Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


1 posted on 05/18/2008 12:07:01 PM PDT by kingattax
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: kingattax

If I were a democrat, I would be encourage by coming to FR to read all of the attacks on John McCain and about how people are going to stay home.


2 posted on 05/18/2008 12:11:02 PM PDT by Perdogg (Four years of Carter gave us 29 years of Iran; What will Hilabama give us?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: kingattax
When the party's top four Democrats come roaring out of the blocks in unison, something has hit a nerve.

That 'something' is called The Truth.

3 posted on 05/18/2008 12:16:03 PM PDT by MissMagnolia (God will be the ultimate judge ............ but sometimes you can just smell the sulphur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: kingattax

Hey, barry...a fox smells his own butt first, ya’ know.


5 posted on 05/18/2008 12:20:47 PM PDT by papasmurf (Unless I post a link to a resource, what I post is opinion, regardless of how I spin it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: kingattax
How to Enrage a Democrat

If nothing else, we now know what it takes to make a Democrat go nuts. One word: "appeasement."

Well I'll be darned. What always worked for me was

What's 2+2 =

They always come up with some esoteric bullsh*t like poverty or environment and I'd say no, its; 4.
They come back with more crap like institutional racism and again, I'd say, nope its still 4.

It drives them completely loony.

7 posted on 05/18/2008 12:26:56 PM PDT by Condor51 (I have guns in my nightstand because a Cop won't fit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: kingattax
Establishing and communicating preconditions is negotiation -- or at least part of a negotiation process. Anyone who doesn't consider setting preconditions to be a valid exercise, isn't a serious negotiator.

The Democrats seem to have some notion that "negotiation" is all about using wit and charm in face-to-face meetings. What do the Democrats' consider to be the U.S. interests in these negotiations? What do they suppose that the interests and objectives of the counter-parties (i.e. evil terrorist regimes) are? What would the Democrats consider to be their "BATNA" (Best Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement)? If the Democrats can't provide clear answers to those questions -- they aren't planning to "negotiate".

They might be planning to prostrate themselves before the Islamists and the commies in N.Korea; they might be planning to beg "forgiveness" for whatever they imagine the U.S. needs to be forgiven for; they may be planning a capitulation -- but, they aren't planning to negotiate in the interests of the U.S. Appeasement may be too kind a word.
9 posted on 05/18/2008 12:29:35 PM PDT by USFRIENDINVICTORIA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: kingattax
Mr. President, I beg you, tweak on!
12 posted on 05/18/2008 12:38:25 PM PDT by the invisib1e hand (The road to hell is paved with euphemisms.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: kingattax
Obama: "I resemble that remark!"
13 posted on 05/18/2008 12:42:18 PM PDT by sourcery (Libertarians are not Conservatives. But then, neither are most Republicans...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: kingattax
This whole thing was cooked up by the media in order to try to cut back on the dem on dem infighting, and try to redirect the anger towards President Bush, who the leftists in the dnc and the media hate so virulently.

On the other hand, I'm also reminded of the quote, "Me thinks he protesteth too much." Meaning that while President Bush may not have meant Obama nor the dems in general - personally I think that he was taking a shot at Jimmy Carter - the dems and Obama just think that it hit too close to home...

Mark

14 posted on 05/18/2008 12:44:08 PM PDT by MarkL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: kingattax

As the “Monty Python” “Knights of Nih” would say...

“Go find us a schrubbery!”

No wait...

“Appeasement, Appeasement, Appeasement!”

Arghhhhhhhhhhh!!!


15 posted on 05/18/2008 12:48:18 PM PDT by stevie_d_64 (Houston Area Texans (I've always been hated))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: kingattax
” The fuse that set them off is any suggestion inside the context of a live presidential campaign that the Democrats are soft on national security.”

Duh. They are.

16 posted on 05/18/2008 1:06:13 PM PDT by Canedawg (No Che Hussein NObama, and the Hildebeast, too)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: kingattax

This sounds like great sport! In the spirit of driving these basatards off a cliff (figuratively, but I would prefer literally) let’s have some fun with names.

I offer for your consideration the following: Appeasemocrats or TakeitintheA$$mocrats


17 posted on 05/18/2008 1:10:13 PM PDT by wally-balls
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: kingattax

Wanna enrage a Liberal?

Speak the truth


20 posted on 05/18/2008 1:14:34 PM PDT by wastedyears (Freedom is the right of all sentient beings. - Optimus Prime)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: kingattax

“How to Enrage a Democrat”

Steal their tofu and chardonnay????


21 posted on 05/18/2008 1:14:55 PM PDT by gc4nra ( this tag line protected by Kimber and the First Amendment (I voted for McClintock))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: kingattax

Appeasement, appeasement, appeasement!

I hope that was said enough to top make “someone’s” head explode.


22 posted on 05/18/2008 1:19:54 PM PDT by freeangel ( (free speech is only good until someone else doesn't like what you say))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: kingattax

In 1938, Germany was ruled by a madman who wanted to conquer the world and kill all the Jews. The European powers tried appeasement, and we all know the result.

