[Jhoffa_]

That post is not "entirely hyperbole and mouth foaming". It just appears you don't have an answer to it.

I'm more worried about Congress. Especially if the Republicans in Congress listen to people like you..

oh my, I *must* stop apologizing!

..or maybe if you could pass me some of what you're smoking.

And woo-hoo, yep, that's laughable! Wow, that's a knee-slapper! Man!

Did you take humor tips from Al Gore, or what?

was it pre-beard Al or post-beard Al?

but surely even you can't be so inane you couldn't run a search on it yourself.

What kind of TV reception do you get up there on the dark side of the moon? Just wondering.

Happier that GW is in there than Al Bore? I would happen to think a few would agree with me here, maybe just a *few*.

Wow, you get sillier the more you go on. I didn't think that would be possible.

Silly, silly man! Hehe.

Given your line of reasoning here, I reckon I should be asking myself: WWPBD? (What Would Pat Buchanan Do?)

No, I don't, you silly, silly man.

are you just randomly typing characters like a monkey? Might explain this nonsense you're spouting.

No! Oh no! ANYTHING BUT THAT!!! I don't want to be...*gasp*...searched!

Don't mean to bother you with facts again or anything.

Oh, Mr. Buchanan, you're back! Glad to see you.

Yeppers, there's sound economic thinking! No knee-jerking here!

Too much Big Brother stuff. Spooky! :p Silly man.

And, er, how do you suggest we "push back against both political parties"? Form another one? Maybe call it...Libertarianism? Hmmm.

And your factually inaccurate, inane, badly-written post is nothing to be proud of.

---

Now, bear in mind this is all from a single post.

You write like a child. If and when you decide to bring meat to the table, then perhaps others will take you as seriously as you seem to take yourself.

[Kip Lange]

Yep, from a single post, taken entirely out of context. My, far be it from me to attempt to write with an easy style or to jest. I didn't know you were humor-impaired. ;-)

Well, let's see if I can do the same thing you did but remove the humor, since it offends you so, my lovely lovely droog (and I just KNOW you'll love it without the humor):

Hmmm, wait. Is this the guy with the popularity ratings in the mid-70s? Same Bush? *scratch* Why would we need to defend a guy who's not under attack? ;-) I'm more worried about Congress.

Well, not entirely. That's the Libertarian line. The conservative line is to have the smallest, most effective government possible -- not to triumph completely over "government's invasive nature". We want tax cuts, or tax code restructing, but very few of us call for complete elimination of all taxes, for instance. The Republicans are the party of limited government; the Democrats are the party of constantly expanding government. I would imagine most conservatives would also agree with me when I say that a "true" welfare system is indeed a good thing; if someone can TRULY not provide for themselves due to a severe handicap, etc., it's the kind, humane, just, American, and conservative thing to do to help them out a little. But I mean a *little*, and only those who need it. Limited, effective government.

Wait, I thought this was about saving the "Republic" -- er, and, in a Republic, the people aren't the rulers. In fact, the Framers specifically modeled us after Rome, not the Greek Democracy -- in which the people WERE the rulers, and, as such, quickly realized they could simply vote themselves money, and promptly proceeded to do so -- which wasn't such a hot economic idea. The government is the only true monopoly, as it is the only entity that we entrust with absolute force in order to mediate disputes. The people are the citizens; the citizens elect representatives who reflect their views; the representatives weigh their constituent's concerns with their own personal philosophies, which may not entirely reflect their constituency's, and then they vote.

Well, no argument with you there.

Well, actually, as Buckley put it, the job of the conservative is to stand in the middle of the road of history and yell, "Stop!". The object, ideally, of EITHER party's participation, is to balance the need for government against the evils of a bloated, bureaucratic-filled, government. In other words, to keep the government honest and, as we have given the government the monopoly of force to mediate disputes, as I said earlier, to make sure that the government is protecting "We, the People".

