Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Al Qaeda's Wet Dream - One Term
PipeBombNews.com ^ | June 4, 2002 | William A. Mayer, Editor & Publisher PipeBombNews.com

Posted on 06/04/2002 9:20:43 AM PDT by johnqueuepublic

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-97 next last
To: dcwusmc
Dems and Reps are indistinguishable

Even up here, where something like 1/3 of registered voters are Independent, and they are all the same, too. Then there are Greens and Libertarians, who really are different, but in the minority. That leaves RightWhale all by himself, registered R, but kind of bemused at the alternatives.

61 posted on 06/04/2002 12:45:31 PM PDT by RightWhale
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: Wolfstar
I am increasingly worried that the Limbaughs, Hannitys, Drudges, Kristols, et. al.....

Me too, actually Rush and Sean H. did a lot of the heavy lifting for the DEMs when they both spent about three solid weeks pounding Bush non-stop.

They softened him up pretty well for the DEMs who knew exactly what to do....their pounding was quickly followed by the 9-11 memo leaking.

All that was left for the undercutting little turd Kristol to do was sit back with his smug little smile and watch the show.
62 posted on 06/04/2002 12:49:30 PM PDT by wheezer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Tuor
All it requires is a vote by the Senate.

Well tour, far be it from me to correct you on Constitutional matters, but Article 8, section 11 calls for the Congress (not the Senate acting alone) to declare war.

This is what was done on December 8, 1941.

But in 1951, Harry S Truman went into Korea under the aegis of the United Nations, calling it a "police action". Unless I am mistaken, there have been no formal Congressional declarations of war since.

However, Congress holds the purse strings, and if they don't provide money for any given military activity, it will wither on the vine.

63 posted on 06/04/2002 12:51:37 PM PDT by Ole Okie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Wolfstar
In 1992, similar carping and far too easily withdrawn support from many who consider themselves to be right of center led to the defeat of Bush 41 (although is cave-in on taxes was a big part of it).

Bush 41 was abandoned because he showed no predilection to a cohesive conservative vision whatsoever. Though a good and decent man, raising taxes was merely one outward expression of hs lack of ideology. George W. is better at this than his father, though he is still lacking a great deal.

64 posted on 06/04/2002 12:59:12 PM PDT by Zack Nguyen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Grampa Dave
I welcome the soccer moms, the Jewish Americans, the Mexican America citizens and the new wave of black conservatives since 9/11.

I welcome them too, as long as they become a part of the conservative, moral vision of the Republican Party.

65 posted on 06/04/2002 1:01:00 PM PDT by Zack Nguyen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: Wolfstar
It cannot be repeated too often: Clinton Was An Utter Failure. We will be picking up the wreckage from his administration for decades.
66 posted on 06/04/2002 1:04:50 PM PDT by justshutupandtakeit
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Zack Nguyen
Then, we are back to the same issue, who defines what conservatism and moral vision is?
67 posted on 06/04/2002 1:05:35 PM PDT by Grampa Dave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: johnqueuepublic
Conservatives are on the verge of pissing away all that they have worked for, and they are doing so simply because they are reacting to headlines and stories contrived to sow internecine warfare.

I wish this guy would shut up. He tells too much truth. ;)

68 posted on 06/04/2002 1:08:17 PM PDT by usconservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: johnqueuepublic
Who the heck is PipeBombNews and why haven't I seen more of him? This guy is good!
Is it you, John Q.?

I've sent this one on to my State Rep. Maybe it will keep him from being demoralized by the local dems.

69 posted on 06/04/2002 1:35:36 PM PDT by reformed_democrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #70 Removed by Moderator

To: Grampa Dave
Right-on...Bump !!

Freedom Is Worth Fighting For !!

Molon Labe !!

71 posted on 06/04/2002 2:32:36 PM PDT by blackie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Grampa Dave
Conservatism and moral vision simply is what it is. First and foremost is an understanding that God is sovereign over nations, and that all people should be equal before the law. Once we understand that, all people, from the very old to the unborn, the traditional family and the individual, deserve protection and this forms the backbone of conservatism.

Because we know that human beings are corrupt and tend to corrupt what they touch, we wish to keep government as small as we can to protect against tyranny and a loss of freedoms. To keep government small we have to keep taxes low. Low taxes encourage economic growth and charitable giving unencumbered by government shackles.

This, then, forms the core of conservatism - human freedom limited by law that stem from an unchanging moral code that in turn comes from God.

72 posted on 06/04/2002 3:17:22 PM PDT by Zack Nguyen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: Wolfstar
Your observations are right on, people are treating this like a game, but it is very serious.

If the badguys manage to detonate even a dirty bomb, make a stinger type missile attack against the capital, all bets are off - the economy goes into free fall, martial law is declared, you name it the sky is the limit

I have nothing but contempt for Limbaugh now, Hannity, Michael Savage and the rest of these imbeciles who would cut the legs off Bush just to spike their ratings.

Screw them I will never listen to them again.

73 posted on 06/04/2002 3:27:36 PM PDT by johnqueuepublic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Glasser
You are kidding right?

What is it with you Libertarians, deal with alqaeda? You dont even believe in defending your own borders. Mecca into Las Vegas, that is hallucinatory, you cant conceivably know anything about radical islam.

Fortunately the Libertarian party has $2.03 in the till and no prospect of even electing dog catchers.

74 posted on 06/04/2002 3:30:31 PM PDT by johnqueuepublic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: johnqueuepublic
PREDICTION: Osama will be killed or captured September 11th 2004, just weeks before the november .
75 posted on 06/04/2002 3:39:43 PM PDT by ChadGore
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: justshutupandtakeit
You most certainly have that right. I don't know how often I went around the last couple of years of the Clinton administration saying to my friends and acquaintences that Clinton was leaving behind so many potential areas that could blow up, that the next president (Dem or Rep) would get the blame for a lot that was Clinton's fault.

I was thinking of China and Taiwan; Pakistan and India since the Pakistanis had obtained nuke technology from China on Clinton's watch; North Korea; the International Criminal Court treaty which Clinton signed, etc. I wasn't necessarily thinking of massive terrorist acts on our soil. But my point is that anyone paying attention during the Clinton years saw danger building in lots of areas while that (expletive deleted) was having himself a riproaring good time on his extended frat party. I don't think there are words strong enough to express the depth of my disdain and disgust for that man.

The truly sad thing is how quickly so many people forget. We now have a truly decent and good man in the presidency, but all some can focus on is areas in which they disagree with him. They'd rather ditch a good man who's doing his level best to protect this country, and risk getting someone as bad as or even worse than Clinton because their expectations are impossible for anyone to meet. It isn't possible for any two human beings to agree 100% on anything all the time, but that is what some demand of this president.

76 posted on 06/04/2002 3:42:07 PM PDT by Wolfstar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: Zack Nguyen
Umm...meaning no disrespect, but you have a woeful misunderstanding of what political conservatism is. Here's the definition from Mirriam-Webster Online:

Main Entry: con·ser·va·tism
Pronunciation: k&n-'s&r-v&-"ti-z&m
Function: noun
Date: 1835
1 capitalized a : the principles and policies of a Conservative party b : the Conservative party
2 a : disposition in politics to preserve what is established, b : a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change
3 : the tendency to prefer an existing or traditional situation to change.

The founders were NOT conservatives as many today think of the term. When they wrote the Constitution, they had only recently overthrown the old British order, something so exceedingly radical that it had never been done before in history. Some were small 'r' republicans who argued for a weak, minimalist federal government but reasonably strong state governments. Thomas Jefferson is the most prominent proponent of this view. Others were outright statists as we understand the term today. They wanted to eliminate the states entirely and have only one unified country with a strong federal government. Alexander Hamilton is the most prominent of this group, and he even went so far as to propose a hereditary monarchy during the first Constitutional Convention.

A number of compromises were written into the Constitution in order to accommodate and balance this wide range of views. For example, elections for the House were based on proportional representation. Representatives were to be elected directly by the people. But in order to protect states rights and provide a check on the power of the federal government, each state, no matter how large or small, was to have two senators, and they were to be appointed by their state legislature. This is called the Great Compromise because it balanced the concerns of small states and large, and balanced direct federal elections with the selection by each state of two agents (senators) to act on the state's behalf in the federal structure of government.

77 posted on 06/04/2002 4:12:08 PM PDT by Wolfstar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: Grampa Dave
Maybe "Axis of Weasels" as a shorthand term.
78 posted on 06/04/2002 4:37:09 PM PDT by My2Cents
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

Comment #79 Removed by Moderator

To: ChadGore
PREDICTION: Osama will be killed or captured September 11th 2004, just weeks before the november election.

I like it! Whatever keeps the Damocrats out of the White House.

80 posted on 06/04/2002 4:38:37 PM PDT by My2Cents
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-97 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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson