I have that covered my friend.
Posted on 08/03/2004 12:09:31 PM PDT by dead
Honestly, I only made it to post 300 or so, but do I need to read the next 500 if it's all the same? Sincere posters asking questions, being ignored, and only those who's questions fit an exsisting topic, written by this poster, will be answered by cut and paste or links? What a waste of my time. I feel sorry for those who read the entire thread if the same theme is carried throughout. Can someone answer me, is there anything worthwhile from post 300 to present?
I have that covered my friend.
I just tuned in an just about or entirely missed the party.You challenged us that conservatives were getting powerhungry, setting power above principle. And for that reason, becoming idolatrous towards GWB.
My response to that is that I partly believe it of myself. Bush has done some egregious things like signing the anti-first amendment "campaign finance reform" law which the SCOTUS has announced its intention to attempt to enforce. And yet I favor reelection of the Bush-Cheney ticket, even tho as I mentioned last week, Cheney gored my own personal ox severely and in the process hurt the government imho.
I almost never get to vote for a candidate, tho - the alternative is almost always so bad that my analysis process stops with the answer to the question, "how do we keep this creep the Democrats have nominated out of power?" And that situation has been getting worse in recent elections.
I took a few ROTC courses back in college but otherwise was never in the military, so I can hardly take the position that people who did not serve in the military are second class citizens - altho that was in fact the attitude of veterans of WWII, my parents' generation. But I do draw a distinction between not serving in the military - as for instance John Edwards never did - and putting on a demonstration of contempt for military valor as Clinton and Kerry have a history of doing.
It is now the position, apparently, of the Democratic Party that Vietnam veterans did not face expressions of contempt from college-age Democrats when they got back to "the world." But that was hardly the story line I saw reported at the time, and some FReepers will tell you that they ran a gauntlet of jeers and/or were spit on in just such a manner when they returned in uniform.
It was entirely bad enough when "I loathe the military" Clinton was nominated and elected. And named a Secretary of Defense whose main virtue lay in the honor he showed in resigning when he had proved his own incompetence to himself. John Kerry's record of lying about our troops caused abuse of our returning veterans to happen, and Senator Kerry's nomination is a disgrace. If he wins election to the presidency it will feel like a vioation.
In order to score a cheap shot on GWB, Kerry has insulted all National Guard servicemen, past and present - and I simply find that contemptible, coming from the man who led the baby boom Democrats to open rebellion against the very idea of honorable military service.
It's normal for politicians to have some part of their career which they don't particularly want to highlight; we aren't talking candidates for cannonization here. But whereas GWB doesn't point with great pride to his past association with demon rum but stands on the past ten years of service as governor of Texas and President, Lieutenant Kerry assays to run to the right of GWB on security, and glosses over all but four months of his entire career! If he wins on that platform it will be the first time in history that someone was elected as a war hero president because he was a Lieutenant! Surely JFK must have said something about his career in the Senate!
But I have fallen into the trap Kerry has set, by discussing the military records of people exclusively. The thing which has IMHO poisoned the political air in the past decade is the fact that Mr. Clinton started his tenure with an act (whether of omission or commission he has stonewalled, but no matter - he alone was responsible for it) which would have gotten any modern Republican impeached and convicted. I speak of Craig Livinstone's "filegate" - such an egregious offense that Rep. Lantos mentioned suicide, and the Clinton Administration pretended that Mr. Livingstone had just invited himself into the White House and taken up residence as security chief there.
Frankly, I would expect a political party to suffer really bad PR in the election after it had produced such mal/non feasance in the nation's highest office. Rather I would expect it, if I had not learned to view the Democratic Party as an adjunct of the PR machine known as "objective" journalism. And to understand that as such it always has the propaganda wind at its back. A man named "Daley" can fly into Florida from Chicago and announce that the candidate of his party actually won the election in Florida - and nobody laughs. If Daley had actually known the actual vote count, it could only be because he had broken a law - but that statement was somehow not treated as a scandal.
Here is what the left has brought us: "Women Glad She Had Abortion"
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1182633/posts
It's been fun for us too, Rick. In the sense of fairness, you should host the next get together, on some liberal site. As a rule we last about as long on DU and/or other liberal sites as a snowball in hell. NOt because we get nasty, but because we tell the truth, which they find offensive.
I still say that anyone from Free Republic could whip your butt on a one on one basis-take your pick.
You were pretty busy here in this handicap match and that gives you an excuse for ignoring responses that you were unable to answer. All the more reason that you should select one Freeper to go head to head, one on one with-bring it on Ricky.
If that turned out to be the case, if Perlstein ended up citing the worst comments on this thread to make a point about conservatives, then Perlstein would officially be a first class, dishonest jerk. It would be a proven fact at that point.
I doubt he'd do that to himself. It wouldn't surprise me, though, if he considers this part of his research -- field work, like a safari.
Or he may have just wanted to debate. My guess is that his motivation was mostly "wanted to debate" with a bit of "wanted to study conservatives" mixed in.
You must have been very tired.
I think Mr. Perlstein's reply suggests you touched a nerve with your post, #78 I believe.
How anyone could claim to understand today's liberals without knowing that era and Alinsky's influence (Rules for Radicals for example) is -- well, lacking important facts.
There I go again. Bringing up facts vis-a-vis a discourse with today's liberals, sorry. Liberalism is all about feeeeeeeeeeeeelings. (Hee, hee. A little Alinksky there, "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon." Oh, how the left has ridiculed the conservatives for decades. Now conservatives are fighting back and left feeeeeeeeeeeeeeeels it's not fa-a-a-a-air. Hee. Hee.)
Yep, see my replies to this thread.
At a guess, I'd say it's more like background information. we'll become anomymous examples to support his broadbrush conclusions of conservatives in general.
That's the way it is with all liberals. I've been asking them to document Bush's worst lie (as in, most undeniably a lie) for quite a while now. I've never gotten a straight answer. I was hoping it'd be different today. Apparently not. Luckily, my boyfriend is a moderate who doesn't believe Bush intentionally lied on anything.
If the lame, undocumented, unfounded even if you take it at its face value "list of lies" that was being posted by a certain troll today--the troll that was going around posting anti-Semitic and anti-Bush stuff (no, not Perlstein) is representative of what liberals believe... then they're truly all based on emotions and not on reality.
Vigilant - please tell me I'm wrong. Reporter Perlstein says that the 9/11 Commission found no links between Iraq and Al Qaeda? What has he been drinking? The cool aid?
It's late but just a few things you may wish to explore a little to further your career perlstein, unless you like being thought of as a DNC stenographer.
#1. The 9/11 Commission found that Iraq provided AQ with training, bomb making, chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear training.
#2. The 9/11 Commission found there wre direct meetings between senior Iraqi military officers and top AQ operatives up to 2003.
#3. The 9/11 Commission has over 60 pages of Iraq's connections and support for terrorists, specifically AQ.
#4. Even the Clinton Justice Department said there was a link between Iraq and AQ when they obtained a federal indictment against OBL. Didn't you get the memo?
#5. Saddam may not have contributed directly to 9/11, but Saddam certainly knew that it was coming.
On July 21, 2001, the state run Iraqi newspaper Al Nasiriya carried an article titled "America, an Obsession called Osama Bin Laden." Baath party writer Naeem Abd Muhalhal predicted that OBL would attack the US and "he will try to bomb the Pentagon after he destroys the Whie House." The article said that OBL "will strike America on the arm that is already hurting," and that the US "will curse the memory of Frank Sinatra every time he hears his songs", a reference to New York, New York.
Now maybe, Perlstein, you believe that Osama was just gossiping over the backyard fence when he told Saddam what was going to happen in America. I'm not personally that naive, but perhaps you are.
Next time you choose to write regarding a subject matter about what you know so little, may I respectfully suggest that you do a little research. Truly, my 11 year old niece who is here visiting could present a more coherent set of facts than you have been able to do thus far.
Fixation on his National Guard service, anyone?
"Now watch this drive".
Obsession about his religious faith.
Attacks on his intelligence.
Whining about him not leaping from his seat and scaring the kids the instant he heard about the 9/11 attacks.
Whining about him wearing a flight suit when he landed on the aircraft carrier.
Accusations that he served a "fake" turkey during his visit to the troops in Iraq.
Bitching about the 2000 election, saying he was "selected, not elected" (horse manure).
Blaming Bush when audiences reject performers who attack him.
Calling him "Junior" or "Shrub" or saying he's doing something to "impress his Daddy".
Accusing Bush of engineering or allowing 9/11 for his "Saudi masters" etc.
How many more would you like?
I missed that one. This has been a rather confusing thread. I wound up learning nothing from it.
Q. How can Liberals claim to "Support The Troops", but claim to be anti-war? Does this not seem like an odd position to be in? After all, our Troops are fighting the war. If you don't support the War, then you aren't really supporting the Troops.
Q. If a woman has a right to choose to have an abortion, then why would I not have a choice of vouchers for my children in a failing school? Should I not have choice for everything? If you believe that I should, why do Liberals not support school vouchers? Do the teachers know better than myself how to best educate my children? Does the government know my children better than I?
Q. Are minorities better off with Democrats in power or Republicans? Are we capable of thinking for ourselves or not? Do we have the capability to be as well educated as white America? If so, why do Liberals support Affirmative Action? Is that not reverse discrimination? Am I somehow better than you because I'm a woman? Does that mean I deserve to have more advantages because I'm a female and a minority?
Q. When our forefathers wrote about America that you have the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness", why do Liberals feel that life isn't a right? Why must "liberty" be in danger when Republicans are running the country, but not when Democrats are running it? Are Americans responsible for the happiness of everyone that feel wronged? If so, why don't Liberals promote paying for those programs themselves?
Q. If being gay is a civil rights issue, why can I never spot a gay person in a crowd? Yet, any gay person could spot that I am brown. What right do Liberals have to pretend that gay rights is the same as civil rights? Unless someone states they are gay, most people would have no idea. Being suspicious isn't the same as being a known fact.
