George W. -- Master of disguise

The New American ^ | 9-6-02 | gary benoit

[thedugal]

Do any of these folks ever campaign to get someone elected? Or is their ignorance of the political process the reason they sit on their butts and take pot-shots?

Without siding one way or the other on the issue of the article, I was wondering something. Those who appear to be in support of Bush on this issue have not made a single statement to refute this article. There have been several posts filled with ad hominem and insinuation of such.

When people like the NOW gang support Clinton and even go so far as to make excuses for his sexual perversion and further more attack the victims, everyone here sees clearly that the NOW gang and their ilk do not believe what they say they do, but rather only support democrats. Yet when the same issues are raised against a republican president, the very people who would be outraged were it a democrat are supportive to the extent of being hostile to those asking questions.

Now if you want to say Bush is a good president and that he is a far better president than Clinton was or Gore would have been, I can agree wholeheartedly. I would even help to enumerate the multitude of ways. But those of you who come here and start calling names and offer no debate and stick your heads in the sand are shameless and deserve no support. Bush has not been a domestic conservative. I don't believe that Bush is a domestic conservative. If someone can show evidence that he is, please post it, but the namecalling just proves you are nothing better than the R version of the average RAT.

[gunshy]

In my opinion, winning this war has to be priority one.

What war? The war on drugs, the war on terrorism, the war against Iraq, the war against the liberty and freedoms of the american people.

If this president really thinks he is at war, the first thing he would do is close the borders to eliminate illegals from entering the country. The next thing he would do would be to round up all illegals and deport them. Then he would get rid of undesireable immigrants. Then he would develope a civilian defense policy. He has done none of these things. Why, you ask, because there is no war.

[A Vast RightWing Conspirator]

Well, if the answers are staying home or going third-party, both of which help the Left

In my view, Bush IS the Left. By 'the Left' I mean anything that's bad for our nation, my own family and myself and is good for those who would like to turn us into a disciplined herd.

[hchutch]

Is Bush perfect?

No.

Is he the best option we have?

Yes.

Am I going to get everything I want by 2004, or even 2008 if Bush is re-elected?

No.

Do I trust him to come up with the best, most fair and equitable solution he possibly can?

Yes.

For example, some problems can not be solved to the perfect satisfaction of everyone here. Take your pick of the issue - we won't get a perfect solution any time soon. The question is, do we make the best deal possible, or do we end up with nothing?

I'll take the best deal possible any day of the week. I've done that on a number of issues, and I've taken a lot of heat for it.

[ItisaReligionofPeace]

your father would probably like to think you are his son too! lol

[rdb3]

your father would probably like to think you are his son too! lol

He doesn't have a choice! I look just like him.

Dangit!

;-)

[thedugal]

I basically agree with you. The problem is, if conservatives never even question Bush's policies, then he has no incentive to even try to limit the budget. I can't support increased federal spending ever. I believe it is TOO LARGE now, and increasing it simply makes it larger. That is academic. We need federal budgets that are 5% smaller every year for decades before we get down to a level of responsible government. I have doubts it will ever happen in my lifetime, unless the country falls apart.

[hchutch]

I'm talking the war on terrorism, which probaly includes a stop in Iraq and probably elsewhere.

[hchutch]

The problem is, we can't get there from where we are right now.

We had third-party types cost us two Senate seats in two election cycles (Ensign in 1998 and Gorton in 2000). In both cases, we got a leftist Dem as opposed to a Republican. As a result, we're not getting conservative judges confirmed, which would be a big step on paring down some of the crap that is going on.

[sandym1313]

So basically anyone whose views differ from yours. I see.

[dighton]

... the namecalling just proves you are nothing better than the R version of the average RAT.

Oh, please. I can sum up this kind of article as follows: Unappeasables Unappeased.

I'll admit, though, that it's a far better (if longer) read than Chuck Baldwin Is Annoyed Today.

[Clemenza]

He may be good for the GOP and for the African dictators but he is bad for America.

Huh? Do you want him to invade Zimbabwe or something?

[MissAmericanPie]

Cuddo's for your post #21

[gunshy]

How come the war on terrorism doesn't include yassir arafat, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Libya, Iran and osama bin laden. Thse people and states are far more openly active than iraq. Why do they get a pass? Because there is no war. What has Iraq done?

[hchutch]

Oh let's look over some threads here, shall we?

Trained al-Qaida in Chemical Weapons:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/743892/posts

Trained in hijacking techniques similar to those used on 9/11:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/732520/posts

Then there is that meeting Mr. Atta had with an Iraqi intelligence agent.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/695567/posts

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/727076/posts

Saddam's probably the most dangerous of al-Qaida's accessories. You take out the most dangerous threat first in any self-defense situation.

[gunshy]

Wow, these are certainly chilling threats. Almost as bad as what ashcroft is doing to the american people. Just admit that the reason that you support going to war against Iraq is because Bush says we need to.

[hchutch]

From what I've READ about Saddam and the two brats who could be his brothers, we need to do it.

Quite frankly, we should have finished the job the first time. As far as I'm concerned, seeing as this country's dealing with a potential threat that has already killed nearly 3,000 people on American soil, and has killed Americans and others elsewhere in the world, Ashcroft's acted with restraint.

[gunshy]

Rewriting history just a bit aren't you. I thought osama, 15 saudis and some egyptians were responsible for the death of 3000 americans, Delude on dude.

[Steve0113]

the two brats who could be his brothers

If you're talking about the ones I think you are, they're his sons.