Posted on 09/01/2006 1:58:28 PM PDT by governsleastgovernsbest
He's under the influence of that crazy-assed cabal of pundits who believe it's possible to be conservative without being Republican.
Scarborough and Carlson are living proof that if 'you lie with dogs, you get up with fleas'. They allowed themselves to be influenced in by the loonies at MSNBC.
What is it about "conservatives" on TV who think they will get ratings by being DinocRats?? Hasn't FOX proved that completely false?
Pray for W and Our Troops
This jerk has positioned himself as a conservative who the MSMbc could love.
What is he conservative about? Bet he wants to go to Charlie Rose cocktail parties.
"Sad to say, that's how it is in D.C. and I am proud of this President for being able to withstand the day in and day out assault on his honor and integrity by those who have never been elected to anything and know only how to tear down and never offer better solutions."
That's a very good description of Tucker Carlson and Peter Beinart.
Sort of silly to take entertainers seriously.
Who did you vote for in 2004?
He must be a libertarian. They've run such odd fellows the last few elections that it's hard to keep up with them.
They are not a serious political party.
Oh, definitely the latter. We're in the big Jihad, no question about it, and we have to win.
Iraq was pretty much irrelevant, I fear, and now we're saddled with it. We also bungled things when we went in -- of course, everyone makes mistakes, but you kind of wish they'd thought it through a bit better.
I think we'd do a lot more to end Islamic Conquest (because that's what's going on) if we poured even a fraction of that Iraq War cost into developing new energy sources and making oil a useless, valueless commodity. I'm a pretty libertarian kind of guy, but I don't think we have time to let the market take care of this one. The Jihad is nothing without the petroleum dollars -- without them it would simply wither away without a shot being fired.
And if we'd put the rest of that Iraq money into homeland security, we would have fences on both borders and an adequate border patrol, probably with a lot of money left over.
Plus we could have pitted Saddam against Ahmadinejad. We all know now which one was more of a threat.
I disagree with the notion that less petro dollars for the Middle East countries/emirates would lessen the Jihad factor. I think that more poverty would exacerbate the problem.
But the best thing, which I think is what Bush is trying to accomplish, is to get them to where they have some version of a free society so they can be busy making money and less busy blaming Israel and the U.S. for their problems.
The problem is Islam, a religion which literally tells its adherents that it's OK to lie, cheat, steal, and kill in order to establish Shari'a worldwide. Terrorists need money, and we do well to keep it out of their hands.
I don't either. I just think it would exacerbate the problem if the countries were as poor as the populous.
I think the real problem is that they have money and enough for leisure time to build bombs and blow people up. Perhaps someday we'll see.
Perhaps we are both right and it's just a problem because of them, cash rich or dirt poor? Haha.
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.