The Essential President Bush [Bush did not abandon us; we abandoned him]

The Anchoress ^ | 05/22/06 | The Anchoress

[Mr. Silverback]

That is obviously a lie.

Um, no. Not obvious, and probably not a lie. Perhaps an exaggeration.

[Mr. Silverback]

I gave up on Sean a long time ago, and I haven't listened to Rush for a while either.

you know I'm a rock-solid supporter of the President. But c'mon, if Rush and Hannity agree with everything he does, they're nothing more than lackeys and they'd lose all credibility.

And Lord knows they've never been hateful toward him, the way so many of his enemies on FR have been.

[Mr. Silverback]

He became great the same way other "liberal icons" like Theodore Roosevelt and Abraham Lincoln became great: Solid leadership under heavy fire.

[Mr. Silverback]

I'm all for Dubya, but please put away the Pharisee comparison. The pharisees were corrupt and evil, while many of the President's detractors on this site are merely tactically stupid. Even the worst of them are just jerks, and surely don't deserve to be compared to quislings who had an innocent man tortured to death.

[Mr. Silverback]

But I will reserve the right to disagree and to work towards defeating those things he attempts to do that I personally don't agree with.

People like you are not the problem. It's people who act like he's freakin' Mao when he doesn't dance to their tune, or act like we who support him are all twits. If you were either of those types, you wouldn't have written a post with the class of this one I'm responding to.

Nobody, and I mean nobody, who supports the President wants everyone to be shiny, happy lockstep robots. We just want people who hate him to stop pretending they're some sort of reasoned base.

[Old_Mil]

If it weren't for the constitutionparty ad in your tagline, I'd think this was a bit of wisdom. Instead, it is almost certainly an example of a stopped clock being right twice a day.

In other words, you approve of holding the right views, so long as you don't actually go and act on them? Do whatever you want, think whatever you want, just so you pull that lever marked R on election day, eh?

I voted for Bush once in 2000, but I never make the same mistake twice. Should the house fold and let any of the provisions of the Senate bill survive to see a signature from Bush, voting for Bush will turn out to be the worst political mistake that America ever made.

[Mr. Silverback]

Please do not take the following personally:

People who think that the two parties are the same, or that the way to teach the GOP a lesson is to hand power over to Democrats for awhile, are an absolute fountain of dumb.

[Mr. Silverback]

In other words, you approve of holding the right views, so long as you don't actually go and act on them? Do whatever you want, think whatever you want, just so you pull that lever marked R on election day, eh?

Here's a news flash: Politics is war by nonviolent means. The pablum in that paragraph above is no different from the President calling a general on the carpet because he didn't wipe out the entire enemy in the first hour of the war. In addition, voting third party simply takes conservatives out of the game; it's like having your troops march in a direction 90 degrees off from where the enemy is and then patting yourself on the back because you came through the combat with such a low casualty rate. Principle without tactics is like having your soldiers know the Constitution they defend better than Justice Scalia knows it, but forgetting to equip them with rifles before you send them to battle.

Should the house fold and let any of the provisions of the Senate bill survive to see a signature from Bush, voting for Bush will turn out to be the worst political mistake that America ever made.

Well then, support the guys in the house instead of tearing down an otherwise outstanding President. If the guys in the House stand strong on this, the Senate bill will die and the GOP will hold or gain seats in the House for exactly the right reason.I voted for Bush once in 2000, but I never make the same mistake twice.

So your answer to my earler question is that you would like Al Gore to be in office implementing the conservative agenda. What do you think Gore's immigration reform package would look like? What would Gore's War on Terror look like? What would Gore's economy look like? What would Gore's record on ethics look like?

[Mr. Silverback]

Please see me post 644 before using the Pharisee comparison again. As odious as some of the anti-Bush types are, I think you and Wolfstar may owe them an apology.

[Mr. Silverback]

Start naming all the non-9/11 related things that define Bush's legacy positively from a Conservative perspective.

First off, what an asinine way to approach this. "Oh, you don't get to cite terrorism as a reason he's good." Talk about peggin the BS meter...OK, we'll talk about Reagan without talking about the Cold War, or talk about Lincoln without talking about the Civil War.

