Skip to comments.
'You Lied to Us'
New York Times ^
| 6/02/03
| William Safire
Posted on 06/02/2003 12:18:29 AM PDT by kattracks
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-87 next last
To: Amelia
He most likely is going to vote for a candidate that shares his concerns and ideals. That is not the same as 'taking your ball and going home.'
I will do the same and if you Republicans want my vote you had better run a candidate for which I can vote. If you don't care to do that, don't come whining to me if you lose.
How many more votes are you going to throw away with your whiny scare tactics? REPUBLICANS lost the Perot election because they didn't care about all the people that voted for him. REPUBLICANS did not think the Perot vote was important and we all paid the price for that mistake. But it WAS THE REPUBLICANS MISTAKE and it could very well happen again. Trying to blame the voters when they are only offered a really poor choice is not going to fly forever.
To: poet
It was only after the "police action" commenced that they suddenly connected Iraq to terrorists. Either you haven't been paying attention or you have selective memory. The connections of terrorists to Iraq go back well before the invasion. From the Iraqi financing of suicide bombers, to the known presence in Iraq of Al Qaeda operatives, to several other pre-war connections, the relationship between Iraq and terrorist training and activities has been well established.
62
posted on
06/02/2003 12:36:35 PM PDT
by
VRWCmember
(Stanley Cup - back to Jersey; NBA Title - back to Texas (San Antonio, that is))
To: jamesnwu
If you don't see what our victory in Iraq is going to do for and to Saudi Arabia, I feel sorry for you.
If you don't see what our ongoing meddling in the affairs of sovereign nations is going to do for and to America, I feel sorry for the country.
To: Scarlet Pimpernel
I will do the same and if you Republicans want my vote you had better run a candidate for which I can vote. If you don't care to do that, don't come whining to me if you lose. Maybe you know the answer to my question then: who is a TRUE conservative who can appeal to the voters, and who would be able to enact a conservative agenda?
Who would you vote for? (And does that person have a snowball's chance in hell of winning?)
Do you have any suggestions?
64
posted on
06/02/2003 1:19:37 PM PDT
by
Amelia
To: justshe
I notice you advocate nuking all arab cities of 50K or more. What is your solution for arabs/islamists living in the United States? Especially those who are American citizens? Where did I say that I advocated it? I merely mentioned that it was an achievable strategem if it was deemed necessary.
I will add the capitals of the rest of the countries on earth and every other city of greater than 50K if that will make you feel better.
America first. Everyone else is capable of being categorized as an enemy and seeing them disappear wouldn't bother me too much (of course I'd greatly prefer that they become Christian first but that choice is in their hands already)
I believe that islam as a religion is on a par with the human sacrificing branch of satanism and should be outlawed. It is inconsistent with the values upon which this country was founded
65
posted on
06/02/2003 2:14:20 PM PDT
by
John O
(God Save America (Please))
To: Scarlet Pimpernel; poet
Still waiting to hear who an electable true conservative might be......
66
posted on
06/02/2003 2:34:52 PM PDT
by
Amelia
To: trebb
I would really like to see a rational line of thought on how he could have been so stupid... We are talking about dims here. They only deal with feelings., not anything rational.
67
posted on
06/02/2003 2:49:33 PM PDT
by
mathluv
To: John O
You are correct. I took your sentence:
When the time is right, or if it is required, we can nuke mecca and medina (and every arab capital and city of more than 50K) at our whim]
as an advocation.
How does the Constitution, specifically the 1st Amendment, support your statement re: American citizens of 1) Arab descent....and/or 2)those who practice Islam as a religion:
Everyone else is capable of being categorized as an enemy and seeing them disappear wouldn't bother me too much (of course I'd greatly prefer that they become Christian first but that choice is in their hands already)
You are willing to ignore the Constitution to achieve your statements?
68
posted on
06/02/2003 3:50:04 PM PDT
by
justshe
To: kattracks
Re:
. . intelligence misjudgment of Gulf War II? It was . . that the 50,000 elite soldiers of Saddam's well-trained, well-equipped Special Republican Guard would put up a fierce battle for Baghdad.
