Posted on 01/28/2004 6:18:24 PM PST by Captain Peter Blood
Try to imagine even one recipient of NEA grant money voting for Bush-- what a laugh! They don't call it the stupid party for nothing.
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." Now where is the "domestic enemies" clause again?
Which proves what point, exactly?
That your infirmity has reached your brain. Tell me oh afflicted one, did you vote for Bush the first time or even better who was the last republican president you voted for?
Please tell me how the fact that the NEA under President Reagan in anyway justifies Bush II's increase in funding for NEA, as the esteemed nopardons appears to imply.
Apparently Bush and the Republican leadership in Congress see thinks differently.
Just establishing the agenda Scratchy. Who was the last republican presidential candidate you voted for?
Nice bumper sticker! Bush's deficit spending is getting ridiculous, especially on unconstitutional programs that are so reckless that they violate the moral convictions of taxpaying Americans. Congress needs to reduce the income tax so the states and the people have more liberty to fund the arts at their discretion.
LMAO. Yep old GW is an evil genius. He knows that 15 million is going to guarantee the Hollywood vote and he is using the old ball and chain to cover for him. Youze guys are just too damned smart for him.
That's "Mr. Psoriasis" to you, cowpoke.
Okay, I'll play your silly little game.
I voted for Ford & Reagan (big Reagan fan here), and I even gave Skippy the old benefit of the doubt in 1988. But then he proved to be an unprincipled man in breaking his "read my lips" promise, and I left the GOP forever. It was clear to me then that the Pubbie leadership could never be trusted again, and this latest round of sell-outs by Bush the Lesser proves that beyond all doubt. Actually, WFB's embrace of Trotskyite neo-cons and removing real conservatives like PJB and Joe Sobran from NR was when the final nail was driven in the coffin, somewhat later. The infiltration of Trotskyites posing as conservatives was complete then, and that was obvious to all. Any support for the GOP after that was clearly support for the Enemy, and frankly there's no excuse.
I voted for PJB whenever I got the chance, Libertarians otherwise, and now I'm solidly with the Conservatives.
Now will you answer my question?
Regards,
PJB is a populist NOT a conservative. So, now that we have your lack of conservative credentials established, what brought you to a conservative forum? Do you just have an itch you need scratched?
So, if Bush 1 had used "revenue enhancement" as the Gipper did, instead of calling a tax increase a tax increase you would have stayed in the GOP?
PJB speaks from the tradition of the Founders, unlike Kristol and the red diaper rash at Commentary Magazine and the WSJ Op-Ed page. These people are, by way of Mr. Schachtman, the direct spiritual decendants of Leon Trotsky (Lev Bronshtein). These guys QUOTE Trotsky regularly.
FR is a neo-con forum, not a conservative forum, at least in the main. It's crypto-Trotskyite, proven time and again by its unwavering support for the GOP leadership in the face of it's ongoing treason (refusal to protect our borders to name just one instance)and the disgust regularly expressed by the rank and file here.
I'm here to try to understand the psychology of well meaning folks who can be so regularly chumped by the GOP Trotskyite leadership and still come back to lick the hand that beat them.
Now will you answer the original question, or are you going to whimp out completely?
Mr. Psoriasis
PJB speaks from the tradition of Huey P. Long and cozies up to Marxists when it is politically expedient. PJB is no more conservative than Al Gore. He also steals money he collected for tv ads that he never aired.
Thank you for your thoughtful reply, which I did not read unitl after the last post. I regret this oversight on my part.
No, I wouldn't have supported Reagan on that if it happened now. I've developed since 1988 - live and learn, as they say.
I was more idealistic back then, which is normal for a younger man. I've come believe since then that this fight against federal spending is more central than I thought. As Paul Gottfried wrote in one of his recent books, the New Deal and its Marxism has really taken deep root, and its the rare person indeed who takes a stand against it.
But that's exactly what conservatives are all about, and so that's just another way of saying that there are very few conservatives left.
Most Republicans agree with the Trotskyite neo-cons. They support big government and the nanny state, but at the same time they don't want to admit that or in any event actually PAY FOR IT, and so they support Bush II and his guns-and-butter fiscal irresponsibility.
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.