Q. Does Christianity really scare Liberals? I've often suspected that Liberals are scared of Christianity because it offers a blueprint to life. To follow this blueprint, you have to think of someone other than yourself.
Q. What civil liberties have you personally lost due to the Patriot Act?
Q. If you believe that tax cuts are for the rich, could you please explain who pays the most taxes in this country? Is it the poor or the rich? I get confused listening to Liberals explain this. I received a child tax refund last year. Who do you think pays for us to receive the child tax refund anyways?
Q. Is it patriotic to proudly denounce and disrespect the leader of this country? I personally never agreed with most things Bill Clinton did, but I never would proudly promote that he was a Nazi, thug, racist, baby killer, evil, or anything else. Is it only Liberals that are allowed to denounce our leaders?
Q. If Liberals dislike Corporate America so much, what exactly is Hollywood? Are the movie studios actually a part of Corporate America or does that only exist when Liberals go after Republican supporting corporations? Should you not demand the break up of the movie studios as well? Should you not ask for the investigations into the corporate greed of the movie studios?
Q. As I've seen with my own eyes and on TV, many Liberals feel that it is justified and okay to destroy people's property or business when it meets their needs. Is it okay for me to then go to PETA and shatter all their windows because I believe they're "dangerous" to meat eating people of the world?
Q. Liberals tend to support groups like the ELF, Earth Liberation Front, and other wacky enviromentalists. Is it okay to destroy, burn, or vandalize property that they feel is not acceptable for development? How does burning private property truly help the enviroment?
Q. How is America responsible for ensuring that Africa's AIDS problem is solved? Were we responsible for the spread of AIDS in Africa? How does the average American taxpayer get stuck taking care of another continents issues? If you believe that we should take care of Africa's AIDS problem, should you not support the abstinence educational programs?
Q. Why do Liberals support the United Nations? Is it okay that Kofi Annan have a say in American affairs? If so, why? Have you noticed that Annan and the last Secretary General both hailed from Africa? Since that time, more Africans have died under their leadership. Why is that? Did any Liberals protest?
Q. Speaking of Africa, why are Liberals not offended by the enslaving of Sudanese women and children? Is it because many of them are Christians and it doesn't bother you that Muslims are doing this?
Q. Do Liberals really believe that Islam is the religion of peace? If you believe this, then why do they not speak up for the women of Saudi Arabia? Why do they not speak up for the Afghan women? What about the women of Syria? Iran?
Q. Do you actually believe after 12 years that Saddam Hussein's departure was bad for Iraq? Do you actually believe that Saddam was incapable of using weapon's of mass destruction? Even though it was proved he would use it against the Kurds.
Q. Does "hating" President Bush by Liberals actually create a hypocrisy of sorts for the movement? After all, Liberals expect us to love the world and yet, they continue to hate our President. Can you not see why this would make us a polarized Nation?
Q. In the 1970s, it was all about global cooling. Now it's about global warming. What's next for the Liberal Movement? Either we are too cool or too warm. We can't be both.
Q. Outside of George W. Bush, do Liberals find anyone else "evil"? If so, you should be able to understand why we on the Right believe that dictators, totalitarians, and the like are "evil".
Q. If Liberals hate our dependency on oil, why will they not support drilling in Alaska? If you believe we should pay more money and resources for alternatives, who should pay for this? Why?
Q. Why do Liberals insist on protesting Israel? Is Israel a threat to world peace because Liberals are too scared to confront their Muslim neighbors? If your child or family were being threatened daily by terrorists, what would your response be? Would you fight back or ask for a meeting to find out the source of the problem? What if the source of the problem was your mere existence as a Jew? How would you handle that?
Q. Do Liberals believe that terrorists are merely freedom fighters or do they believe that they are begging for dialogue? I often get confused by the various answers.
This is just a few of the questions that have stumped me about Liberals. Any answers to the questions would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks for your time.
Howdy Comrad. I just walked in from working a 13 hour day. You see, I am a Capitalist. I was the one out there today making my customers happy and driving the economy forewards. I work my butt off every day and then you Democrats want to attack me for "being rich". I EARN every penny that I make. It takes guts, committment, brains, and taking risks.
I pay more than my fair share of taxes, but the Democrats don't think so. They call me evil and greedy. BULL! I employ 17 hard working people that also are out there every day working to better themselves. If you confiscate more and more of MY money, I do not have the capital to expand my business, hire more people, and make life better for all around me. My job is to make my customers more successful in their businesses which in turn makes me more successful.
The next time you want to have an online debate, try it after the working people get home, not during the day when most of us are out there making America great.
Thanks dead for putting up this post.
All the Best.
Right -- research to support a conclusion he's already drawn.
It's amazing to me how unshakable people are in their political/ideological beliefs. It's like it's hardwired after a certain age. I consider it almost a miracle when people change their minds on these sorts of things.
That's a pretty straightforward answer.
So, do you believe that what grows inside the womb during pregnancy is a human being, or not? If it's not a human being, what species is it? If it is a human being, why is it legally permitted to kill him or her on the basis of "choice?"
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.