Now, in 2008, Iran is ruled by a madman who wants to conquer the world and kill all the Jews. The European powers, this time with the support of American liberals, want to try appeasement. The difference today is that this madman is attempting to aquire nuclear weapons.

Those who will not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.


24 posted on 05/18/2008 1:36:20 PM PDT by sima_yi (Reporting live from the People's Republic of Boulder)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: kingattax
This entire Dem response was a carefully planned PR blitz to rally the dem base behind Obama because Hillary has been doing well in WV and Kentucky. They knew Bush was not talking about Osama-Obama . Its called distract the Dem drone voting base by bring up Bush as the evil Repub. The dem media does there part to peddle the BIG LIE to help out Obama too.
25 posted on 05/18/2008 1:38:32 PM PDT by ncalburt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: kingattax
Image hosted by Photobucket.com throw a rock into a pack of dogs, the one that gets hit yelps...
26 posted on 05/18/2008 1:39:13 PM PDT by Chode (American Hedonist ©®)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: kingattax
That's right. We hit a nerve.

Keep drilling.

30 posted on 05/18/2008 1:45:52 PM PDT by Jacquerie (Why vote when blackrobes rule?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: kingattax

Democrats HATE it when you expose them for what they are ... that is why they hated swiftboating, it nailed Kerry for the pompous medal-seeking two-faced elitist that he was.

A few talking point rebuttals to keep in mind:

1) OBAMA IS THE WORST NOMINEE EVER

National Journal ranked Obama the MOST LIBERAL Senator in 2007. Obama is to the LEFT of Dukakis, Gore and Kerry. And has fewer accomplishments and expereince compared with all three.

Obama is the weakest, most leftist, and least accomplished nominee that a party has put forth in many many years. he is the least deserving to win of any nominee in a long long time.


2) REBUTTAL TO DEMOCRAT ANTI-BUSH BASHING

“Democratic bullshit didn’t cost 4000+ lives and 650 billion dollars, or make the entire West much more dangerous and less free for everyone.”

LOL. 5 or 6 Democrat BS talking points in a single sentence. Surely no Republican can outrun that amount of BS.

Democrat BS like Carter’s foreign policy and Clinton’s ‘wall’ of separation that kept us clueless about AQ’s intentions madethings more dangerous. Deposing two of the worst govts in the worlds - the Taliban and Saddam Hussein’s regime - have been beneficial to long-term peace and stability.

USA has spent $2.7 trillion in past year, or about $12 *trillion* in the past 5 years, so the cost of liberating Iraq from Saddam and making it a democratic nation free from Al Qaeda is not more than 5% of the Federal Govts expenses. We hear nary a peep from the leftists about the waste, boondoggles etc. from that other 95%. This is all about the desperate and failed attempts to (a) lose a war that is on its way to being won and (b) gain power through fear and demonization, which takes us back to the point of that article.

Attacking Bush over his response to 9/11, which was overall a far better response than previous administration reactions to earlier terrorist attacks, is nothing more than meaningless political posturing.

As for Iraq, Bush is blamed for a war where no WMDs were found, and yet prior to the war, Democrats from hillary Clinton to John kerry were insisting along with everyone else that they were there. So much for Bush keeping Clinton’s CIA chief - a ‘slam dunk’ mistake. And Saddam’s intent to develop WMDs was there. It’s a typical 20/20 hindsight call. Yet it is the Democrats who want to lose the war unnecessarily now, evading completing plain facts such as - Al Qaeda has been in Iraq fighting, and that is where the war on terror is being waged, like it or not.

“When Bush was given the news of the events of 9/11, he looked like a rabbit caught in the headlights.” On the contrary, the President was on top of the situation, gave a national address that evening and an historic speech 9 days later, and within days of 9/11 the genesis of the response, to take out the Taliban, took shape. Within 75 days, the taliban was out of power. You may want to get educated instead of sipping Michael Moore’s swill.

“and then unleashing the might of the US military on a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 - “
The Taliban in Afghanistan had allowed Al Qaeda training camps. they had everything to do with 9/11, that is why Bush took them out. Saddam was a sponsor of terrorism for 2 decades with friendly contacts with AQ, so the ‘nothing to do with 9/11’ is simplistic talking points, not the whole story.

“It is quite likely that the aftermath of that is going to make it impossible for me to live the life I’ve been living.”

What silliness ... are you an AQ terrorist? War on Terror cramping your style?

“In fact, it’s already started; how much has oil gone up?”

The price of oil is up. The price of DRAMs and cellphones is down. American productivity is up. Unemployment is around 5%. Life is good in USA, so long as you dont have an 80 mile commute in an old cadillac or screwed up by buying zero down in Cali at the height of the housing bubble. Apparently only the facts that just happen to be on the DNC approved Bash-Bush-talking-point list seem to be of interest to you. I feel sorry for you and other lost souls who live on that planet where Bush screwed everything up, and do hope you all someday have a safe ride back to planet earth where things are much better.


36 posted on 05/18/2008 8:56:29 PM PDT by WOSG (The 4-fold path to save America - Think right, act right, speak right, vote right!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson