President interviewed on 60 Minutes

[RED]

For the life of me, I can't understand why Bush subjects himself to interviews by the very people who have taken pleasure in destroying and ridiculing him, undermining our soldiers and emboldening our enemies in the war on terror. :flame:

[DesertFox]

I've lost a helluva lotta confidence in Bush. He should be going on Fox, where he would get a fair hearing and fair treatment. Instead he keeps pandering to the Left, which will shoot him outta the saddle at every opportunity.

[Beowulf]

I've lost a helluva lotta confidence in Bush.
Same here.

[Joe Btsflk]

Watching the fascist, GW Bush duke it out with the communist news media is like watching Atlila the Hun fight it out with Hitler. Good show!!!

[Patriot Heart]

Well, who actually saw it? How did it go down? We were watching the "Monk" marathon.

[Seabee]

I missed it also, I figured dunking my head in a bucket of boiling hot water for an hour was probably more pleasurable. I was right.

[RED]

I've lost a helluva lotta confidence in Bush. He should be going on Fox, where he would get a fair hearing and fair treatment. Instead he keeps pandering to the Left, which will shoot him outta the saddle at every opportunity.

He's already been shot out of the saddle, and he is the number one reason, conservatives are out of the saddle, period. However, we must continue to support him, the Commander in Chief, as he sends another 20,000 of our troops into harm's way. To bad Bush doesn't provide more reasons to support him. I've been warn out doing all this wishful thinking wishing for a strong President who will put the left in it's place. :flame:

Scott Pelle, the leftist, CBS, inquisitor, asked a bevy of negative questions designed to make Bush look like an ass and tug at the heartstrings of the 'war weary' pacifist wooses. This interview by the leftist MSM is just another example of poor choices by the President ... equivalent to throwing yourself 'under the bus'. I thought the President wanted to win the hearts and minds. :rolleyes:

Nobody else watched the interview? Good choice.

[Lubbock]

I find it more admirable that he walked into the Lion's Den and defended himself.

If the interview had gone to FOX, he would have been accused of hiding behind FOX's Conservative Skirts.

I haven't lost any confidence in him. I've got enough common sense to understand just what he's had to fight and face since he raised his hand and took the oath in January, 2001.

I'd like to see anyone do any better, given the odds and the opposition.

I'll throw him "under the bus" when they find an intern under his desk in the Oval Office.

[Maggie_T]

For the life of me, I can't understand why Bush subjects himself to interviews by the very people who have taken pleasure in destroying and ridiculing him, undermining our soldiers and emboldening our enemies in the war on terror. :flame:

Have to agree with you there, RED. And with the rest of my Freecer friends.

I don't get Bush.

[DesertFox]

I've got enough common sense to understand just what he's had to fight and face since he raised his hand and took the oath in January, 2001.So have I. Long before you ever came here I was defending him for just those reasons.

I'd like to see anyone do any better, given the odds and the opposition.Ronald Reagan did MUCH better with far WORSE odds and much stronger opposition. Bush has had Congress with him for six of his eight years, and barely missed having it with him this time.

I'll throw him "under the bus" when they find an intern under his desk in the Oval Office.I won't throw him under the bus at all. But neither will I pretend he's done what he could have to turn things around in this country. He hasn't.

Beyond that, Bush has "failed" by not going on teevee enough to defend his policies. He sits there, saying nothing, while his policies and his people are viciously defamed and lied about in the press. It makes it look like he knows his policies are failures and is ashamed or afraid to defend them.

[Joe Btsflk]

Scott Pelle, the leftist, CBS, inquisitor, asked a bevy of negative questions designed to make Bush look like an ass and tug at the heartstrings of the 'war weary' pacifist wooses.

Red, I was opposed to using force to invade Iraq before Congress authourized GW Bush to do it. I guess you could call me a "Pacifist woosie", but in the sixties I drove my car with flags and a big sign on each side saying "Bomb Hanoi" accross the campus of a major university where students were protesting the Viet Nam war. As big a travesty as the Viet Nam war was, we had a hellufa lot more justification for going into Viet Nam than we did Iraq. What happened to the WMDs? What happened to the tie in of Iraq to 9/11? what happened to Saddam's tie in with Al queda? I'm confused Tell me how we were justified in going into Iraq???

[RED]

I find it more admirable that he walked into the Lion's Den and defended himself.

Unfortunately, that don't get it. It IS the lion's den precisely because he never put them in their place. They have relentlessly demonized him, and his policies, and yet he had nothing to say. Not a good look.

If the interview had gone to FOX, he would have been accused of hiding behind FOX's Conservative Skirts.

All going on the MSM accomplished was allowing them to make him look like a sap. That's all they've ever done. What's the point? Masochism?

I haven't lost any confidence in him. I've got enough common sense to understand just what he's had to fight and face since he raised his hand and took the oath in January, 2001.

Oh yeah? How do you feel about his looking the other way on illegal immigration for six years, or better yet, explain to me why he has ignored the plight of the railroaded border control agents and not pardoned them. Their incarceration will be downright IMMORAL.


I'd like to see anyone do any better, given the odds and the opposition.

I'll throw him "under the bus" when they find an intern under his desk in the Oval Office.


