Posted on 12/24/2009 5:02:20 PM PST by rabscuttle385
You got it, slow vs fast suicide under Bush then Obama. In fact Bush with a democrat congress still spent at historical levels because Democrats knew they could just blame the debt on Bush and Republicans, and Bush didn't care(was there any brain activity??) .
I still remember the days 1990-1993 when Bush I and Clinton were scared of the national debt and of bondholders driving up interest rates to kill the economy. But now the Federal Reserve is buying up treasuries to fund this massive spending and there seems to be no market reaction.
stephenjohnbanker was responding to my comment that said “Gridlock is the BEST we can hope for” not the best solution.
If you were a supporter of Duncan Hunter, try acting like one.
Show me where he advocated what you are currently. As I recall it, he stood up to Ron Paul and did not support his whiney positions.
Bush wasn't as strong a conservative as I feel I am or I would have preferred he be, but do you give him credit for taking the fight back to the terrorists, instead of trying to pull the covers over his head and hoping it goes away, like others before him did?
Do you give him credit for the nominations of John Roberts and Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court?
Do you give him credit for anything? Or, do you just parrot the disinformation spewed by Ron Paulies and other leftists?
Presidents are not dictators, until now, that is. They have to work within the system we have, whether I like it or not.
No, he didn't do everything I would have wanted him to do, but he did a damn sight more for America than did his predecessor.
Robinson is entitled to his opinion, but he is not the final word for America.
And, just what does your continued harping on Bush accomplish? He's been out of office nearly a year. So, what other reason is there than tearing down the party he represented?
Spew what you want, you people expose yourselves in your every word.
I agree. I was mainly asking the question whether gridlock would solve our problems, and you answered my question.
I have other questions, but I don't want to digress too much from the theme.
"My little questions spin the tumblers of your mind."
- From "The Paper Chase"
“Show me where he advocated what you are currently. As I recall it, he stood up to Ron Paul and did not support his whiney positions.”
Good Lord. Show me ONE example out of my 35000 posts where I was for Ron Paul......Are you concious??
“Do you give him credit for the nominations of John Roberts and Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court?”
For Roberts? A resounding yes. For Alito? Hell no! Bush was getting trashed 24 straight hours from people all over the country for nominating Myers.
“Robinson is entitled to his opinion, but he is not the final word for America.”
He is the final word here at Free Republic, or do you want to question his authority?
“So, what other reason is there than tearing down the party he represented?”
I am not tearing down the party. I am exposing every GOP RINO, and their record as fast as I can. By the way, Bush represented the “New World Order” RINO’s, not the Republican party. Between Bush’s RINOdom, and McCain campaigning for Obama(you know the quotes) we got a fascist dictator.
“”My little questions spin the tumblers of your mind.”
- From “The Paper Chase”
;-)
Y'know, Populists have a very narrow definition of perfection.
It's whenever the "small group of people" who are benefitted is precisely them.
stephenjohnbanker is a very solid conservative, but you are too slavishly devoted to Bush to see it. You are too quick to smear anyone who does not agree with you.
No, he didn't do everything I would have wanted him to do, but he did a damn sight more for America than did his predecessor.
Bush went beyond just "not doing everything I would have wanted him to do." Amnesty would mean the Dems (or worse) get control of all 3 branches of government forever.
And, just what does your continued harping on Bush accomplish? He's been out of office nearly a year.
I agree that we are talking about GWB too much. The immediate evil we face in Obama and company should be our primary focus.
Buh-bye...
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!
Come again?
I'm talking about Bush's actions, i.e.: opening the doors to the US banking system to Mexican illegal aliens that would benefit only US bankers and Mexican illegal aliens and that the ultimate cost for his deliberate actions are now being borne by the American people who must now weather the economic storm created by these actions.
What are you talking about?
Actually, no, they don't.
The modern aggressive Islam was born in Bosnia in 1970, based on a treatise written by Bosnian Alija Izetbegovic called "The Islamic Declaration". The Islamic Declaration was republished in 1990, a year before the Bosnian war began. The original of this document even pre-dated the Iranian Islamic Revolution and it shows complete contempt for the Western and American way of life.
The earliest traceable beginnings of al Qaeda was a document called "The Golden Chain" (mentioning the bin Ladens as "donors), found also in Bosnia. The Golden Chain was dated to 1988/89, years before the first shot was fired in the Bosnian war.
Our ex-Cold Warriors weren't satisfied with just ending the Cold War with the collapse of the Soviet Union. They wanted to go the extra mile by screwing Russia once again while she was weak, by empowering Balkan Muslims in order to disrupt Russia's oil and gas supplies to Europe. We let bin Laden set up camp in Bosnia (where he was granted a Bosnian passport from Izetbegovic) and Kosovo, and then we backed both Islamic take-overs, screwing our longtime allies, the Serbs.
But, in order to create public sympathy & support for the Bosnian Muslims (and later Albanian Muslims), we had to incite/create Muslim casualties and liken the Bosnian Muslims to the "WWII Holocaust of Jews". Problem is that Americans and Westerners weren't the only ones who bought our propaganda -- the Muslim world did (and does) as well. Feeling wronged by the West, in spite of the fact that we backed them, Islamists wanted revenge on us -- and still do.
Several of the 9/11 hijackers, including Mohammed Atta fought in Bosnia and in a video made before the attacks, specifically claimed that "9/11 was to avenge Bosnia".
The difference between us is that I am simply much more wary than you are of government propaganda -- not just from the Democrats -- but from both sides of the aisle to satisfy whatever interests are stuffing their campaign coffers, not all of whom are on America's side.
Further, I have enough respect for the lives of our troops, not to support putting them in harm's way for some globalists' financial gain, while spouting that it is about "protecting America".
My nephew is currently serving Iraq and my husband is a Vietnam Vet, so don't think for one second that I "disrespect our troops". I respect them enough not to want to see one drop of their blood lost for some political BS that has nothing to do with protecting America!
You.
And, clearly, you side with Bush, the bankers and the Mexican illegal aliens over the welfare of the American people.
You 'say' you disagreed with Bush's immigration policies, but ignore the effect his policies had on the country.
I'm very conscious to what I am doing. But, I wonder if you are.
How is it you are exposing RINO's by joining in with the Ron Paulies in their quest to tear down the GOP?
Miers didn't get the nomination, did she? She was suggested and due to the outrage most of us expressed, never got it.
Yes, Robinson is the final word here and if he so chooses, can delete either one of us. But, he still isn't the final word for America. He's entitled to his opinion.
If he or you don't care for Bush, didn't you get the memo, he's ben out of office for nearly a year. Ragging on him accomplishes what?
McCain was and is horrible, but McCain is still in office, Bush isn't. Where is all the outrage on McCain instead of Bush?
You're beating a dead horse with Bush and in so doing, tearing down the GOP.
Sheldon Richman and the other commentators are very hard-core libertarians (of course hard-core libertarians disagree about who's orthodox and who isn't but most other people would agree with my assessment).
I wasn't a fan of Bush, but his view of freedom wasn't that different from what other recent war and cold war presidents thought, from Wilson and FDR to Truman, Eisenhower, and Kennedy.
Freedom was more about beating the other side than about getting rid of government restraints on individual action.
Gracious, did I say that?
Hmmmmmmmmmmm. Let me review. Ahah, here's my post #242.
Did I agree with Bush's policies on illegal immigration? No.
Gee, no, I didn't say that at all. Did I?
So, why do you insist I did?
Amen! History will record that Bush was a great president. When the pros and cons of his administration are weighed, the pros will outpace the cons by a wide margin. I am proud to have voted for Bush/Cheney and would do it again in a minute.
Are you daft? I continually claim Bush wasn't the best, but he sure as hell wasn't the worst either.
Now, what does that have to do with Duncan Hunter? Where did he ever stand up and bash Bush or the GOP? Especially now that Bush has been out of office for nearly a year.
As far as amnesty, did it get passed while the GOP had all three branches of government?
And yes, I want a stronger position on illegals too. But, why blame only Bush when nothing has been done by either party for decades?
The immediate evil we face in Obama and company should be our primary focus.
I agree. But these endless Paulie complaints against the GOP and Bush deflect attention away from that danger, focusing instead of a dead horse.
We not only face the danger of dictatorial Democrats, but Ron Paulies who seem to think if they first tear down the GOP to seize control of it, the public will embrace their libertarian message that has been rejected for four decades.
Currently, even with RINO's, the GOP is the only group in power and able to stand up to the Dictatorial Democrats. No, they aren't strong enough currently to prevent anything, but no other group is in the position to even try to effectively oppose their agenda.
That doesn't mean I give RINO's a pass. Like Specter, I'd rather they go where they align themselves.
But, to replace them, instead of leaving the GOP and bellyaching, we need to get involved inside the GOP and identify the best candidates and work diligently to support them, even over party favorites.
As I mentioned earlier, I'm in Washington States 3rd congressional district, home of Democrat Brian Baird who just announced his retirement. We have a strong conservative candidate who has been running since June, long before anyone else.
I'm also a PCO and sit on the county executive board.
As soon as Baird announced his retirement, a state representative who was appointed 2 years ago became the party's favorite. I openly oppose her and stick with the candidate mentioned above, who is undoubtedly the front-runner in funds raised, ability and platform.
The other long shots, I encourage to drop out and get behind the stronger candidate so we have a strong conservative, not another party insider and RINO.
What I don't do is stand outside and bash the party or Bush to get my guy elected. That only drives voters away.
Short of an armed revolution, which is pure folly and unnecessary, that is the only way I see to turn things around.
The libs didn't do it overnight and neither will we. But, tearing the party down and leaving the Democrats in their dictatorship role accomplishes nothing at all, except servitude.
Hate to tell you, but Bosnia also fits into “over there.”
As far as what happened in Bosnia, uh, didn’t you realize that was before Bush?
Your “I support the Troops, but not the war” stance is idealistic as can be. As a Viet Nam Veteran myself, I see our Troops volunteering to go back and finish this fight.
I see their morale dropping, just as ours did in Viet Nam from all those who now claim they supported us by wanting us out of Viet Nam.
Unlike us, today’s Troops are all volunteers. Enough time has passed that any opposed could have ETS’d and moved on, as several have.
If they don’t have a problem with it, why do you?
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/oct/26/troops-hope-sacrifices-not-in-vain/
This threat has been growing since the early 70’s, as you indicate. Isn’t it about time it was stood up to?
Or, do you wish to see our grandchildren fighting in our streets who we could be defeating today over there?
I just hope that those fighting and sacrificing today don’t sit around like many of Viet Nam Vets do, wondering, what happened? We were winning when I left.
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.