Ah, so 9/11 was planned far in advance of "real events" and political considerations are the only goals for the response? :-) Uh, and those tax cuts, which actually WERE planned in advance, those aren't at all helpful to "We, the People"? Sure as heck helped this "People" right here. ;-)

Again, what are the Bush...ahem...supporters...supposed to be apologizing for? We've got a guy in there with great poll ratings, a solid moral center, who has delivered on tax cuts and... Seriously, could you tell me what Bush, or the, er, "Bush apologists", need to apologize for? :-)

Hmm. I'm starting to wonder if you didn't mean to write this piece about John McCain...

Bull. We already got tax cuts through -- that's possibly the most important issue for most conservatives. School vouchers? On their way. Increase in military spending? Done.

Please! If you truly are a conservative, you should know that...conservatives HATE Campaign Finance Reform. It's a limitation of free speech. And that goes against our...er..."foundational", was it?...principles. :-)

Okay, you just went from "He broke a campaign promise, damn him," to, "He kept a campaign promise, damn him!" Are you against vouchers, as well? I'm curious.

Duh. The Senate will tie up the partial-birth abortion bill. Do you dispute that? The Senate has refused to confirm a single Bush appointee. Do you dispute that?

Even with the loss of the Senate, again, we've gotten tax cuts through. Perhaps the Congressional Republican Leadership requires apologists -- they're weak-willed and afraid of their own shadows -- but I still don't see why I should be apologizing for Bush.

Dear God, that bit with Kennedy is at best anecdotal and basically a puff spin piece released to show "bipartisanship in action". Take a look at Kennedy's voting record, compare it with the decisions Bush made as Governor of Texas. I think you might find a gap. In fact, I think they might still disagree! Really! I know, it's hard to believe...I mean, after all, the media said they're "friends"! And the media, as we know, is NEVER wrong!

And, um, am I reading you right here? Do you actually think we're trying to get Teddy KENNEDY to defect to offset the balance? Er...no comment needed on that one.

Bungling of his ego?!?! Jeffords' move was entirely INSPIRED by ego. The Republicans offered him practically everything he wanted, had meeting after meeting with him, in order to try to not get him to defect. This is simply uninformed. If you really need me to post links detailing the pains they went through to try to keep Jeffords from jumping ship, I'll do it, but surely even you can't be so inane you couldn't run a search on it yourself.


Indeed, enough, the run-on sentences were getting a bit silly. Again, are you telling me that you really think it's a Republican plan to court TED KENNEDY to cross the aisle? Whoa, Nelly! Ever heard of a guy named Miller? He was the one we were hoping we could get to cross the aisle...quite conservative for a Dem. But TEDDY?

Um, it's always pleasant to give statements and not back them up with facts. Again, I'll post links to everything Jeffords was offered if you need it, but surely a writer of your enormous...uh...well, you must have something that's enormous, maybe a lump in your head somewhere, anyway -- you shouldn't even need any links for this. The efforts to woo Jeffords to stay were virtually unmatched. He was offered the sun, moon, and stars, and he jumped for political gain and...because he's Jeffords, and like McCain, operates on ego-fuel even more than most Pols.

Again, how? Do you have any facts here?

Er, right. Like, he hasn't appointed any conservative cabinet members. Rumsfeld is a raging liberal. He hasn't gotten tax cuts through. He hasn't come out in support of school vouchers. He hasn't nominated conservative justices that are being held up in Senate confirmations...right. :-)

The answer is who cares.

The argument *has* its basis in the mettle of the administrations. We have, at Secretary of Defense, the only man to ever serve twice at that position. The Vice President is also quite familiar with war. Condie Rice is not exactly a limp-wristed liberal, either. I wonder who Al Bore would have put in his cabinet...no, rather, I *shudder* to think who he would have put in his cabinet. He also would have micromanaged the war, spent too much time dallying with the UN, and there is of course the question of whether his administration would even have had the guts to go ahead and prosecute the war at ALL, much less finish it in six months or so and get ready to move on to Iraq.


Yes, although the "bureacracy" is actually intended to be a consolidation of other bureaucracries...indeed, a most conservative idea, collapse bureacracries into one cabinet position.

Absolutely. Conservatives believe in free trade and legal immigration, last time I checked. Locking down the borders to, say, Canada, costs...a LOT...is a waste of troops...and, you know what, food tends to spoil -- it'd wreak havoc with trade.