He throws himself under the bus over and over, and conservatives along with him. Unfortunately for conservatives, we're stuck with Bush for the next two years, and because of him, who knows who after that. :sad:

[DesertFox]

we had a hellufa lot more justification for going into Viet Nam than we did Iraq. Nope, but we were justified in both. What happened to the WMDs? They've been found, but the MSM has kept it secret. Not to mention that MSM never were the sole reason for going over there. What happened to the tie in of Iraq to 9/11? what happened to Saddam's tie in with Al queda? I'm confused Tell me how we were justified in going into Iraq??? It's the same enemy, guy: Islamism. It has been proven to the satisfaction of any reasonable person that Saddam was indeed backing Al-Qaeda. Al-Qaeda is Islamism, as was the Taliban in Afghanistan.

To see the tie-ins you have to look a little further down the road than the MSM and the Left ever do. Radical Muslims are the enemy and they were propped up by Saddam wherever they were opposing America. True, he also fought them on his own turf; but after a vicious 8-year war with Iran that ended in 1988 when he gassed them, Saddam flew his entire Air Force to Iran when we attacked in 1991 so that those aircraft would be in the hands of Muslims rather than in the hands of Americans. Saddam hated and feared everybody, but us most of all because he knew we could take his ass out if anybody could.

Hence for us there is no difference between Saddam and Islamism, and Islamism = 9/11.

[Seabee]

As big a travesty as the Viet Nam war was, we had a hellufa lot more justification for going into Viet Nam than we did Iraq.

What the hell? Uhhh, you need to read up on a little incident that perpetuated massive troop increases in Vietnam called the "Gulf of Tonkin" incident, which led to the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution.

[DesertFox]

The Left has successfully perpetrated (and perpetuated) the lie that the Gulf of Tonkin incident never happened. It did, but almost nobody believes it.

We needed to oppose Communism in Vietnam for the same reason we needed to take out Saddam and should take out Kim in Korea and Mugabe in Zimbabwe and go into Sudan and kill the killers there, and should have gone into Rwanda: Evil needs to be opposed. When we know about it and do nothing, we're implicated.

America is falling precisely because culturally we think opposing Evil is hick and outdated, that it's silly and embarrassing to talk about Evil, that there isn't really any such thing as Evil. There is, and decent nations will oppose it. The indecent will do everything in their power to keep us from opposing it. Most of all they will lie and ridicule and insist that we fight clean while Evil does whatever works, however vile that may be.

[Seabee]

Most evidence I have read has shown that the attack in the Gulf of Tonkin was either greatly exagerated or never really happened, just a rallying cry to fully get into Vietnam. Not unlike the "MAINE." Now the communist influence left unchecked in South East Asia would have spread like a cancer. So there was justification in engaging the communists, my only gripe about the Vietnam war was the way it was carried out by the Johnson administration and the South Vietnamese governmental corruption.

Concerning the comparison of Iraq to Vietnam, there are only three parallels I see between them.

One is the need to stop an enemy that DOES threaten us personally.This is a war of ideology, one, being Islam, wishes to destroy another, being the West. If the West can be successfully eliminated or subjugated the rest of the world will be easy pickens.
Since the Islamic terrorists are a group more than an organized country and attempt to hide in allying states,who do nothing to prosecute them, we have a full right to engage that country and remove those terrorists. Through force if neccessary.

Two, the inability of the adminsitration to articulate the need for a military presence in the Middle East to the American people. Yes, older intelligence does support the theory that Saddam's government did harbor terrorist members of Al Qaida, funnel money to them and assist in their training but this was to the 2nd or 3rd tier personnel at best. There is also ample evidence of Saddam's WMD projects. But I do question his intentions about using them on the United States, now I could see him selling them to terrorist organizations who would. People need to realize the tactical positioning of Iraq as it applies to our enemies in the region. Syria on the West and Iran on the East. Both regiemes are nervous with such a large American military presence in the region. Hence why all of Aminejad's bantering the past few years. Plus why go after a government that you haven't fought, we knew what to expect form the Iraqie military, its strengths, its weaknesses, and its capabalities.

Three, Executive branch interference with the military commanders running the war, which, based on President Bush's speech seems to be getting corrected (i.e. changing the resriticiton of the R.O.E.'s). It isnt the whole solution, but it is a good start.

[RED]

Red, I was opposed to using force to invade Iraq before Congress authourized GW Bush to do it. I guess you could call me a "Pacifist woosie", but in the sixties I drove my car with flags and a big sign on each side saying "Bomb Hanoi" accross the campus of a major university where students were protesting the Viet Nam war. As big a travesty as the Viet Nam war was, we had a hellufa lot more justification for going into Viet Nam than we did Iraq. What happened to the WMDs? What happened to the tie in of Iraq to 9/11? what happened to Saddam's tie in with Al queda? I'm confused Tell me how we were justified in going into Iraq???

Well, just because you didn't see a need to go into Iraq, doesn't make you a pacifist. You said yourself, at one time you weren't against the Vietnam War. We've suffered 30 years of leftist historical revisionism since that war ended. Today, radical Islamists have stated their goals of taking over western civilization. Don't tell me about the moderates because ultimately there will be none. I think the US has to fight the WOT, even if the world doesn't have the cajones to do so. Why do we have to go back to no WMD? That question has been asked and answered millions of times. I'm not happy about the fact that we have to fight Islamists but if you'll look around, they are killing folks everyplace they are. It's the war they declared on us, not the other way around. America is, and has always been, a force for good. We either react and protect ourselves or sit by like the Europeans and wait to be taken over, without firing a shot.

