Posted on 01/05/2007 8:10:44 PM PST by T.L.Sink
Number two........the number of deleted posts on this thread prove that I am right about the rules of this forum. It is the Moderator who deleted them, not me.
I repeat......the owner of this forum expects RESPECT for the President.
Amen! And they use Political Correctness tactics to silence any dissent within the party. Even with Reagan's so called Commandment of "Speak no evil against a fellow Republican" I do not believe that man ever intended it to be twisted as being a means to silence opposition or not speak out against the wrongs of our elected leadership. It is unAmerican not no speak out when our elected are in the wrong on issues.
When it gets to the point where there are cases of Moderate Democrats replacing Republicans and being more conservative then the GOP has major policy problems and some of it's elected need to go.
One example was former Tennessee governor Don Sundquist-R. The self proclaimed liberal DEM who replaced him named Phil Bredesen is beginning his second term and has been far more conservative on many issues than Sundquist. How come he can balance the budget without a state income tax and the Republican could not? He has brought accountability back to the people. So much so there are far less post in this forum attacking him on issues where Don Sundquist-R almost had an everyday thread almost trying to contain his abuses of power. The DEM is also cracking down on illegals specifically forbidding them to work on state funded projects such as road crews. The RINO gave them drivers license. The DEM clamped down on the states HMO's running Medicaid and held them accountable. The threats have stopped as has much of the fraud. The RINO was their shill and let them literally dictate the state budget.
The GOP has two years to get it's act together. People are getting fed up with their excuses and scare tactics every election cycle. The GOP lost last November. They can thank the Liberal RINO's who spilt the party for that loss. The GOP needs to start representing WE THE PEOPLE instead of We the Corporate Boardroom Members and shareholders. That is why we have our current borders problems. The GOP is in the pocket of ones who care less about the sovereignty and self government of the United States. It's all about trade to them and the trade is by no means Free Trade. Free Trade should never come at the expense of our own right to self govern.
I guess if some people call Clinton the first black president, then we can most likely call Bush the first Mexican president.
The "sheeple" would do it..but not alone.
Number One........Yes you have. I've seen it on this thread.
Number two........the number of deleted posts on this thread prove that I am right about the rules of this forum. It is the Moderator who deleted them, not me.
Number two........ It doesn't prove you're right about anything... except perhaps you hit the "ABUSE" button a lot.
I repeat......the owner of this forum expects RESPECT for the President.
Oh, do you "repeat"? Listen up people... ohioWfan is repeating herself again.
Yeah. I can try to respect him. But, there's nothing that says I have to worship him.
Right on. You rock dude!
LOL!
I objected to calling for his impeachment and calling him disrespectful names, both of which are offenses which can result in banning according to JimRob.
And I didn't hit the abuse button on those posts. I did on one because calling for the impeachment of President Bush is against the rules of the forum as stated by its owner.
I'm not a moderator, and I didn't delete a single post. And trust me, I have no pull on this forum to get posts deleted if they aren't breaking the rules. I guess you guys want this to be more like your DU home where there are no rules, and no decency whatsoever.
Sorry. But this is a conservative forum, and most of us here are decent people.
I do find it interesting that the only way you and your misfit, nasty buddies here can criticize me is to make things up out of whole cloth.
It's impossible to defend oneself against lies, because your accusers don't care if their words are honest in the first place. So I guess you can just keep on making things up if it makes you feel important. Some of your buddies will laugh at your accusations, but the vast majority of legitimate freepers will know exactly what you are doing, because they know who I am.
(btw, do you get brownie points on DU for using the word 'worship' in your posts here on FR? Hint......it just makes you look dumb).
But all that is beside the point.
I was trying to sleep, but came back here to try to end this descending cycle of attacks that has now become vicious.
I am going to ask all of you forgiveness for where I have sinned against you, and I am going to ask that you all stop lying about me, or gossiping about me in such a malicious manner.........regardless of the reasons you have chosen to do it.
You all know what the truth is here. You all know that I love this President, and respect him deeply, but that I have areas where I strongly disagree with him. And I don't have any problem when others criticize him........if they do so with respect.
You all know that I admire him, but know he is far from perfect, and that I worship the Lord God, through His Son, Jesus Christ, and that I worship no man.
I apologize to all on this thread for struggling to defend myself, when I knew all along that there was no point.
The truth of who I am stands for itself, and no attacks from internet strangers can change that. There are plenty of people on this forum who know me personally, and can attest to my fundamental decency and honor, and that's all anyone here needs to know.
I am going to leave this computer, and spend time in prayer, asking God to forgive me, and asking Him to help you see your own need for forgiveness. I will continue to support this President in prayer as I have done for six years, and thank the Lord that we have such a man of integrity and courage to lead us through these dangerous times.
I would appreciate it if none of you would reply to this post, and I would appreciate it if you would stop saying the awful things you have said here.
Once again for my part, I am sorry. Please forgive me.
You know, it's funny that you're so in love with Ronald Reagan. Remind me again which Republican president signed an amnesty. Oh, that's right. It WASN'T President Bush, was it? It was President Reagan. Just a nice little reminder for you to sleep on. Have a lovely night.
I would have thought that since you've been here for so long, Cobra, you would know the name of the person who created this site. I think it's really sad that you have nothing better to do with your time than talk about other people. Do try to get a life. You'll be much happier.
Reagan thought that was going to be it. He did not like one GW Bush intend to open up a new nation made up of three North American nations. He made a mistake and part of that agreement was supposed to be tighter border security.
You would think Bush seeing Reagans failed amnesty would learn. But did he? No indeed and what Bush wants goes far beyond what Reagan did. Reagan was not trying to form a regional three country nation to appease corporations. He did not propose building a Mexico-Canada hi-way to flood our interstates with Mexican truck drivers.
Reagan made some mistakes but Bush makes then as a matter of policy on a daily basis. Regan was not a globalist. He believed the United States should control it's own borders.
The Reagan Doctrines on most issues are completely opposite of that of Bush SR and JR from military strength to our nations borders. In short I'd take 20 years of leaders like Reagan who at least listened to people over even 2 years of any Bush ever again being in the Oval Office anyday.
The Bush's wrecked everything they have toughed from the military to getting tough with China to the rest of our foreign policy as well as lop sided trade agreements not in the best interest of the United States future. They are globalist serving the globalist agenda's at the expense of our nations future and sovereignty. Their actions like Clintons can not be defended on these issues. They are Rockefeller Republicans as liberal as LBJ on domestic issues.
In general things did not change that much from Ford/Rummy-the Carter years except some changes that came Navy wise in 1979 likely due to a new SEC of Navy. Carter did not know how to manage the military. He simply carried on where Ford/Rummy left off. Carters military had shortages in parts and manpower but we never flunked readiness qualifications.
1981 Reagan takes office in 1981. By late 1982 the ranks of the military are pretty much filled. I remember because I tried to go back in and in 1980 my rating was a critical one with shortages. The ranks were filled in late 82. Now keep in mind this was a volunteer military nearly two thirds larger than todays and volunteer. There were no major shortages of anything during Reagan's term military wise. Cap Weinberger and Reagan rebuilt a volunteer military strength that had not been seen since WW2.
Reagan did his two terms and Bush Sr took office and Cheney as Sec of Defense. The cuts then began. The nation also at that time went to war. In a little over two short years our military became reservist dependent for foreign deployments. That policy continues today. Clinton abused it as has Bush jr. all for a battle in a single third rate third world nations. The mis management such as it was led to problems including ships missing critical maintenance periods not once but three times in some cases. The result? A carrier having a boiler room explosion upon return from a third deployment in three years in early 1994.
Add to this Cheney for more or less reasons of spite ended production of the Navy's most successful fighter aircraft program the F-14 Tomcat. No nation had a fighter that could equal it. But that wasn't enough for the man he also ordered the tooling for any future production destroyed. A replacement had not even been built yet. The cuts began and so did the decline.
Along comes Clinton. He continued the cuts as well as adding women to ships. Well help was on the way so we were told. 1994 the GOP running as the Conservative saviors to our nation were elected. By 1996 the Liberals in the GOP had ended any hope of that happening. With a strong win on conservative platforms in 1994 the morons running the GOP than go all out liberal. Bob Dole gave Bill Clinton a landslide.
But it gets worse. A reasonable person knowing the Constitution understands it is the duty of congress to provide for our defense to make provisions for military and set the troop strength levels. Well we are operating on the same numbers as we were in 1996 under Bill Clinton and Bush takes us to war without so much as he and Rummy asking congress for an increase in manpower to cover it. What is the result? Reservist being called up not just Branch Reservist but Army National Guards as well. This is usually done for stop gap measures in extreme emergencies.
Poppy, Clinton, and Bush jr have used it to keep from raising the active duty military levels. Now a person might want to cut Bush some slack had the DEMs been in control of the house and senate. But they weren't the GOP had both houses and the Oval Office. How is it then Ronald Reagan managed even with having to fight the majority DEMs somehow managed to maintain a sizable military and keep it ready to respond?
Recruits under Reagan were not required to sign up for 8 year obligations. Eight years! That is ridiculous especially for a first enlistment. Such blunders as that is why Bush and Sec of Defense can't get volunteers. Under Ford, under Carter, even under LBJ for that matter you were required a 6 year obligation of which you did 4 years active duty and went home never to be bothered again or you did 3 years active duty and three years reserve weekend drills. Would you want your life disrupted after doing four years for an additional four more because the Liberal Republicans in charge can't manage a volunteer military properly? I expect such stupidity and incompetence from the DEMs but the GOP?
More comparisons? OK Reagan saw a tyrant dictator who supported terrorism. How did he deal with him? He had the military send a missile screaming down into the mans tent. He didn't mobilize the military for 5 years plus to do it. He didn't involve the U.N into deals to handle it either.
The Reagan military philosophy was "Peace through strength." It worked. Right now we have a war going on and two possibles from two thug tyrants who are laughing their tails off because we at this point are struggling to maintain and keep up a presence in a third world nation fighting a third world military, trying to play Let's build a nation. That was a major mistake taking Iraq beyond a basic military agenda mission scope. You wanna screw up winning a war? It's easy just call the U.S. State Department and involve them. War on terror? What about Yemen? Where was bin Ladden actually from? It wasn't Iraq. Where did Saddams family try to bury Saddam? What nation was our ship in when it was bombed in 2000?
We are loosing face before the world much like we did in the 1960's under LBJ. You will have to look this one up but I remember it happening. In the mid 1960's North Korea attacked a U.S. Navy ship in International Waters and took the crew as prisoners. They still have the ship it was named Pueblo.
Night after night for weeks on end LBJ made empty threats to the leadership of North Korea to release the ship and crew or else. Or else what? He made threat and could not back them up. We did nothing.
Almost a year later the crew and the body of a crewmember who died in the attack were released. Despite the fact Robert McNamara the Sec of Defense sent an unarmed and undefendable ship into harms way the ships Captain was Court Martialed for the incident. Commander Boucher the ships captain knew the ship carried classified documents and equipment. He raised concerns that the ship was incapable of doing an emergency destruct of it in a timely manner and requested the ship be rigged for such an event. Had McNamara listened the ship would never have been captured.
Where do we stand with North Korea now? They lead our government around with a ring in it's nose. We can't even pressure them we have to go to our new master which is China to deal with them. North Korea and Iran see us bogged down in Iraq, see the lack of will on the part of our leaders to even try and build up our armed forces to handle it and other possible threats at the same time and they see opportunity and act on it. A complete abandonment of the Reagan policy "Peace through strength" which served us well.
The number one and primary function of government is to provide for our common defense and that includes our borders especially in this day and age. Now you tell me which of the two political parties take it serious? Neither one does except a few in both parties who take our national sovergnity seriously and haven't became shills for the corporate backed globalist wishing to make slaves of us all. Neither Bush was even half the POTUS Reagan was. Reagan had his faults but none near as extreme compared to those the magnitude of the Bush's and Clinton.
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.