regarding the amnesty requirements of the '86 Immigration Act. I noticed that you have completely avoided that issue. Well, I guess I would be pretty silent as well if I had been in your position. Don't feel bad, a lot of people still share your misconceptions.
I would like to know all the historians/scholars that would honestly rank Dubya above Jefferson. I can't think of one. I doubt that even Bush's supporters at the Weekly Standard or the National Review would attempt to do so. Bush has made a plethora of mistakes over the past six years : runaway spending, no vetoes, the prescription/Medicare bill, the blatantly unconstitutional CFR, forcing Israel to accept Hamas as part of the Palestinian elections; then winding up with egg all over his face when Hamas won big, failing to secure our nation' borders immediately following 9/11 ( so he wouldn't be in the position that he is in now regarding immigration reform), the Harriet Miers fiasco (thank God the right wingers stood up to him). I could go on, but you get the picture.
I truly do hope he does turn it around, I do believe he is capable of that. I give him credit where it is due and I give criticism where it is due. Nothing more, nothing less.
BTTT
Let us know when the tickets go on sale for the debate. It should be a good one! Go Coyote!
Gosh, I'm sorry, I seemed to have missed it: was my wanting a more stringent approach to illegal immigration "silly" or just my resistance to the massive federal spending on social programs? I never can remember which one the "real" conservatives aren't concerned about.
"I was surprised, and what surprised me was the sense I had that Bush’s heart was broken. That he had done everything he could to keep faith with the nation, and that he could not believe that in a time of such terrible need, all some people could think of was, “how do we use this politically, how do we break Bush with this?” It can’t have helped that some of the hysteria was coming from the right as well as the left. Things changed after that, didn’t they? The press and the left doubled up their attacks, the far-right went very smug, and President Bush never has seemed to have regrouped his spirit."
Many, it appears, have forgotten precisely what it was like during the Clinton Admin. I do not. Nor do I take President Bush and admin for granted, ever.
Read Linda Chavez' column today about college "protestor" tearing into John McCain as commence speaker ("The Real Meaning of Courage"):
"Rohe said that the commencement was "an occasion that is supposed to honor us above all." Maybe that's the problem. Sen. McCain was addressing a bunch of spoiled kids who think they deserve "honor" for having made it through college".
Well, that's how I'm seeing some "conservatives" - as spoiled adults. They've harvested and relied upon the millions of benefits brought about by President Bush.
Since that is the state of mind of many a basher on this forum, it seems a perfect way to silence them...
"There is no point in continuing a conversation with one as jargogled as you are."
And if it's not even in any of your dictionaries, they won't ever know what it means. ;)
You can see it in post after post. ME! ME! ME!
Even some who cloak it in caring about the Constitution, are thinly disguising their desire to get their own way about everything all the time, and their expectation that the President should do everything they want, or they throw tantrums.
It's not just liberals who have been affected by this self-centered, it's all about me, never grow up, sick culture. Unfortunately, we see it every day right here on FR.
Strange, that same thing could be said about the Open Borders Pro Illegal Immigration movement.
Wizard..you are one of the real treasures left at FR, and I stand in awe of your ability to express yourself..You are amazing.
sw
I'm going to use one of these pictures for the start of today's Rush Thread!
"Let us know when the tickets go on sale for the debate. It should be a good one! Go Coyote!"
I know, fat chance of that happening though. I am serious as can be though, I'll put good money down, but of course that's why they will never accept such a challenge. I learned the technique dealing with crazy people in the past.
Oh, puh-leeze. All I see anymore from your side is whining about the horrible things being said about Bush.
Your "But I do wish that you Johny(sic)-one-notes" "quote" was NOT said by me
It was entirely in the context of the exchange, since you were saying the poster engaged in a personal attack, when he was responding to one.
Detailed? Would you like to see the national debt to the penny? Would that help bring it home? Bush is putting his signature to the squandering of vast sums of capital that the U.S. doesn't even has and has to borrow from the rest of the world. This leaves taxpayers like you and me forever paying interest to foreign central banks.
I hear complaints about the spending of Congress and the President, not having a line item veto, signs off on it.
But I would like to know the nitty gritty details of what bugs you about the spending. I've only heard real complaints of spending after the Katrina bills started coming in.
Katrina is truly a pittance compared to the massive expansion of medicare (conducted in the face of a demographic time bomb no less!) and the massive spending boosts (with their longterm implications, having pumped the Dept. of Education by 70%, do you think any president is going to be able to bring that back down?) All this borrowing and squandering has set a new baseline for the budget, and just fighting 3-4% growth is going to be called a 'cut', nevermind getting back to pre-Bush levels of spending.
Myself, like you most likely, have a budget to adhere to and the pork projects set my hair on fire. But it's Congress I put the blame on, not the President's Office on this one. But that's just me. :o)
The president can veto spending, he just doesn't know how. His 'go along to get along' attitude about Republican pork is more important than the state of affairs in Iraq in determining Bush's support amongst conservatives. He hasn't fallen into the 20's in support because people like what he's doing.
If there is even one, I will be surprised.
As for me, I am strongly for sealed borders, and opposed to the guest worker program, so I'm quite sure you weren't referring to me, spectre.
Because if you were, then I would have to say that you were attempting to deceive people about me, and that would not make me feel kindly toward you.
"Please give an example and provide a link for anyone on this forum who is 'open borders' and 'pro illegal immigrant' on this forum. If there is even one, I will be surprised."
Are you living in la la land and do you actually expect me to dignify that remark?
"As for me, I am strongly for sealed borders, and opposed to the guest worker program, so I'm quite sure you weren't referring to me, spectre."
Sort of like saying "hate the sin, love the sinner", IMHO.
sw
I'm just asking you to back it up with facts and a link. That's how things work around here, isn't it? Of course you can't, because no one on this board legitimately (other than DU trolls) wants an open border.
As for the sin thing.........adults can disagree without hating anyone.
Actually, I was speaking about the entire "movement" and you are being paranoid when you suggest I was accusing some FReepers, even tho it would be the truth. Do you have a comprehension problem?
Have a nice day..VIVA BUSH!
sw
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.