[Joe Btsflk]

Hence for us there is no difference between Saddam and Islamism, and Islamism = 9/11.

Then why didn't we invade Saudi Arabia instead of Iraq??? 17 of the 19 men who carried out the 9/11 attack were Saudis and not one, I repeat, NOT ONE was an Iraqi. Fox, you obviously limit your news intake to pro Bush sources. It has been established that Saddam was no friend of Al Qaeida and, in fact, was extremely wary of them. When you get done worshipping the fascist, GW Bush, and see him for his intent to turn this country into a military dictatorship, maybe you'll stop swallowing the propaganda that the Bush administration is spreading.

I am a Paleoconservative. Neoconservatives are not conservatives at all, but are fascists.

[DesertFox]

No one thinks opposing evil is worthwhile?

[Seabee]

No, I dont think opposing evil is worthwhile. I think decapitating evil is worthwhile.

[DesertFox]

Fox, you obviously limit your news intake to pro Bush sources. It has been established that Saddam was no friend of Al Qaeida and, in fact, was extremely wary of them. Actually, I don't. I don't even like Bush. You obviously didn't read what I said, because I noted that Saddam hated and feared everybody.

It's no fun arguing with someone who doesn't read my responses. If you want to be taken seriously, then take others seriously.

When you get done worshipping the fascist, GW Bush, and see him for his intent to turn this country into a military dictatorship, maybe you'll stop swallowing the propaganda that the Bush administration is spreading. When you find out what a fascist is, let me know. Right now you just come across as a lightweight who believes anything that reinforces his predilections.

[RED]

Then why didn't we invade Saudi Arabia instead of Iraq??? 17 of the 19 men who carried out the 9/11 attack were Saudis and not one, I repeat, NOT ONE was an Iraqi. Fox, you obviously limit your news intake to pro Bush sources. It has been established that Saddam was no friend of Al Qaeida and, in fact, was extremely wary of them. When you get done worshipping the fascist, GW Bush, and see him for his intent to turn this country into a military dictatorship, maybe you'll stop swallowing the propaganda that the Bush administration is spreading.

I am a Paleoconservative. Neoconservatives are not conservatives at all, but are fascists.

When you figure out there is a threat from radical Islam, let us know. Paleoconservatives are isolationists, aren't they? You have simply bought the leftist MSM line of demonizing Bush. How easy it is because of his silence. There's no downside. Ain't it fun? The dimwit DIMocrats voted to go into Iraq and even had a doctrine of regime change dating back into the Clinton Administration. The thing is, we're in there, with thousands of soldiers in danger, and the leftist MSM and the DIMwits have been undermining the war effort, emboldening the enemy, thus costing American lives for the passed three years. Are these the people who you side with?

[Dilloduck]

Perhaps if we let the Vietnamese have thier independence after WWII instead of handing them over to the French as spoils of war, they would never have sought the assistance of the Communists, much like Castro.

[DesertFox]

Hardly, Dilloduck. Ho Chi Minh was a Communist since the Twenties and Ho Chi Minh was the one pushing independence. Not to mention that it wasn't up to us to "let the Vietnamese have their independence after WWII." We didn't control that region to anything like the degree implied in "handing them over to the French." We simply left and the French returned. We did later help them with money and equipment, but that's not the same thing as "turning over" the place to them.

Our mistakes since WWII vis-a-vis military adventurism have all turned on wanting things to be easier than they are. We have been less committed to doing the right thing just because it's the right thing, than our enemies have to doing what they wanted to do no matter how evil.

[Beowulf]

As big a travesty as the Viet Nam war was, we had a hellufa lot more justification for going into Viet Nam than we did Iraq.
Hate to tell you this, Joe, but the French started Vietnam whom we began giving aid to. Despite the aid, the French tucked tail and ran leaving us the mess. Then, as with Iraq, the politicians tied the hands of our military and pandered to what everyone else in the world wanted. Until we stop trying to fight wars with politics, we will lose every time.

What happened to the WMDs?
Funny they found a bunch of them in Syria and even found some buried in Iraqi bunkers.

I'm confused Tell me how we were justified in going into Iraq???
*chuckles and shakes head*
I guess we were supposed to keep on allowing Saddam Hussein to keep executing his own people. You know, men, women and children? If we did nothing, the world be jumping on us to do something about it no doubt not to mention the fact that he allowed terrorist to use his country to train, hence your 9/11 tie. For all of W's faults, at least he did more than blindly launch a few cruise missiles into the desert like your boy Clinton did which did nothing.

When you get done worshipping the fascist, GW Bush, and see him for his intent to turn this country into a military dictatorship,
A military dictatorship? You're funny! Or are you bitching about all these "freedoms" you're losing? Name ONE! No one has come to my door about phone taps or infringed upon me for anything.

One last thing on Iraq. When I left Desert Storm in 1991, I said to my then batallion commander, "Sir, you know we'll be back!"
He answered, "Yes, I know since the U.N. won't let us finish the job."
Iraq was going to happen sooner or later. After the Democreeps cut and run, we will again be back only at a greater human cost and money cost and after a few more terrorist attacks!

