Bush is the Next Reagan

Persian Journal ^ | Jun 4, 2006 | Slater Bakhtavar

[ohioWfan]

No time to elaborate, but in three quick phrases.......God given individual liberty, a robust economy, and conservative values, including the sanctity of life.

Every conservative should agree with all three of those.

[stopem]

Heaven's no where would you get that out of my post.

How could you possibly get party platform from
liberal MSM propaganda?
There is nothing in that line to even remotely refer to the party platform..
????

[hedgetrimmer]

Even though the vast majority of Canadians oppose it, the canadian government pushed by the canadian council of CEOs is moving it forward.

FROM BRONZE TO GOLD A BLUEPRINT FOR CANADIAN LEADERSHIP IN A TRANSFORMING WORLD

This organisation pushes for Deep Integration, a.k.a NAFTA-plus in Canada, they fund this institution

A Public-Good Framework for Canada-U.S. Economic and Security Cooperation The North American Imperative

and Task force on the future of North America

The Canadian Forces and the Doctrine of [Military] Interoperability: The Issues (excerpts)

[ClaireSolt]

I spent a month or so in Canada a couple of summers ago. They are adamant about not being American all day long every day. but keep a vigilant eye on this. We really must stop meeting like this. My man is getting nervous.

[raybbr]

Sorry, I couldn't let this go without a response.

I will never understand why a man of character and integrity and fundamental decency such as President Bush arouses such rage in those such as yourself, and it is pointless to try to either reason, or shame you into better behavior as long as you feel as you do.

Shame? In which debate class did you learn that tactic. In my debating class I would have been failed if I attempted to "shame" my opponent into accepting my point of view.

You have used "shame" in almost every contact with me. Do you actually think you can shame a forty-seven year old man with a strong self-esteem into believing something you do? How pitiful.

This has been your problem all along. You take this too personally and let your emotions rule your logic.

You still insist on claimong I hate Bush when I don't. You are not a skilled debater you are the worst kind of whiner. When someone doesn't agree with you you attack. Even if I agreed with your points I would not let you know based on your attacks. You put me on the defensive instead of engaging me. Your vituperative attacks do not engender discussion - they force me to take a defensive postition and close all normal discourse.

[x]

Reagan finished the Cold War. Bush comes towards the beginning or middle -- not at the end -- of the current struggle. Reagan comes across as a great achiever. Bush is more of a visionary -- whose vision others will have to fulfill -- like Wilson or Truman or maybe Kennedy.

[ohioWfan]

LOL! You've got to be kidding! You post utterly nonsensical Bush bashing cartoons, and you criticize my debating skills?? Now, that's funny!

You can say you don't hate Bush all you want, but when you continue to post false, disprespectful, shameful cartoonish posts as you insist on doing, your posts don't back up your claims.

I am a skilled debater with those who post comments worth debating. You never have, so I don't bother using reason with you. One can't reason with shameless delusions.

It's cute, though, that you turn this around on me as 'emotional' when you are clearly out of control. Use your head for a change, and maybe we'll have something in common..........cogent thought.

As long as you post nonsense, the only avenue reasoned people on this forum have is to mock, and I choose not to do that any more.

There are reasonable adults on this forum, and with my time being limited, 'debating' forty-seven year old children is a complete waste........besides which, you whined to me upthread that you didn't want me to post to you anyway.

Once again, you fit in much better at Liberty Post, where the whole gang of bannees/losers share your disdain for our honorable President. Nobody who respects him will get in your way there......

[raybbr]

You're crazy.

[ohioWfan]

Please don't post to me again, ray. Thanks ever so much.

And have a NICE life. It's GOOD, you know?

Great country........GREAT President..........be happy! :)

[raybbr]

Schizophrenic.

[ohioWfan]

Nope. Good humored, happy, patriotic, fun-loving person who has no tolerance for those who have no respect for a man of character and honor who is also a brother in Christ.

There is no conflict in the side of me which loves this country and respects our Commander in Chief, and the side of me which has no tolerance for people like you who belittle and mock God's chosen leader, HIS child, who is leading us against an evil enemy.

