Telling. So you want a Democratic Senate to be in charge of approving the next couple of Supreme Court Justice nominees...
Posted on 06/05/2002 1:20:54 PM PDT by Stand Watch Listen
Let me just say up front that I am not addressing you if you voted for George W. Bush in 2000 and regret it. The same goes for those of you who voted for Bush and insist on holding his feet to the fire on the important issues. If, however, you cast your vote for Bush, still believe he is the only hope for America and intend to support every move he makes without so much as a raised eyebrow, this is for you.
It has been nearly a year-and-a-half since George W. Bush, the savior of conservatism, descended from on high to begin his earthly reign in Washington, D.C. Republicans assured us that he would restore integrity to the White House and would be a marked improvement over the promiscuous Bill Clinton. Well, in all honesty, that could have been accomplished by electing a neutered chimp to the office of president.
During the 2000 presidential campaign, George W. Bush the man proved to be a nice break from Bill Clinton and Al Gore. Unlike Gore, Bush had a more likable...well, he actually had a personality. He also possessed the unique ability to address the American people without the smug and condescending vibe Clinton exuded. However, when it came to policy, George W. Bush the candidate failed to demonstrate that he would govern any differently than his Democrat counterparts.
Still, throughout the campaign, there was a loyal group of Bush supporters who would take offense at even the slightest implication that their candidate was anything but a staunch conservative. Even now, they continue to stand by their man, and I find this to be rather perplexing.
Perhaps those who have pledged their undying allegiance to President Bush could answer a few questions for me, in no particular order of course:
• How would you have reacted if Bill Clinton had signed the Patriot Act into law and given the government sweeping new surveillance powers?
• Would you have criticized a Democrat president for signing a $26 billion education-spending bill?
• Did you feel betrayed when Bush signed Campaign Finance Reform into law?
• What do you think about Bush's position on granting amnesty to hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants?
• Would you have tolerated a Democrat proposal for federally funded faith-based initiatives?
• What would your reaction have been if a Democrat had said, "No one should have to pay more than a third of their income to the federal government"?
• What do you think about the president's granting of Permanent Most Favored Nation status to China?
• What's the difference between Bush and the Democrats on the issue of farm subsidies?
• How would you react if a Democrat president sent a $2.13 trillion budget to Congress?
• Would you have stood for a Democrat saying "No!" to arming airline pilots?
• What would your reaction have been if a Democrat had pushed for the federalization of airport security?
• Are you willing to stand by and let the Bush administration cater to the environmentalists on the global warming issue?
• What do you think about Bush's call for a Patient's Bill of Rights?
• What one thing has Bush done that sets him apart from the Democrats?
• It's been a year-and-a-half since Bush took office. When do we start to see a decrease in the size and scope of government? For that matter, when do we start to see even a remote indication that this administration will think about doing anything to try to limit the federal government?
This list is by no means exhaustive, but I would really be interested in some answers. Perhaps it would help shed some light on the mindset of modern compassionate conservatives.
The fact that a Republican president is governing like a Democrat isn't surprising. What's amazing to me is that there are a few select Bush supporters out there who cannot—or will not—utter one word of criticism against their president for any reason. In their minds this man is the epitome of conservatism, and to question his actions would be to question their own beliefs and cause them to wonder why they supported him in the first place.
The way I see it there can only be two explanations for this: 1) these people really and truly believe in what Bush is doing, or 2) they do not wish to face up to the real reason they voted for him — he was simply a slightly more palatable choice than Al Gore.
The impeachment proceeded in accordance to the rules set forth by our governing documents. He was properly investigated, and the Senate failed to convict him. A failure by our elected officials.
The outcome does not change the facts BAC.
As for all the other garbage, that's just what it is, garbage.
Please go on believing me to be a democrat too, and never, ever, convince yourself that I am on your side.
But again don't want to debate the facts. You just repeat your claim, like I said you would do. You don't want to talk about Blumenthal or Jordan or Starr's suspicious activities do you, Luis. You just want to repeat your claim and ignore all the crimes the Clinton administration and DNC committed. Just like a democRAT would do.
The impeachment proceeded in accordance to the rules set forth by our governing documents. He was properly investigated, and the Senate failed to convict him. A failure by our elected officials.