[Dilloduck]

Hardly, Dilloduck. Ho Chi Minh was a Communist since the Twenties and Ho Chi Minh was the one pushing independence. Not to mention that it wasn't up to us to "let the Vietnamese have their independence after WWII." We didn't control that region to anything like the degree implied in "handing them over to the French." We simply left and the French returned. We did later help them with money and equipment, but that's not the same thing as "turning over" the place to the

Our mistakes since WWII vis-a-vis military adventurism have all turned on wanting things to be easier than they are. We have been less committed to doing the right thing just because it's the right thing, than our enemies have to doing what they wanted to do no matter how evil.

http://rationalrevolution.net/war/co...by_ho_chi_.htm (http://rationalrevolution.net/war/collection_of_letters_by_ho_chi_.htm)

Letter to President Harry Truman, February 16, 1945. The letter was never answered and was not declassified until 1972
DEAR MR. PRESIDENT:
Our VIETNAM people, as early as 1941, stood by the Allies' side and fought against the Japanese and their associates, the French colonialists.
From 1941 to 1945 we fought bitterly, sustained by the patriotism, of our fellow-countrymen and by the promises made by the Allies at YALTA, SAN FRANCISCO and POTSDAM.
When the Japanese were defeated in August 1945, the whole Vietnam territory was united under a Provisional Republican Government, which immediately set out to work. In five months, peace and order were restored, a democratic republic was established on legal bases, and adequate help was given to the Allies in the carrying out of their disarmament mission.
But the French Colonialists, who betrayed in wartime both the Allies and the Vietnamese, have come back, and are waging on us a murderous and pitiless war in order reestablish their domination. Their invasion has extended to South Vietnam and is menacing us in North Vietnam. It would take volumes to give even an abbreviated report of the crisis and assassinations they are committing everyday in this fighting area.
This aggression is contrary to all principles of international law and the pledge made by the Allies during World War II. It is a challenge to the noble attitude shown before, during, and after the war by the United States Government and People. It violently contrasts with the firm stand you have taken in your twelve point declaration, and with the idealistic loftiness and generosity expressed by your delegates to the United Nations Assembly, MM. BYRNES, STETTINIUS, AND J.F. DULLES.
The French aggression on a peace-loving people is a direct menace to world security. It implies the complicity, or at least the connivance of the Great Democracies. The United Nations ought to keep their words. They ought to interfere to stop this unjust war, and to show that they mean to carry out in peacetime the principles for which they fought in wartime.
Our Vietnamese people, after so many years of spoliation and devastation, is just beginning its building-up work. It needs security and freedom, first to achieve internal prosperity and welfare, and later to bring its small contribution to world-reconstruction.
These security and freedom can only be guaranteed by our independence from any colonial power, and our free cooperation with all other powers. It is with this firm conviction that we request of the United Sates as guardians and champions of World Justice to take a decisive step in support of our independence.
What we ask has been graciously granted to the Philippines. Like the Philippines our goal is full independence and full cooperation with the UNITED STATES. We will do our best to make this independence and cooperation profitable to the whole world.
I am Dear Mr. PRESIDENT,
Respectfully Yours,
(Signed) Ho Chi Minh


whatever you say

[DesertFox]

Wonderful. I've seen it before.

Now. What does it prove? Where does it say -- anywhere, not just there -- that America had it in her power to "turn over" Vietnam to the French? We didn't have that power. Ho wanted our help, we didn't give it to him. Ho was still a Communist and still wanted to impose his ideology on Vietnam. He, too, wanted things to be easier than they turned out to be.

There's no connection between this letter and what you said should have been done.

[Dilloduck]

Wonderful. I've seen it before.

Now. What does it prove? Where does it say -- anywhere, not just there -- that America had it in her power to "turn over" Vietnam to the French? We didn't have that power. Ho wanted our help, we didn't give it to him. Ho was still a Communist and still wanted to impose his ideology on Vietnam. He, too, wanted things to be easier than they turned out to be.

There's no connection between this letter and what you said should have been done.

How about----


Neither interpretation squares with the record; the United States was less concerned over Indochina, and less purposeful than either assumes. Ambivalence characterized U.S. policy during World War 11, and was the root of much subsequent misunderstanding. On the one hand, the U.S. repeatedly reassured the French that its colonial possessions would be returned to it after the war. On the other band, the U.S. broadly committed itself in the Atlantic Charter to support national self-determination, and President Roosevelt personally and vehemently advocated independence for Indochina. F.D.R. regarded Indochina as a flagrant example of onerous colonialism which should be turned over to a trusteeship rather than returned to France. The President discussed this proposal with the Allies at the Cairo, Teheran, and Yalta Conferences and received the endorsement of Chiang Kai-shek and Stalin; Prime Minister Churchill demurred. At one point, Fall reports, the President offered General de Gaulle Filipino advisers to help France establish a "more progressive policy in Indochina"--which offer the General received in "Pensive Silence."


Bolded mine

http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/pentagon/pent1.html

[Joe Btsflk]

No one thinks opposing evil is worthwhile?

Evil is what you perceive it to be. If opposing evil is justification for invading foriegn countries, I can think of many countries that we should be invading. If that's the best you and GW Bush can come up with for justification for invading Iraq, GOD HELP US!!!

[Seabee]

Much of the return to colonialisim was driven by Chruchill,though. But at least he looked at the global empire in terms of an Anglo/American standpoint. Personally I am glad we did not pursue it and chose to fight communisim, it was a much more noble goal. The French and DeGaulle were just whiney little pissants who acted like children when it came to re-claiming what they had once occupied. Not much has changed.

[DesertFox]

Bolded mineI can tell. I might as well say, "Okay, I'll return Vietnam to you, Dilloduck." It's not mine to give you. Nor was it America's to give, no matter what anyone thinks now or thought then.

Or do you think America, in some significant way, owned Vietnam -- that is, had a real say-so? I don't think we ever did, and I think those who think so don't grasp just how war weary America was at that time, how uninterested in world affairs, how completely oblivious to affairs in the Far East. When Vietnam came to the forefront in the Sixties, most of us said, "Where?" We didn't even know where it was and had never heard of it and for dang sure didn't give two hoots about it.

[Joe Btsflk]

When you find out what a fascist is, let me know.

From Funk & Wagnalls Standard Desk Dictionary:

Fascist: An advocate of fascism.

Fascism: A one-party system of government in which the individual is subordinated to the state and control is maintained by military force, secret police, rigid censorship, and governmental regimentation of industry and finance.

GW Bush fits the definition to a "T" or haven't you noticed the laws that he has gotten passed and actions he has taken since becomming president?

Does that answer your question Fox???

[DesertFox]

Evil is what you perceive it to be. Is it? I thought evil was a pretty absolute thing in most cases. Granted that we can't always tell, but are you seriously holding that Kim Jong Il is only evil if you and I say he is? or Saddam? or Mugabe? You don't think those people are/were evil no matter what you or I think?

If THAT's the case, then we ARE in trouble. We may not always agree on this or that particular instance, but I'm sure we can agree that those men are the very incarnation of evil.

If opposing evil is justification for invading foriegn countries, I can think of many countries that we should be invading. I can't think of "many," but I CAN think of SOME: North Korea, Saddam's Iraq, Ahmadinejad's Iran, the Sudan, Mugabe's Zimbabwe.

If that's the best you and GW Bush can come up with for justification for invading Iraq, GOD HELP US!!! I don't know where you got the idea that Bush asks my opinion, but no matter. We need God's help whether it's Bush, me, you or anyone else in the White House. Or do you not believe in God?

[Joe Btsflk]

Perhaps if we let the Vietnamese have thier independence after WWII instead of handing them over to the French as spoils of war, they would never have sought the assistance of the Communists, much like Castro.

I'm surprized that anyone knows or remembers that Ho Chi Ming patterned Viet Nam's "Declaration of Independance" from the french after our own. If Truman hadn't been such an idiot and had told the French to get their A$$es out of Viet Nam we probably wouldn't have gotten involved in that fiasco after the French got their hind ends kicked in 1954.

[DesertFox]

Fascist: An advocate of fascism.Ain't heard Bush advocating fascism. Where'd you see or hear or read of it?

Fascism: A one-party system of government in which the individual is subordinated to the state and control is maintained by military force, secret police, rigid censorship, and governmental regimentation of industry and finance. Joe, you can't be serious. You may not have noticed, but America has TWO major political Parties and Bush does NOT control the one that runs Congress. Nor is our system of govt one-Party by any means. It isn't even two-Party.

Control in America is maintained by ... ? Do you feel alright? Control in America is maintained by persuasion. Control by force is what Saddam did, and what Kim does, and what Mugabe does.

GW Bush fits the definition to a "T" or haven't you noticed the laws that he has gotten passed and actions he has taken since becomming president? Such as? And maybe you can tell us when a soldier controlled you, or the police controlled you, or when you even met a membet of the Secret Police (which protects the president), or what regimentation of industry you're talking about, or when rigid censorship shut down such places as FreeConservatives, Democratic Underground, etc.

Does that answer your question Fox??? :rotflmbo: You're kidding. You have to be kidding. No one can seriously be so clueless.

[DesertFox]

If Truman hadn't been such an idiot and had told the French to get their A$$es out of Viet Nam we probably wouldn't have gotten involved in that fiasco after the French got their hind ends kicked in 1954.Truman wasn't an idiot. He was ignorant. So was everybody else. Don't confuse idiocy with ignorance. It's easy, in hindsight, to think everyone then should have known what we now know.

[Seabee]

.


Fascism: A one-party system of government in which the individual is subordinated to the state and control is maintained by military force, secret police, rigid censorship, and governmental regimentation of industry and finance.
GW Bush fits the definition to a "T" or haven't you noticed the laws that he has gotten passed and actions he has taken since becomming president?



Uh, why isnt the military standing on every corner in every major American city forcing the government's will on everyone, why arent the supposed secret police kicking in your door for proclaiming egregious claims against the government, why were 2 of America's greatest enemies allowed to preach their hate on American shores, why is this blog continued to operate when we have people here offering anti government points of view, why are corporations going outside of the bounds of this country to manufacture and produce.?

When you can answer all of these and the millions more questions I have about how this country is a facist state I will contend to you being correct. Until then you sound like a dope smoking conspiracy nut.

[DesertFox]

Seabee, I think Joe's just one of the huge hoard of people who have never seen how the rest of the world lives, and therefore think anything they personally don't like is "dictatorship" or "fascism" or whatever.