I'm completely 'together,' dear ray.........which is probably why you can't understand me.

Now be a good boy, and stop posting one word nonsense to me, OK? (Work on those 'debating' skills. ROFLOL!)

[WFBFan]

"God given individual liberty, a robust economy, and conservative values, including the sanctity of life."

Those are laudable goals, but a conservative would take issue with the part of the vision that involves growing government and expanding the welfare state. Unfortunately, those two things tend to overshadow the good the President has done. Perhaps we expected too much of the Party after we were finally rid of Clinton.

[WFBFan]

"How could you possibly get party platform from
liberal MSM propaganda? "

Did you not suggest that the only reason conservatives opposed some Administration policy was due the MSM? If not, I retract the statement.

[ohioWfan]

Unfortunately, those two things tend to overshadow the good the President has done.

Not even CLOSE.

There is nothing more important than the restoration of conservative moral values and the sanctity of life to this nation, and no better way to set us on the right path than through the judiciary.

There is no way that spending a few too many dollars (or a lot) overshadows the incredible strength of this President.

[ohioWfan]

btw.......happy freeper birthday. You've been a part of this forum for 24 hours now.

Have you been a conservative longer than that, so that you can tell a fifty year conservative what my values are supposed to be?

[stopem]

No

[WFBFan]

"Not even CLOSE."

Oh really? Just what "conservative" values does a massive federal government represent? It certainly is no guarantee of liberty.

"There is nothing more important than the restoration of conservative moral values and the sanctity of life to this nation, and no better way to set us on the right path than through the judiciary."

It has to be more than this. There are THREE branches of government.

[ohioWfan]

When you stop distorting what I said, this conversation will continue.

I didn't say that spending was a conservative value, and you know it.

Question.... Were you an expert on 'conservative values' two days agon?

[WFBFan]

"Have you been a conservative longer than that, so that you can tell a fifty year conservative what my values are supposed to be?"

I *can* tell you what "conservative" values are. What you consider *your* values are between you and God. There are moral conservatives (you appear to be one), there are fiscal conservatives, and there are constitutional conservatives.

I'm a bit of all three. I want abortion gone (or at least reduced to a state issue where it can then be voted out), I want the budget balanced except for necessary war spending, and I AT LEAST expect a Republican to not back new entitlement programs. Is this too much to ask? Is adherence to the Party Platform too much to ask of a Republican? If so, I think term limits have to be seriously considered for Congress.

I guardedly applaud the President's judicial nominees (we'll have to wait for a while to see just how that works out, but I really don't see an obvious Souter). I applaud the ethical work he did in his first term (abortion, embryonic stem cells). I applaud his at least considering the WOT and actual WAR. Touching the 3rd rail of politics (SS). However, I deplore his massive increase in entitlements and non-defense spending (aided and abetted by "Republicans" in Congress). He should NEVER have signed a bill he knew to be unconstitutional (CFR). I won't even get into this current dust-up.

You see, one can not support some decisions the President has made without being a "hater". This debate within the Party is healthy and necessary if we are going to continue as one.

A moral government is one that limits its intrusion on liberty. The larger government is, the more immoral that government is. I want the government in the original contract (the Constitution). Not one that demands the power to hold my hand from cradle to grave. Alexis De Tocqueville was right, unfortunately, as to what would become of us.

To put it another way: "that government is best which governs least" or to paraphrase Reagan: "government isn't the solution, it's the problem." I do not blame the President for this expansion of government under his Administration. I blame EVERY Republican officeholder. I hate to say it, but this current crop were better in opposition. I'd rather them not end up in that position again, but if they do it won't be my - a registered Republican - fault. I supported them. I voted for them. I donated to them. I've lobbied them. What have I gotten for my efforts?

Reading through this thread... do you accept the proposition that it is possible to be a conservative and NOT support every policy and action of a Republican - any Republican? Faction without issue is something the Founders feared (actually, faction in general). Is that what we have now?

[WFBFan]

"Question.... Were you an expert on 'conservative values' two days agon?"

Do you believe that this website is encompasses the entire universe of Conservatism?