Yes. See above for the border concerns, and if the people demand new police powers for the military, which they are doing, the conservative would do so. Why not?

I would wager to guess that he's worked closely with the Israeli Secret Service and other intelligence organizations to freeze the assets of terrorists, so they have more trouble funding their activities, that he's calling for a Cabinet-level Homeland Defense position, and that he's on his way to taking Hussein out of power and thus removing one of the nastiest terrorists on the planet.

1. To suggest that prosecuting a war against Saddam Hussein, a man who gasses his own people, and who has had at least four years to pursue a rogue chemical, nuclear, and biological terror arsenal -- and robustly so -- is at best petulant, and at worst...well, pretty much like the rest of this -- dangerous nonsense that sounds like it should be coming from a liberal.
2. The war has been "sidetracked" into the Palestinian question? First, we're not prosecuting a war there. Second, for the love of God, where do you think Hamas operates? Where do you think Islamic Jihad operates? Where do you think we get INTELLIGENCE on these groups? ISRAEL. And to fool yourself into thinking that the War on Terror can somehow be separated from the Middle East turmoil, or SHOULD be separated from it, is about as smart as flying to Munich, handing Czechoslovakia over to Herr Hitler, and then proclaiming "peace in our time". Then again, far be it from me to bother you with such trivial details as world history...

I happen to recall random bag-checks *before* the War on Terror...oh well. Don't mean to bother you with facts again or anything.

Need I remind you this country was founded on free trade? And this free trade would not be so free if we stopped border traffic to a trickle? This would cost us trillions of dollars right as we appear to be bottoming out of a recession.

Er, correct me if I'm wrong, but the bill is now being debated in the Senate to arm pilots. Oh wait, I'm not wrong, don't bother correcting me. ;-) Guess who spearheaded the effort? Ahh, Mr. Mineta, a member of that liberal Bush administration you hate so much. :-) Now, on this one I'm not entirely certain, someone refresh my memory, but as far as I know the security workers are still only under the supervision of Federal employees. And wait, I thought you didn't want the Government "intruding" on things? So, er, your answer to searching people certainly wouldn't be to federalize the security force, would it?

Actually, no, those would be protected by freedom of religion. Freedom. Liberty. Those little things we're fighting to save and preserve? Yeah. Those things. So, what, do you advocate destruction of mosques? Ah, yes, that's a very reasoned idea.

Oh, my my my. Another George Orwell. Interesting, I haven't seen any friends dragged off in the night, nor have I heard any reports of it. I think the NY Times would rather relish a story like that. And, I guess, if the meter reader notices that a man with a Turban is storing large amounts of fertilizer...he shouldn't report that, right?

First, we do have troops on the border, just not as many as you want, apparently. Second, I'll refer you to my earlier points -- it's not being resisted for "historical" reasons, it's being resisted because it would cause massive trade problems, and would have massive negative economic repurcussions. And policing the citizens? We've been doing that for years. Really, the only change is a more paranoid public, a loose plan from Homeland Security for a way for the ordinary citizen to report suspicious behavior, and more racial profiling.

All of this and more demonstrate, at best, a writer enamored of Pat Buchanan who doesn't bother to check his facts before writing something, and who lacks a conservative's grasp on what conservatism actually means. In either event, you're completely wrong, and moreover, dangerously wrong.

What exactly does "defending the Republic" entail besides your wondrous idea of sealing off all borders?

How about we just keep an eye on the proposed Administration plans and make sure that they don't go too far? I'll admit, I'd like to see the Republicans in Congress do more to reign in government, but not on your inane terms. They'd do it, too, if they weren't so scared of their own shadows with an uncertain election year coming. In the interim, I'd rather have the Republicans in there than the Democrats.

Okay, well that's possibly the only sane thing you've said, and I agree with it.

As for Bush, the only grievious misstep so far, on my conservative spectrometer, is the issue of steel tariffs, which a Buchananite like yourself...probably likes. :-) Unfortunately, true conservatives know tariffs are bad policy.

---

So, there's no meat in there, eh? :-) I've been advised this thread may be bogus, but I'll still play along, as you're...awfully...not good...at debating me.

--KL