So it seems. It would be funny if it weren't so sad.
Posted on 03/29/2007 6:58:58 AM PDT by meg88
For instance, it's easy to say "Voted NO on banning affirmative action hiring with federal funds. (Jul 1995)", but is that really accurate or even honest to say? Was there one small provision about this in what was an otherwise good, or at least needful, bill that was attached as a rider, and the good outweighed the bad? That's what I'd like to find out.
A "Reagan democrat" also many also use it as a code word for Jewish conservative.
Giuliani supporters like yourself fear a Fred Thompson candidacy, realizing that Fred can and will draw more of the spotlight than Giuliani can. Fred declares, Fred becomes front-runner.
Giuliani supporters like yourself are horrified at the prospect of a Thompson candidacy, because by X-ing out Giuliani, it will concurrently X out your dream of turning the Republican Party pro-abortion.
I cannot understand the people like Sean Hannity who are shilling for Rudy Guiliani. Fred Thompson's current ascendence is because the grass roots rejected the existing pool of Republican candidates. The only way Guiliani makes any sense is in the Mrs. Bill Clinton context - he could possibly beat her.
I don't know about anyone else, but I am tired of choosing between the lesser of two evils. I want someone to be "for" because I like his ideas and ideals.
I would love a Thompson/Hunter ticket. Or even a Hunter/Thompson ticket.
Exporting revolution for the good of foreigners -- whether they want it or not. It's Trotsky's world; we just live in it.
The recent trend of blaming pro-lifers for the unsecured borders and bloated federal government policies of the Bush Administration is false.
What's a neocon?
Neocon is a term coined by the left to indicate disdain for the socially conservative conservative. They much preferred the old conservatives, whom I like to think of as libertines with stock portfolios; i.e. fiscally conservative with liberal social values.
No, don't misunderstand me. I'm not BLAMING pro-lifers for anything. I am a pro-lifer myself, I've never claimed otherwise. I wasn't even specifically talking about border control.
But, in general, not just Bush, but many in Congress as well, claim to be conservative JUST because they're pro-life...but they spend like drunken sailors...
How would you like your Hillery Clinton; medium rare or well done?
As shown above, that claim is at best mixed. And his record on opposing homosexual AA is excellent
- supports amnesty (he is on record saying we need comprehensive immigration law..citizenship to illegals etc)
Are you sure about that? His record since illegal immigration became an issue on the radar screen seems to be more along the lines of enforcing the laws first, before we start thinking about reforming them.
And further, "comprehensive immigration law" doesn't strike me as being a bad thing. Amnesty is a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT issue from that, despite the way its being demagogued by some yahoos on both the Left and Right. Making it easier for folks who really do want to come to America to work hard and contribute to our society isn't necessarily a bad thing, as long as the "making it easier" involved widening the quotas legally instead of "legalising all the illegals already here". I'd also like to see us adopt a policy of permanently banning anyone with a violent criminal record, and giving preference to immigrants with education and professional/technical skills. But at the root of the matter, I am NOT, and I repeat NOT "anti-immigration" in the Pat Buchanan-sense of wanting to close the doors to any and all of the "dirty foreigners" who may want to immigrate to America.
- no executive track record
So? Carter, Clinton, and Bush all had impeccable executive track records, and none of them were/are all that hot as Presidents (though Bush certainly is the least bad of the three.
- close friend of John McAmnesty
And what does THAT matter for anything? Are you only friends with people who agree with on 100% of everything?
I consider it an insult by the left. It's a ridiculous word.
Anyone that uses it is a Leftist-Socialist-Tard. :) There, I feel much better now. Good morning all.
I agree and anyone that calls himself a conservative and uses that word, well they need to rethink what they really are.
OK, this is just silly. Apparently (per this author, anyway) "conservative" only applies to isolationist protectionists.
I guess that excludes all the Republicans who've actually held the Presidency, especially Ronald Reagan.
Now I'm not going to say Thompson is like or unlike Ronaldus Magnus or even that he is more like RR or less like RR than some other candidate. It's too early to fixate on one candidate, and besides, nobody is President Reagan - they are themselves and should be judged as such.
However the constant daily barrage of brutal attacks by everyone on each others' favorite candidates is pointless. The only possible result from months of this is that whomever emerges as the Republican candidate will be too bloodied to fight the Democrat.
Unless we're in a big hurry to revisit the days of '93-'94 with a Dem President and Congress ramming socialized medicine and worse down our throat, give it a rest, now.
Find something good to say about your candidate or, frankly, STFU.
A neo-conservative (abbreviated as neo-con or neocon) is part of a U.S. based political movement rooted in liberal Cold War anticommunism and a backlash to the social liberation movements of the 1960s and 1970s. These liberals drifted toward conservatism: thus they are new (neo) conservatives. They favor an aggressive unilateral U.S. foreign policy. They generally believe that elites protect democracy from mob rule. Sometimes the spelling is "neoconservative."
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Neo-conservatives
http://www.aei.org/
It is also a code word for "Jew". Many of the early neocons in the late 1970's and early 1980's were Jewish intellectuals who had been Democrats in a previous life.
The description of neocons as being socially liberal and fiscally conservative is foolish. A more accurate definition is that neocons were once idealistic liberals and are now idealistic conservatives. For example, that means I oppose racial preferences because (aside from being unconstitutional) they insult achievement-oriented African-Americans and they encourage mediocrity rather than excellence.
I am conservative on foreign policy, believing that the US should use its power to make the world safe from Communism, Islamofascism, and Euroweenies. If John F. Kennedy were alive today, there's a good chance that he would be a neocon - he cut taxes and confronted the USSR. (Who does that remind you of?)
I think we should all join Rush in referring to the candidate as Mrs. Bill Clinton. From my experience on another political forum, it drives the Dems nutz. Anything that gets Democrats foaming is fine by me:)
As to your original question: I prefer Hillary gone.
So you believe Guiliani will actively front pro-choice policies while in the White House as a Republican? Not likely
So it seems. It would be funny if it weren't so sad.
No kidding. Every time I see "neocon" used, the definition has apparently changed.
Color me CONFUUUUUUUUSED!
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.