Bzzzzt ! Wrong ! It was Saddom shills, and anti-war zealots, who predicted a "river of blood" and a "quagmire" that would bog down the US military.
These were the same people who wrongfully predicted "tens of thousands of US bodybags" in Kabul. Bush and Blair had confidence in their military the whole way through, and, to their credit, never waivered or went wobbly dispite overwhelming presure.
To quote Rummy: "Never have so many been so wrong about so much."
69
posted on
06/02/2003 4:04:20 PM PDT
by
ChadGore
(Frustrate one liberal a day, that's all we ask.)
To: poet
Shame on you!!!!!!!! I see why you cry in the desert Now I'm sure you are a liberal ultra left democrat. You took my bait! Only leftist democrat can show hatred as you do. Like John the Baptist, my cry is not out of despiration or helplessness, it's a cry in the wilderness to expose ultra liberal democrats like you, who spew their hatred in FR. Your cloaking device no longer works.
To: Amelia
Amelia, you may have to wait a very long time, atleast until hillary gains enough courage to throw her hat in the ring.
To: desertcry
Sit back, take a deep breath and relax. Now, doesn't that feel better?
Don't forget to take your medication. Depression is a hellish thing.
FReegards
72
posted on
06/02/2003 6:53:41 PM PDT
by
poet
To: Amelia
No sense of humour Amelia? Sheesh. Take your medicine.
73
posted on
06/02/2003 7:03:07 PM PDT
by
poet
To: Amelia
'Conceding your point that both parties are moving toward socialism, albeit the GOP is moving more slowly, aren't we better off at least going with the party that won't do it as quickly, rather than voting third party and thereby (inadvertently perhaps) aiding and abetting the faster move to socialism?"
Are you serious? Are you saying you want to sleep thru the takeover and loss of yopur freedom and liberty rather than being made aware before their power is consolidated and it becomes too late to do anything about it?
To answer your question Hell no!
74
posted on
06/02/2003 7:12:12 PM PDT
by
poet
To: poet
Sit back, take a deep........ Too late, the hood is off!
To: poet
No sense of humour? You didn't notice that my reply rhymes?
76
posted on
06/02/2003 7:14:49 PM PDT
by
Amelia
To: kattracks
Give 'em rope. Let 'em run with it.
77
posted on
06/02/2003 7:19:15 PM PDT
by
gitmo
(Perhaps we should just take "THE UNITED STATES OF" out of the country's name.)
To: poet; Amelia
Well, I understood Amelia to be suggesting that the rate of change is a factor to be considered, particularly if we're interested in altering the course of that change?
Do you really disagree with her about that?
78
posted on
06/02/2003 7:29:08 PM PDT
by
Scenic Sounds
( "Friends help you move. Real friends help you move bodies.")
To: poet; Scenic Sounds
Are you saying you want to sleep thru the takeover and loss of yopur freedom and liberty rather than being made aware before their power is consolidated and it becomes too late to do anything about it? Scenic is correct, that's not what I said at all.
I'm saying that if both cars are headed down the slippery slope, I'd prefer to be in the one traveling at the slower speed, in hopes of retaining and/or regaining some control.
An alternative would be great, if there were one. Perot might have had a chance in 1992, had he not begun all the wacky conspiracy stuff.
My question is, do you have in mind someone who could run as a true conservative, and have a chance of winning?
79
posted on
06/02/2003 7:46:57 PM PDT
by
Amelia
To: poet
2nd Request: You said you would find this link and answer my question. And before you attempt to be helpful, I don't take any medication.
To: poet
"I suppose you all know that Judges Estrada and Owens being pushed by Bush are the same two nominated by clinton?"
Do you have a source/link for this assertion?
Additionally, who, in your opinion, is a viable candidate for the Presidency in 2004? By viable, I mean has a chance to win.
36 posted on 06/02/2003 9:08 AM PDT by justshe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
To: justshe
I'm doing a search to find it for you.
FReegards
43 posted on 06/02/2003 9:23 AM PDT by poet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
80
posted on
06/02/2003 7:49:48 PM PDT
by
justshe
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-87 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson