Posted on 01/08/2007 8:42:14 AM PST by jmaroneps37
With encounters like that, anyone understands why we conservatives do not count Souter as "one of ours" inspite of the fact that a GOP POTUS nominated him. He, Souter, can make Sandra Day O'Conner seem conservative some times.
key word, sometimes. Did you see last week O'Connor swore Napolitano in for here second term here in AZ?
Why are you laughing; jerry asked you to tell him how his life has been effected.
Can't do it?
If that's the case, then why doesn't the U.S. just bomb Iraqi city to the ground?
Boy, they really showed us, didn't they?
You moderate republicans really have your panties in a bunch now. Have fun explaining to us Conservatives why we should vote for Rudolph Julie-annie.
People can vote, or not, for who they please... but if someone -did- actually not vote to "send a message" to Republicans that they need to be more conservative, that had to be the most counter-productive act possible. Elected Republicans are -not- going to interpret a lost election as "we weren't far enough to the right", they're going to interpret it as "we weren't far enough to the left", and will become even more RINO than before. It amazes me how many people think otherwise.
Qwinn
Forget Giuliani. Let's hope you "Conservatives" don't have us confronting the choice of voting for Mullah Omar or getting a beheading in the next election.
You could not be more wrong. The conservative votes in the GOP in the Senate AGAINST THE IMMIGRATION BILL, WERE A MAJORITY OF THE GOP SENATE VOTES. The RINOs were in the minority, in the GOP in the Senate, but the overall GOP majority was not large; so it did not take that many RINOs to combine with the Dims to make a majority. Your pique should be at the RINOs who failed us, but your description of the GOP as a RINO dominated party is (1)a slander, (2)looking for a absolute purity in the GOP that will never exist and therefore there is no number of actual conservative successes (Roberts and Alito for instance) that will ever satisfy you against the failures the minority RINOs help create. Abandoning the GOP, where the only conservatives in government are, simply increases how many RINOs who get the nomination in the primaries; feeding the cause of what you say you don't want. Your defeatist attitude simply reinforces the defeat you say you don't like. Such was the defeat handed to us by our own voters in November.
The Taliban has made a comeback. Osama BinLaden is still free in Afghanistan. None of the improvements to the standard of living we promised the Afghani have been delivered. You call that mission accomplished?
Nonsense. The Taliban have not made a "comeback". They are in control of nothing in Afganistan. Are they still fighting? Yes. They ran to the tribal no-mans land on the Afghan-Pakistan border, where they make raids into Afghanistan, mount some attacks, get repulsed and decimated again, and run back to the border area for rest, recuperation and recruitment to replace those they lost. The fact that they are still trying to "comeback" is not a "comeback". Again, like Vietnam, they are using you and the media to secure what they need for a successful "comeback" - to get us to leave. That is the whole purpose of their attacks, which have not restored any area to their control; just inflict some damage and hope to make it back across the border after the media has recorded the damage and before they get killed or captured. They are counting on you and your spineless defeatist attitude to get our defenses out of their way.
In spite of the war, the Afghanistan GDP grew 7.5% in 2005 and is slated to grow 8% for 2006. Education for boys is no longer limited to religious education and education for girls is permitted again for the first time since the Taliban; with attendance for girls increasing 98% (2004 to 2005) and 31% for boys (2004 - 2005). Is that a completely rosy picture? No. The rural opium fields in the north continue to (a)feed the terrorists and (b)contribute too great a % of national income. Yet infrastructure developments (roads, waterm sewer, schools) continue to spread development, government resources and government favor to more of the country. Its progress under continuing trying conditions. Should more be done" Sure; like mining the border with Pakistan in my opinion - "politically incorrect move that even the most conservative POTUS will have a hard time getting implemented. Shut down the poppy fields? Sure, when the government infrastructure and military operations are string enough to offer the poppy farmers a better life without the poppies. (Columbia still cannot eliminate its drug-crops and gangs, and yet the level of active work with our military and FBI inside Columbia dwarfs any other anti-drug efforts anywhere).
Capturing or killing Osama will not change anything with the Taliban or with Al Queda; anymore than the deaths/loss of power of Lenin, Stalin, Kruschev, etc. altered the course of international communism, or its plans and operations. Killing Osama is a chimera; great for the media and for no one else.
At no time (even during the Mujahadeen era) was "the CIA " ever winning any war in Afghanistan. The only thing anyone did (2001) was chase the Taliban to the border where they slipped into Pakistan to fight another day. What the Bush people did do is arm the drones that the CIA wanted to use in Afghanistan, and which they and the DOD did use; and, even then, the CIA was not acting alone in the theatre of operations. You have some fantasy that the CIA single handedly eliminated the Taliban and the DOD recreated them. If I knew you better, I'd ask you what you have been smoking.
Name the last President to hold Congress his final two years. Bush did better than most. You have NO argument.
"Did you see last week O'Connor swore Napolitano in for here second term here in AZ?"
No, but if I had I would not have been surprised.
But..but...but.....O'Conner was appointed by Reagan and the mantra since the election has been that we have to get back to the ways of Reagan.
I'm surprised that more people don't take notice of the fact that Republican party hacks now regularly BASH Ronald Reagan in their defense of their party.
Democrats want to defund the war therefore making are guys overseas LESS STRONGER
Anything Republicans want to propose to counter Dems will be squashed in Democrat controlled committees and NEVER see the light of day. The American people will never even know it existed unless they watched C-SPan all day.
The depth of your reading and activism must be very shallow.
First, Reagan had a Democrat majority Senate to contend with and probably did the best he could at the time. Second; on the judiciary specifically, there has never been a mantra of "back to Reagan", while there has been a push for more originalists in the mode of Scalia and Thomas.
Or, maybe you are just pushing Dim talking points, like a troll.
I suppose that depends on what you mean by bashing. I've been accused of bashing Reagan by merely pointing out that his record isn't as purely conservative as people want to pretend it is.
There has been a mantra of "Back to Reagan" by most every conservative pundit since we lost the election. If anything is "shallow", it is that prescription for today's problems.
Why do you listen to media pundits, conservative or otherwise?
What do you read, besides the New York Times?
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.