Posted on 11/14/2007 2:13:23 AM PST by Aristotelian
Remember, each in their own time, Washington and Lincoln were reviled by their contemporary masses for instigating what were, at the time, very unpopular wars, but while theirs saved this nation, Bush's will save the entire world from Islamo-fascist dictatorship.
But don't worry, it won't happen in your lifetime, thus you'll never have to admit that I was right, and you can die as stupid as you were born.
;-/
“Once the middle east has been democratized and brought out of the carnage-strewn stone age, all because of Bush’s prescient efforts and leadership beginning with Iraq, he will be hailed by history as the greatest president in our nation’s history, surpassing Washington and Lincoln in scope and genius.”
That’s some powerful crystal ball you have there pardner.
I tend to doubt your scenario for the ME, not because I don’t wish it were true, but rather because 2000 years of history doesn’t support it.
“But don’t worry, it won’t happen in your lifetime, thus you’ll never have to admit that I was right, and you can die as stupid as you were born.”
Wow, a personal attack for stating an opinion.
The fundamental premise of the story is wrong.
The people the writer describes are not "intellectuals" at all.
They are low grade, parasitic commie thugs, with an overwrought send of their own intelligence.
I wonder some times if the old man ever really figured out how badly he got hosed by that evil rat George Mitchell and the DemocRAT Congress.
Bush has managed to do something in the Middle East no other POTUS has managed in history. To get every nation but Israel mad at us and even his policy on Israel is enough to make any God fearing Christian cringe at his prophetic Road Map to peace. Bush is clueless as to what war actually is to be honest about it. Had he been POTUS in WW2 we would now be under Nazi and Imperial rule.
My short answer is that on the long day of September 11, 2001, there was a President George Bush. I remember praying and giving thanks for GWB on that terrible day.
Can you just imagine if it had been Al Gore?
“(The one election that I know of that was stolen in U.S. presidential history was 1960, when JFK stole the election by fraud in Illinois — and also probably Texas — from Nixon.)”
Yes, and it was my first presidential vote. For Nixon, naturally.
Well, if Hillary is elected we will no doubt see a level of loathing on par with Bush hatred, if not exceeding it.
“Well, if Hillary is elected we will no doubt see a level of loathing on par with Bush hatred, if not exceeding it.”
We’re seeing it already, and she hasn’t even won anything yet
Yea I can. Same results. Look at the names and nations of origin of the attackers and go after another nation. Gore like Bush would have been limited to what Congress allowed. Here is the problem. Bush had a bunch of bad ideas and because he was a fellow Republican the GOP congress who BTW was also an enabler to Clinton/Gore on such issues as gutting our military and their nation building gave Bush a blank check.
Bush is bad enough but my real contempt is for the Do nothing Republicratic Congress. Not the Conservative Republican Congress of 1995 but that of 1996 of which took over control and direction of the party. The North East elitist who helped usher in the Bob Dole GOP. The sellouts!
“My short answer is that on the long day of September 11, 2001, there was a President George Bush. I remember praying and giving thanks for GWB on that terrible day.
Can you just imagine if it had been Al Gore?”
That fact that President Bush admirably did his duty on 9-11
doesn’t negate his other, less than stellar decisions. He came through in a time of crisis, but that doesn’t make everything he does right.
And they were justified, at least in the cases above. Clinton and LBJ were utterly corrupt, and FDR was a Commie wanna be.
IMHO, think cross, think demon....the imagery works....and unfortunately makes more sense than almost anything else.
Kennedy didn't steal the election. He would up with 303 electoral votes. If Nixon had won in Illinois then Kennedy would still have had 276 electoral votes to Nixon's 246, more than enough to win. And Kennedy won Texas by 55,000 votes and 2 percentage points.
Early primary states, like Iowa and New Hampshire trend liberal. I read a post on another thread about some people from Houston who were very conservative in their beliefs, but unfailingly voted Dem. Up here in PA, I have run into a lot of die hard Republican voters, who don't even consider voting Democrat, yet they believe in abortion rights, gay rights, etc. I have often said that a Southern Democrat is to the right of a North or Northeastern Republican.
Conclusion: We need to let southern states vote first in the primary and we will get a conservative Republican nominated.
Thankfully we don't have a system that involves the voters. </sarcasm>
No, it is a tactic fomented and support by the Progressives to do exactly as Berkowitz says - blind one to the arguments of conservatives. It is hate substituted for thought.
To be sure, GW has not thrilled me on many fronts, but he is the CINC and we are at war with an ideology that will burn the leftists haters first should they win.
It really is a disgusting anathema.
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.