Skip to comments.
The GOP, Party of Cowards
Ever Vigilant ^
| 12/23/2003
| Lee R. Shelton IV
Posted on 01/02/2003 6:12:39 AM PST by sheltonmac
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120, 121-140, 141-160 ... 421-438 next last
To: Fred Mertz
I thought it was funny as hell.
To: cynicom
Your postings speak for themselves.Yeah, they do. Ten posts debating the initial vanity prior to TLBSHOW trying to shift the debate. Whereas you made one to me and won't even follow up on my question as to why that post was relevant, but have made several subsequent posts saying, among other things, that I am not interested in debating **head scratch**. So, yes, I was trying to debate this prior , and you are trying to make an issue of me flaming TLBSHOW for spamming the thread and trying to shift the focus of the debate away from the initial subject.
122
posted on
01/02/2003 8:05:32 AM PST
by
dirtboy
To: Behind Liberal Lines
Lines...
I am a Conservative American, not a Conservative Republican. Perhaps not being partisan or an apologist for any party does allow one to be more objective. I voted and supported Bush to the hilt, however, that does not mean I will overlook his transgressions. He made a political blunder with the Lott affair and the democrats are still applauding. In 04, Bush and his partisans will be here on FR begging for "conservative" votes. Just perhaps that error will come back to haunt him.
123
posted on
01/02/2003 8:07:22 AM PST
by
cynicom
To: cynicom
The fires are stoked, and dissenters are marked for public execution. Consider:
Ms. Norton informs us that an extension of unemployment insurance is a matter of civil rights. How so? Because more minorities, per capita, are unemployed than others. So that the question becomes not is an extension of unemployment benefits a good idea; it becomes: Is it a good idea if more Latinos are relieved than Caucasians?
What Sen. Bill Frist needs to do is to declare publicly that a line must be drawn, that the Republican Party fervently endorses an application of civil rights laws and the defense of minorities, but that to sanctify any proposed measure purely by naming it as a civil rights measure is to abandon one's capacity to make distinctions. What is absolutely required is such a declaration from political men of manifest integrity, one that denounces any effort to proscribe speech on the grounds that it questions a program espoused by the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights.
Coming up quickly, of course, is the final showdown on affirmative action. The Supreme Court will rule in the matter of the University of Michigan Law School's affirmative-action program. The objective is to decide whether equal rights extend equally to applicants to law school who aren't members of racial minorities. One senses that the Republican leadership is holding back in arguing the case for genuine equal rights because of the avalanche triggered by Mr. Lott's indiscretion.
We will need to watch carefully how the Bush administration comports itself on the University of Michigan question. Will the Justice Department file an amicus brief defending the right course? Or has the Leadership Conference assumed veto power on the question?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/815456/posts?page=4#4
124
posted on
01/02/2003 8:07:37 AM PST
by
TLBSHOW
To: Luis Gonzalez; Fred Mertz
I don't have a problem with Fred's request that I apologize - I agree I was harsh with TLBSHOW, but I don't apologize for doing such - Fred, you mention gentlemanly behavior, but there is another saying regarding such - that a gentelman is never UNINTENTIONALLY rude. TLBSHOW has nonstop spammed Lott threads with junk that has nothing to do with the given debate on that thread, and I'm sick of it. Whether I thought Lott was a racist had nothing to do with Sheltonmac's initial post, and it is also a question I had answered many, many times in the past. But Luis, Fred was well within bounds to question that particular comment.
Cynicom, however, is simply being absurd - saying I don't want to debate, when he has made one comment on this thread that passes for debate and instead is trying to score points by derailing the debate.
125
posted on
01/02/2003 8:09:49 AM PST
by
dirtboy
To: cynicom
I am a Conservative American, And, therefore, you should have been aghast at Lott's history, before and after his gaffe, of appeasing the Democrats in ways that Bush would never dare.
Remember his agreement to share power with Daschale when the Senate was 50/50? Remember his unwillingness to act in the 2002 lame duck session until Bush took him to the wood shed? Remember his going on BET and saying his supported affirmative action?
I'm sorry, but, Thurmond comments aside, Lott is NOT the man that conservatives want as their poster boy.
To: hchutch
Thanks HC. I guess if one of the definitions of a neo con, is someone the demon rats would mind hanging around with, then there is no way I could ever be one. I had a girl friend about 18 months ago, and when I found out she was a demon rat, it was over immediately. I mean, I have an image to maintain, and what would the neighbors think if they saw me with a demon rat? (smiling)
127
posted on
01/02/2003 8:12:15 AM PST
by
Mark17
To: dirtboy
dirt...
Once again your posts are very self descriptive. Your remaks were well off base, personal and rude. Now you compound it by not being gentleman enough to apologize.
128
posted on
01/02/2003 8:12:37 AM PST
by
cynicom
To: cynicom
sorry I forget ti say that was written by
William F. Buckley.....
129
posted on
01/02/2003 8:13:00 AM PST
by
TLBSHOW
To: 11th Earl of Mar
>>>And he bottom line is that with Lott gone, the GOP is better for it.
Amen to that!
To: cynicom
forget it, as in the cornell review way.......
We do not apologize!
http://www.cornellreview.org/
Breaking News at Cornell Review........
· Make Room for Daddy Government
· Trent Lott: Worse than Satan
· Trent, Just Go
· Westernization: A New Motif for Revolution in Iran
· Bill Frist Hates Blacks Too
· The Left Has Plenty to be Embarrassed About
· Cornellians Send Fatal Blow To Divestment Campaign, Choose to Invest in Israel
· Please Don't Back Down Mr. President
131
posted on
01/02/2003 8:15:21 AM PST
by
TLBSHOW
To: cynicom
Once again your posts are very self descriptive. Your remaks were well off base, personal and rude. Now you compound it by not being gentleman enough to apologize.Go find a different dead cat to run over and flatten further. The writer of this vanity set the tone of the thread by saying the GOP was the Party of Cowards. But I still debated him and others. I've tried to debate you, but you can't be bothered to answer how your response about Frist had ANYTHING to do with what I posted, yet you claim I am not interested in debate. So if you wish to continue staging this theater of the absurd, be my guest, I will just exit stage right at this time.
132
posted on
01/02/2003 8:15:25 AM PST
by
dirtboy
To: Behind Liberal Lines
Lines...
I have been calling for Lotts ouster on FR for two years or more. It was long overdue. That being said, one needs to look at the reason it was done and the method used. I object to both. Here is where not being a partisan republican brings one to a different view, other than the one proscribed by Bush.
133
posted on
01/02/2003 8:16:32 AM PST
by
cynicom
To: Mark17
would=wouldn't. I must be tired.
134
posted on
01/02/2003 8:17:25 AM PST
by
Mark17
To: RnMomof7
Hold the GOP politicians feet to the fire -- yes. Trash the entire party -- NO!!** So of course you will contact your rep about this obvious government coverup won't you? http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/815421/posts
Wash Post -- "Citing a shortage of money, the Bureau of Labor Statistics will stop publishing information about factory closings across the country, a decision that some state officials and labor leaders are protesting."
Based on the amount of information that is supplied to me by your link -- Wash. Post -- the answer "of course" is no. I would need to see the full details instead of some one-liner that may appeal to reationaries.
And why can't I see the full details? Because, citing a loss of revenues, the Wash. Post unconstitutionally prevents us freepers from reading their entire articles online here at FR. Using your above logic, wouldn't you call this a coverup??
To: dirtboy
dirt...
Sorry to see that you are unable to portend yourself properly in a civil discussion and debate.
136
posted on
01/02/2003 8:19:45 AM PST
by
cynicom
To: Mark17
That is the term used by the folks who like to think of themselves as "true" conservatives. They use "neo-con" as an epithet particularly when it involves support of a rational foreign policy as opposed to course of reckless inaction that they favor, particularly with regards to Iraq.
137
posted on
01/02/2003 8:21:32 AM PST
by
hchutch
To: All
Good grief. How long are we going to harp about this one? We're starting to sound like the Democrats continuously whining about Florida in 2000. Get over it and move on. If you decide to sit on your hands next election over this so-called principle, congratulations. You will have elected John Kerry/Tom Daschle/Joe Lieberman/John Edwards/Hillary Clinton to the White House. Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face. If Hillary gets in there, you can kiss America goodbye.
138
posted on
01/02/2003 8:25:04 AM PST
by
Inkie
To: sheltonmac
The author misunderstands the lack of support for Lott. It wasn't just the neo-cons....it was full blown conservatives who did not support him.
Lott has been the poster-boy for "lets just all get along" comprimising the author accuses (with justification) the Republican party of doing. The same people who most viciously attacked him from the Democrat side, he had been caving into for years. Conservatives generally, not just neo-cons have had trouble with Lotts compromising attitudes. So when he got into trouble from his new "friends" the libs his old friends didn't support him.
Remember it was Lott who dissed the House Repubs--going along with not allowing any evidence or real trial to occur with the Clinton impeachment....and that's just one compromise Mr. Lott has given in on.... If you try to be a moderate--don't expect your conservative buddies to help out if you get in trouble. Such was Lott's fate. Frist will accomplish a lot more....with less compromise.
Another thing--if Lott had stayed--every ridiculous affirmative action thing to come along he would have given in on--due to his crash there--and the Senate and our country would be at the mercy of the race-baiters. Not so with Frist--he doesn't have that kind of baggage.
To: sheltonmac
Yup!
Neo-cons simply fall down and curl up in the fetal position whenever someone plays the race card. They are cowards.There just aint a whole lot of difference between these two parties.....Getting harder and harder to tell them apart.....
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120, 121-140, 141-160 ... 421-438 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson