Fair enough. I haven't seen them, so I won't comment on the validity of your conclusions one way or another.
Posted on 06/22/2002 9:46:05 AM PDT by quidnunc
This summer will mark the 47th year since I took my first Republican job: as public relations director for the party in Minnesota. Since then I have rarely strayed from politics, or my party. I served as a staffer to two GOP congressmen, to a GOP governor, as a federal appointee to Richard Nixon and as a corporate executive who supported in Washington and Springfield much, if not all, of the Republican agenda.
You can describe me as a conservative. Thus I am qualified to say that although I dearly love conservatives, they tend to be querulous, disagreeable and threaten revolt when Republican office-holders don't please them. So it is now with George W. Bush. Here is a president who has surprised us all with the firmness and resolve he showed after 9/11. I must tell you I voted for him with less enthusiasm than I had for many of his predecessors. But his administration has pleased me often — most notably on two issues: defense of America and social policy.
Yet, Bush has to get re-elected in a country that is evenly divided on philosophy. Thus he must occasionally — on matters that sometimes offend conservatives — dip into the other side's ideology for support. He has done so on three notable occasions: on the issue of steel protectionism, where he departed his free-market proclamations; on the signing of a campaign finance bill tailored by his enemies, and allowing his attorney general (in the words of Libertarian Nat Hentoff in the Washington Times) "to send disguised agents into religious institutions, libraries and meetings of citizens critical of government policy without a previous complaint, or reason to believe that a crime has been committed."
In a perfect political world, where conservatives are in the majority, these things would be sufficient to encourage a boycott of the polls. Either that or a protest vote for the Democratic opposition. But we are not in a perfect world. We conservatives have a president who didn't receive a majority of the votes, and has one house of Congress against him. He must make compromises to get re-elected. Conservatives who do not understand the nature of politics ought to stay in their air-conditioned ivory towers and refrain from political activity altogether. If they cannot adjudge the stakes in this election and the difference between Bush and an Al Gore or a John Kerry (D-Mass.) or a Dick Gephardt (D-Mo.), they are foolish indeed.
-snip-
To read the remainder of this op/ed open the article via the link provided in the thread's header.
I do not approve of the misuse of his talent in this way.
And CFR does this how?
Fair enough. I haven't seen them, so I won't comment on the validity of your conclusions one way or another.
If you are challenging my honesty, that is your choice.
I would rather not turn this thread into a focus on the graphics. Maybe I'll consider freepmailing you the links.
I'll think about it. But, as I said......I've experienced a mysterious vanishing act when this type of circumstance has arisen in the past.
No, I just ask for evidence when I see a statement like that.
Since several witnesses have spoken up, I'll take you all at your word on the objective fact that the graphics existed.
I'll withhold a subjective opinion as to their content, since I didn't see them.
Sabe, you and I seem to be of the same intellect, mindset and objectivism.
So I hope I lend a little credibility when I say that it was not pretty.
Actually Laz, I think Kevin was spot on, you have at least 300 post on this thread alone and Kevin made a very fitting summary of your contributions. But I guess we could always take a vote
Reagan may have signed a bill similar in structure, but not similar in magnitude and complexity. I know, my mother has worked for the FSA since '87, and she can tell you that this bill dwarfs in magnitude and complexity over even what we got now, much less '87.
You are missing my point. What did we conservatives gain from the Farm Bill? NOTHING. We gained absolutely nothing. Compromise is walking away with half a loaf, capitulation is walking away with nothing. And we walked away with nothing. How does this advance conservatism?
As far as the farm issue, it is based on added value agriculture, which is where we need to put our eggs, not on subsidization, which does nothing but keep the current problems alive.
Fallacy: Appeal to Popularity (argumentum ad populum)Definition: A proposition is held to be true because it is widely held to be true or is held to be true by some sector of the population.
This fallacy is sometimes also called the "Appeal to Emotion" because emotional appeals often sway the population as a whole.
Examples:
(i) If you were beautiful, you could live like this, so buy Buty-EZ and become beautiful. (Here, the appeal is to the "beautiful people".)
(ii) Polls suggest that the Liberals will form a majority government, so you may as well vote for them.
(iii) Lots of my friends say that Kevin Curry is right when he spewed a lot of invective, bile, and complete mistatements about Lazamataz, so it must be true.References: Copi and Cohen: 103, Davis: 62
I couldn't penetrate the crudity or the incorrect and scurrilous claim that I am pro-drug, so I read no further.
Two things are happening:
1) We are not permitted to entertain any criticism of G.W. Bush, and we are instructed to get back into ranks.
2) I was agreeing with some other people that you are misusing your incredible talents when you use them to parody people on this forum.
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.