But how can it be "proper" when the entire democRAT Senate violated its oath? How can it be "proper" when even the GOP leader told the House Managers they weren't dumping that "garbage" on the senate? How could it be "proper" when the Senate only allowed the House Managers to question 3 witnesses under oath in the trial? How could it be "proper" when 2 of those witnesses demonstrably lied under oath and noone in the Senate seems to have cared? How could it be "proper" if nearly everyone in the Senate failed to visit the Ford Building as the Republicans who voted for impeachment did? They may have followed some rules, Luis, but it certainly wasn't a "proper" trial. Your SPINNNNING ... like democRATS ALWAYS do.
As for all the other garbage, that's just what it is, garbage.
Quoting Lott I see.
sarcasm alert on ... Right, Luis ... sarcasm alert off
Please go on believing me to be a democrat too, and never, ever, convince yourself that I am on your side.
You are on my side?
sarcasm alert on ... Right Luis ... sarcasm alert off
I don't give a rat's ass about your BS, nor do I believe a single word of anything you post. I don't because, like most everyone else in here, I find you to be a jerk.
You may even have good points, but your idiotic rants, your childish insults, your cut-and-paste posts, and your belief that the torture-like repetition of crap that no one gives a sh#t about is gospel that needs to be hung from the Church house door, has managed to do the exact opposite of what I think you want to do. No one cares because most everyone here detests you.
The reality that you seem unable to grasp, is that prosecuting Bill Clinton would establish a precedent that no administration wishes to set. Right, wrong, indifferent, that's a plain fact.
And I agree that we shouldn't.
Now, I have asked you this before, and I am going to ask you one last time.
Do not post to me anymore, and I will do likewise.
Then why did you open this conversation with me. Go back and look ... YOU posted me FIRST on this thread. And you did it to try and push a dishonest notion that now we see you can't defend with either facts or logic. So RUN Luis, if that is what you want. Simply stop responding to me.
I don't give a rat's ass about your BS, nor do I believe a single word of anything you post. I don't because, like most everyone else in here, I find you to be a jerk.
And like you always do, devolve to the use of crude remarks rather than logic or facts. It is what democRATS ALWAYS do.
You may even have good points, but your idiotic rants, your childish insults, your cut-and-paste posts, and your belief that the torture-like repetition of crap that no one gives a sh#t about is gospel that needs to be hung from the Church house door, has managed to do the exact opposite of what I think you want to do. No one cares because most everyone here detests you.
Sure, Luis. Try to appease me with your democRAT-like foul language.
The reality that you seem unable to grasp, is that prosecuting Bill Clinton would establish a precedent that no administration wishes to set. Right, wrong, indifferent, that's a plain fact.
Why do you focus ONLY on Clinton. I have asked this time and again and not ONE of you people who recommend Bush move on and ignore the crimes that dozens, if not hundreds, of democRATS committed EVER have an answer. Furthermore, your statement is ONLY your opinion. Ignoring the crimes sets other precedents as well ... one being that from now on politicians and political parties are different from the rest of us ... they are above the law ... they can do anything they want including commit MURDER. It also sets the precedent that a President can willfully violate the Constitution and even the GOP won't care. If that's the sort of government the GOP wants, then heaven help us.
Now, I have asked you this before, and I am going to ask you one last time. Do not post to me anymore, and I will do likewise.
Again, YOU opened this discussion in post 1136, not I. You just don't like the final result because its embarrassing (for you).
And if I see you posting more lies publically on this forum about issues that interest me, you can count on my setting the record straight.
The president of the United States is George Bush.
If you still want to believe it's Bill Clinton then go back to your cave.
So if Satadru was king of the GOP, who would have been the GOP nominatee in 2000? Being you can't tolerant the party's last nominatee?
Do you have a political office holder today today that you actually like?
Anyways, I mostly hate all politicians. I do not agree with 100% for anyone. Among present office-holders, I would like to see Ron Paul or Senator Bob Smith of NH to be the President.
Geeze. get a grip.
Principles are futile. You have been assimilated.
We'll see about the next election. The GOP has made the mistake before of taking its true conservative base for granted. The GOP will not get the Senate back this fall, and will lose seats in the House. And I hope they do. The GOP has shown it does not deserve majority status, and is better as the loyal opposition.
Telling. So you want a Democratic Senate to be in charge of approving the next couple of Supreme Court Justice nominees...
Nonsense. That sort of fringe talk, no matter how many threads you repeat it on, isn't even close to the truth.
Democrats have given up gun control as an issue. Think about that fact for a moment. What thinking man would claim that the Democrats would give up that position if "Conservatism is dead"??