Joe, you ever lived overseas? Ever been in the Third World? Ever even been to England for any period of time?

[Lubbock]

. . . No one can seriously be so clueless. . . .

I hate to tell you, but that one is.

Proof?

" . . . Evil is what you perceive it to be. . . . "

But I don't know why anyone should be surprised. I've yet to come across a Lib who had the capacity to recognize evil when he crossed paths with it.

Like most Libs, this one obviously believes that he make a housepet out of a rattlesnake.

[Seabee]

Agreed Fox

[Joe Btsflk]

When you figure out there is a threat from radical Islam, let us know. Paleoconservatives are isolationists, aren't they? You have simply bought the leftist MSM line of demonizing Bush. How easy it is because of his silence. There's no downside. Ain't it fun? The dimwit DIMocrats voted to go into Iraq and even had a doctrine of regime change dating back into the Clinton Administration. The thing is, we're in there, with thousands of soldiers in danger, and the leftist MSM and the DIMwits have been undermining the war effort, emboldening the enemy, thus costing American lives for the passed three years. Are these the people who you side with?

Paleoconservatives are people who believe in what the founders of this once great nation believed. Please don't compare me to leftists. They are socialists that believe in Communist socialism which is as bad as fascist socialism. Both believe in destroying the rights of the individual to the collective.

[RED]

From Funk & Wagnalls Standard Desk Dictionary:

Fascist: An advocate of fascism.

Fascism: A one-party system of government in which the individual is subordinated to the state and control is maintained by military force, secret police, rigid censorship, and governmental regimentation of industry and finance.

GW Bush fits the definition to a "T" or haven't you noticed the laws that he has gotten passed and actions he has taken since becomming president?

Does that answer your question Fox???

I don't see anything like the definition in this country. This is just a standard far-left allegation with no proof. You've bought into the 'seriousness of the allegation' trick. Me thinks you just insist on throwing shit. Paleo-conservative my ass. Try leftist. DIM underground is looking for recruits.

[Lubbock]

Point me to one specific "right" that GWB has trampled on.

Just one.

And could we please dispense with the "wire-tap, electronic-banking, e-mail spying" red herring.

That Leftist Lie had been done to death in this forum, we all know that the Leftist Bleat is a lie, and we're sick of it.

[Seabee]

I still want to see the evidence of the "facisim." Two of the freest countries on the planet are right here on the North American continent. The United States and Canada, reason I say that is for two countries occupying such large land masses and you can move freely from one end to the other unhindered as long as you do not break any laws. No "papers" required, no check points at statelines, no one follwoing you because you are not from that area, no one askng you your business other than conversation. Yeah sounds like a facist state to me.

[Lubbock]

" . . . No "papers" required, no check points at statelines . . . "

Except for the "check points" inside New Orleans. And I believe Ray Nagin is the instigator of that, not GWB.

[Joe Btsflk]

Hate to tell you this, Joe, but the French started Vietnam whom we began giving aid to. Despite the aid, the French tucked tail and ran leaving us the mess. Then, as with Iraq, the politicians tied the hands of our military and pandered to what everyone else in the world wanted. Until we stop trying to fight wars with politics, we will lose every time.


Funny they found a bunch of them in Syria and even found some buried in Iraqi bunkers.


*chuckles and shakes head*
I guess we were supposed to keep on allowing Saddam Hussein to keep executing his own people. You know, men, women and children? If we did nothing, the world be jumping on us to do something about it no doubt not to mention the fact that he allowed terrorist to use his country to train, hence your 9/11 tie. For all of W's faults, at least he did more than blindly launch a few cruise missiles into the desert like your boy Clinton did which did nothing.


A military dictatorship? You're funny! Or are you bitching about all these "freedoms" you're losing? Name ONE! No one has come to my door about phone taps or infringed upon me for anything.

One last thing on Iraq. When I left Desert Storm in 1991, I said to my then batallion commander, "Sir, you know we'll be back!"
He answered, "Yes, I know since the U.N. won't let us finish the job."
Iraq was going to happen sooner or later. After the Democreeps cut and run, we will again be back only at a greater human cost and money cost and after a few more terrorist attacks!

GOD HELP US IF THERE ARE MANY LIKE YOU!!!

There have been NO WMDs found. There has been NO TIE IN established between Saddam and Al Qeida. Unless you and the other idiots on this board can show me some evidence, stop spreading BULLSHIT!!!

Whether Saddam was executing his people or not was not our (govenments) business. We are NOT the world's police force! Probably as many Iraqis have died as a result of GW Bush's invasion as Saddam executed.

As for freedoms lost, all GW Bush needs is something to use as an excuse to declare martial law, one of the laws he got through, and it's good bye to all of our freedoms!!!

[DesertFox]

you and the other idiots on this boardYou will not be permitted to insult the board. Watch it.

Meanwhile, go ahead and name some of these freedoms you've lost.

[Seabee]

Lubbock,
You raise a great point that I was about to post.

If you are so worried about the COLLECTIVE trampling on your rights. Look back in the past. Waco ring a bell? Hmmm was that not the Democrats? New Orleans presently, is that not a Democrat? I think you are missing the enemy in your attempt to find one in Bush. Realistically you are acting like the MSM. Looking for shadows in the dark.

[RED]

FYI, Pat Buchanan is a paleo-conservative. He presently spends his time on MSNBC, and him and Scarborough rip Bush apart with the best of the libs that populate their pundit panels. Bush may not be perfect, nor is he a conservative, but liberals can't even shine his shoes.

[Joe Btsflk]

Ain't heard Bush advocating fascism. Where'd you see or hear or read of it?

Joe, you can't be serious. You may not have noticed, but America has TWO major political Parties and Bush does NOT control the one that runs Congress. Nor is our system of govt one-Party by any means. It isn't even two-Party.

Control in America is maintained by ... ? Do you feel alright? Control in America is maintained by persuasion. Control by force is what Saddam did, and what Kim does, and what Mugabe does.

Such as? And maybe you can tell us when a soldier controlled you, or the police controlled you, or when you even met a membet of the Secret Police (which protects the president), or what regimentation of industry you're talking about, or when rigid censorship shut down such places as FreeConservatives, Democratic Underground, etc.

:rotflmbo: You're kidding. You have to be kidding. No one can seriously be so clueless.

I guess you missed all of the "counter-domestic-terrorism" measures, such as the patriot acts, that Bush has made law??? I guess you are unaware that if you are declared an "Enemy Combatant" you' won't even have the right to a Writ of Habeous Corpus? All he needs is an excuse to declare martial law and you'll find out. I don't know how long it will take, but eventually some president is going to declare martial law and it's goodbye Constitution and Bill of Rights. What do you think secret fraternities such as "Skull and Bones" are about??? In case you don't know, they are about establishing their elite memberships in control of the government with the eventual goal of a NWO in which, world-wide, the individual is sacrificed to the collectve. If you are any kind of individualist, you should be extremely concerned about what GW Bush is doing.

http://www.freedomtofascism.com

[Joe Btsflk]

I still want to see the evidence of the "facisim." Two of the freest countries on the planet are right here on the North American continent. The United States and Canada, reason I say that is for two countries occupying such large land masses and you can move freely from one end to the other unhindered as long as you do not break any laws. No "papers" required, no check points at statelines, no one follwoing you because you are not from that area, no one askng you your business other than conversation. Yeah sounds like a facist state to me.

bee - I suppose I'm only imagining that next year the people will be required by law to carry a national ID card with the eventual hope of implanting ID chips under everybodies skin???

[Seabee]

Show me a credible source. Not Alex Jones either.

[Lubbock]

And I'll bet if you pressed this paleo-conservative real hard he would admit to you that he believes Bush had advance warning of the September 11 attacks, and didn't take steps to stop them in order to fill the coffers of his friends in Big Oil.

That would put squarely in the Symphia McNinny camp.

Loony Tunes.

[DesertFox]

Joe, you're out of your depth here. You don't argue, you merely allege. You don't adduce proof, you adduce links to far-out sites nobody with any sense pays attention to. You sound like a wild-eyed fanatic who can't abide anyone who disagrees with him.

That's not what FreeCon is all about. We don't always succeed, but our goal is reasoned debate. We try to disagree civilly among each other and stay away from the name calling. We disagree regularly, as Lubbock and I do; and just as often we agree, as Lubbock and I do. But generally we credit our president with doing the best he can in an America that has gone far downhill since Reagan.

You appear to find that attitude completely alien, even hostile, to your way of thinking.

On this board you're dealing mainly with people in their 40's thru 70's. Most of the men have military service and many have fought in America's wars. I suspect that most of us have college degrees and as many as half of us have advanced degrees. We have lived in other countries and have seen how the world works.

I think it would be better for you and us if you moved along to some other site where people see things more the way you do. You can stick around here if you like, but don't expect to persuade anyone to your way of thinking. Frankly, you sound like a high schooler trying to impress the grown-ups.

[Joe Btsflk]

If you are so worried about the COLLECTIVE trampling on your rights. Look back in the past. Waco ring a bell? Hmmm was that not the Democrats? New Orleans presently, is that not a Democrat? I think you are missing the enemy in your attempt to find one in Bush. Realistically you are acting like the MSM. Looking for shadows in the dark.

There really is only one major political party in this country but it has two names. Both are socialists. The choice is between fascist socialism and communist socialism. Either way, it's socialism, government control of every aspect of your lives. WAKE UP those of you who believe that you should vote for either candidate. The lesser of two evils is still evil. I voted for Pat Buchanan (Reform Party) in 2000 and Michael Peroutka (Constitution Party) in 2004. I hope to get to vote for Ron Paul in 2008. The Repugnant wing of the one party with two names will probably turn on him like a bunch of vultures on a carcass but we can pray for a miracle.

[Seabee]

You tell me to wake up, but where is the abridgement of freedoms? Patirot Act, going to war in Iraq, tax cuts, outsourcing, illegal immigration? I see buffoonery in politics not conspiracies, but again where is the proof of our freedoms eroding other than some nitwit posting it on the net. You offered nothing but WAKE UP. There is no logic in any of your claims, you sound nuts. Funny part is by me calling you nuts you think that empowers your claims.
If you do not want to vote Republican be my guest, if you do not think they are conservatives anymore be my guest, hell I dont.

[Joe Btsflk]

Show me a credible source. Not Alex Jones either.