The prosecution of the WOT by itself is worth having him around.

Second...to point out just one area, he's the best pro-lifer we've had in office since Roe vs. Wade. Even better than Reagan. But then, we even have pro-lifers on this board who want to treat him like Satan.

[Mr. Silverback]

I'll be happy to go up against you in a rational debate before a group of well known conservatives who would act as judges. I am even willing to bet $10,000 on the outcome.

Unless the judges are awarding points for sarcastic whining, you'd better be ready to pay up.

However, if you wish to actually prove I am insane in front of impartial judges, this is how you can do it. Or are you just all talk?

You're just like Will Pitt over at DU. Freeper PJ-Comix nailed him for making up a source, and Pitt immediately went on DU and posted a challenge, betting $50,000 that no one could prove his source was made up. Of course, he knew that no one was going to fly to Boston and try to find the guy. It was all bluster, and so is your debate challenge strawman.

[Mr. Silverback]

As many people are dying from illegals now as from 911, so I guess I'm not talking rubbish.

Yes or no answer please: On September 12, 2001, did it ever even cross your mind that we would go over four and a half years without getting hit again?

[Mr. Silverback]

Im not getting into this tit for tat NONSENSE game of yours. In your eyes, GWB could smear feces on the bible and you'd be the first to defend him as a "great man".

Translation: "I've got nuthin' and I need to declare victory and withdraw."

[SFC Chromey]

Thank you.

[ohioWfan]

I didn't use the comparison, Mr S. I just found it interesting, and worth thinking about..........

But you are right in saying that some of the anti-Bush people on this forum are odious. Some are odious to the point of wondering if they are funded by George Soros.

[ohioWfan]

Doesn't mean I have to listen to them. I used to turn Rush on daily for encouragement and support, and a little bashing of the Dems.

Now he no longer encourages nor supports, and spends more time critizing the President than he does bashing the Dems.

I don't need a downer in the middle of the day. I listen to the oldies station instead............not that Rush misses me.

[ohioWfan]

This is spiritual warfare, Mr. Silverback.

The posting is getting progressively more vile and blasphemous, and there doesn't seem to be any control of it any more.

[Old_Mil]

Yes or no answer please: On September 12, 2001, did it ever even cross your mind that we would go over four and a half years without getting hit again?

Unfortunately, we have been hit again. Several times. Virginia Sniper. LA EL AL counter. UNC SUV. Then there were the "close calls": the shoe bomber, the OU football game suicide bomber. We're getting hit on a daily basis in Iraq as well; I don't necessarily agree with taking so narrow a view as to say that just because we've outsourced terrorist targets to Iraq and that it is military personnel that are bearing the brunt of it, that we aren't getting hit.

[Old_Mil]

Here's a news flash: Politics is war by nonviolent means.

For better or worse, I don't agree with your definition. Politics is the struggle for power given a specific set of rules, that occurs within those specific rules. War is an attempt to define a new set of rules through violent conflict.

voting third party simply takes conservatives out of the game;

...except when voting Republican takes convervatives out of the game? If every voter in America who was both a social and a fiscal conservative had the courage of their convictions and pulled the lever for the Constitution party, it would be the Republicans who would find themselves in third party status in short order.

If the Republican party wants to avoid that fate, perhaps the should govern with one eye on that reality.

[FastCoyote]

"You're just like Will Pitt over at DU. Freeper PJ-Comix nailed him for making up a source, and Pitt immediately went on DU and posted a challenge, betting $50,000 that no one could prove his source was made up. Of course, he knew that no one was going to fly to Boston and try to find the guy. It was all bluster, and so is your debate challenge strawman."

Actually, it is not bluster. I'd be happy to fly my competition out to Vegas, the money is real as can be. I don't bluff about these matters. The amount can be less, if that is a problem, but it has to be an amount that is painful. You can take up the challenge if you like.

All you have to do is stand in front of a group and prove 1) I'm insane or 2) I'm not conservative. I'm open to other combinations. I really do like to take money from morons, and I'm a betting man being from Vegas. So, maybe you want to poney up?