If Conservatism is dead, why are faith-based initiatives on deck to be passed?
If Conservatism is dead, why did the U.S. pull out of the left-wing International Criminal Court?
If Conservatism was dead, why isn't the Kyoto Treaty on Global Warming being implemented at the cost of hundreds of thousands of American jobs?
Why is our national missile defense being funded, tested, and set for initial deployment in 2004 if Conservatism is dead?
Don't look now, but Democrats are scrambling to jump to the Right. Democrats such as Gephardt are now backing a war on Iraq. Democrats are demanding that American security be increased. If the right wing is dead, then why are Democrats trying to fly on it?
Look at Hollywood. The top films out over the last year are family films. TV studios are retreading old family-friendly shows. Comfort foods are back in vogue. The American flag is flying in every city.
You may think that conservatism is dead, but current evidence doesn't bear out that conclusion. You are also going to be VERY surprised at just how out of touch that viewpoint is in November of this year. Then you can act like the media and pretend to be "surprised" that the Democrats got routed in the elections...
I think I understand your statement of the problem (I'm assuming it's the amalgam of all the criticisms of the liberals, media, education, and conservatives, etc), but I don't what solution you espouse.
So at this juncture, could you point me to, or elaborate here, what your solution would be? What would you recommend to fix whatever you perceive is wrong?
Do what the liberals have done. Offer alternative channels, networks. Make infomercials. Start a movie company. Be university president. Like I said, it would have to be according to each person's talents. For most of us without connections or a lot of money, it simply consists of getting the word out that there is this behemoth that exists and that this behemoth is a big, lying, propagandizing beast. LOL As you can see on FR, it's much easier to criticize members of our own team rather than speak against this infrastructural problem. As Fox News has proven, there is a deficit of fair television out there. They've succeeded in the fair news department. I believe there would be a want for conservative based movies and conservative based networks out there too. Not the excessively self-righteous type of conservatism, but good common-sense conservatism. Every movie made in Hollywood has the same themes. It's either white people picking on a minority, people fighting "evil" developers, people struggling against "evil" Christians, people trying to save someone from the war-hawk type, etc. We've all seen thousands of these movies. I haven't went to a theater since the 80s because every movie is a liberal propaganda show. If there were something else out there besides liberal propaganda, I would like to see it, I like good movies. There just haven't been any good movies in 15 years. Conservatives are smart and good in business, and so it's hard to get into these things that the liberals do, because we're so successful at other things. But it's getting to the point where we've been demonized to the point that if we don't do something, the liberals are either going to propagandize all of our earnings, private property, and freedom away from us, or worse. See what the Soviets did to freedom-minded farmers early in their socialist history as an example.
So at this juncture, could you point me to, or elaborate here, what your solution would be? What would you recommend to fix whatever you perceive is wrong?
What I said above. That's why this problem has gotten worse since the 60s. The solution is very expensive and very hard. It would be extremely risky to buy a network or start an alternative movie company. And are there enough conservatives that would want to president of a university, or a professor, or a teacher, or a reporter, or a movie director? Liberals are naturally drawn to these types of professions because they're self-centered and are full of BS, like lawyers. Conservatives like concrete results, that's why they're more drawn into business and other occupations that shows a specific bottom line. I don't know if there will ever be an answer, but I do know that at this moment, the informational infrastructure of this country favors liberals in government, not conservatives. Conservatives in government just don't have the support they need to see their ideas through to fruition. The liberal propagandizing behemoth is able to shoot most conservative ideas down through lying propaganda before we can implement them. If an issue is too difficult for a lot of the general public to understand, liberals will have the advantage and shoot our ideas on that issue down. That's why Bush is successful on tax cuts and defense, but can't get his message out on vouchers. The lying propagandizing behemoth says conservatives are wrong, the public is too lazy to figure it out for themselves, and so they believe the media and go against conservatives almost every time. It's amazing that we still have a few freedoms left that we do have. Biblical prophecy says we will have success against socialism, dealing it a deadly wound with the sword of truth until the antiChrist comes to heal the deadly wound and overcomes the saints (us, I presume). It's going to be aggravating. This is why I'm careful to look at what each individual conservative has to face in his job, whether it's a president, governer, senator, or representative, because we're on the same team in this struggle that's been going on for thousands of years in one form or the other. (Sorry, I look at everything in terms of the big picture....:^)...)
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.