Try This Link:

http://news.com.com/National+ID+cards+on+the+way/2100-1028_3-5573414.html

Note that my choice for president in 2008 objected to it.

[RED]

And I'll bet if you pressed this paleo-conservative real hard he would admit to you that he believes Bush had advance warning of the September 11 attacks, and didn't take steps to stop them in order to fill the coffers of his friends in Big Oil.

That would put squarely in the Symphia McNinny camp.

Loony Tunes.

I'll bet you're right. :D

[Seabee]

All this proposes is what we already have, machine readable ID cards, just on a federal level of complicity. So, do you have a machine readable ID card right now? Because last time I checked all states do, so nothing new. Have you thrown away your present ID/License?

[Naturalized-Texan]

Paleoconservatives are people who believe in what the founders of this once great nation believed.
That is pure crap. Paleocons are ex-conservatives who have deserted the ranks of conservatism and aligned themselves with the hate-America Left. Pat Buchanan is a perfect example. He used to be a Reagan conservative and he still was when I voted for him in the 1992 Republican Primary. Shortly after the 1992 elections, Buchanan moved well to the left and became a Kennedy/Gephardt/Daschle liberal. He even had a known Communist (Lenora Fulani) as his campaign manager when he ran for president in 2000. He originally wanted Fulani to be his running mate.

For more details about paleocons, look here (http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=6818). Many paleocons even blame the Jews for the 9/11 terrorist attacks and believe in the "incorrigible inferiority of darker-skinned people." Moreover, from the beginning paleocons opposed the War on Terror.

[Joe Btsflk]

And I'll bet if you pressed this paleo-conservative real hard he would admit to you that he believes Bush had advance warning of the September 11 attacks, and didn't take steps to stop them in order to fill the coffers of his friends in Big Oil.

That would put squarely in the Symphia McNinny camp.

Loony Tunes.

And they planted explosives in the towers to make sure they would come down as planned by the government and, guess what they found when they landed on the moon, Green Cheese!!!

I don't believe the government is capable of carrying out a conspiracy as complex as blowing up the towers. There were people that tried to warn that mid easterners were taking flying lessons but the government wouldn't listen to them. GW Bush was as ignorant of what was going to happen on 9/11 as he is ignorant of almost everything else.

[Joe Btsflk]

That is pure crap. Paleocons are ex-conservatives who have deserted the ranks of conservatism and aligned themselves with the hate-America Left.

Neocons are the ones who are ex-conservatives. GW Bush has presided over the biggest expansion of government since LBJ. Conservative is supposed to be against government expansion, not for it like the Nocons are doing!!!

[Dilloduck]

I can tell. I might as well say, "Okay, I'll return Vietnam to you, Dilloduck." It's not mine to give you. Nor was it America's to give, no matter what anyone thinks now or thought then.

Or do you think America, in some significant way, owned Vietnam -- that is, had a real say-so? I don't think we ever did, and I think those who think so don't grasp just how war weary America was at that time, how uninterested in world affairs, how completely oblivious to affairs in the Far East. When Vietnam came to the forefront in the Sixties, most of us said, "Where?" We didn't even know where it was and had never heard of it and for dang sure didn't give two hoots about it.


Apparently there was some thinking in regards to the future adminstration of Viet Nam. We certainly didn't own Berlin either but guess what?
Are you claiming that France had the only post war claim to Indochina ?

[DesertFox]

Yep. Nobody else (but Vietnamese) claimed Indochina (which is Vietnam). It's hardly surprising that the Vietnamese would have a claim to Vietnam. But only they and the French gave a hoot.

You don't seem to have any sense of proportion. Berlin and Indochina are/were not similar cases and hence cannot be compared to each other, only contrasted. If you don't start making sense quickly I'm not going to discuss this futher with you.

We were in the heart of Germany in strength, having fought our way there; and history (two world wars) made it important that Germany never again be allowed to plunge the world into conflagration. That's why we were there and why it was important TO US to be there.

We weren't in Indochina in strength -- in fact, we were in China and Burma but only passing thru or over Indochina. It was only important to the French that the French be there and to the Vietnamese that the Vietnamese be there, and it didn't matter a bit to us to be there. Our concern was Japan, and we only went elsewhere in the Far East because we couldn't yet reach the Home Islands and those other places were where Japanese soldiers were.

[Bluemoon_Rising]

When you get done worshipping the fascist, GW Bush, and see him for his intent to turn this country into a military dictatorship, maybe you'll stop swallowing the propaganda that the Bush administration is spreading.

I am a pale conservative. Neoconservatives are not conservatives at all, but are fascists.


Bush is intent on turning the country into a military dictatorship? Neocons are fascists? And now we're supposed to take you seriously? And if we don't, we must be naive nincompoops?

Dude, you're deluded.

I've spoken well of Bush in the past. I still believe him to be an essentially decent and well-meaning fellow, but I now know that his administration has served to squander a good deal of the gains made on the domestic front by classical liberalism in the last thirty years. And in my opinion, his administration has not merely mismanaged the Iraqi conflict, but has utterly misunderstood its nature, most especially with respect to its place within the context of the larger, world-wide conflict against Islamofascism.

If you think that Bush is intent on turning the country into a military dictatorship, than you'd really think me to be a fascist if you knew the sort of actions I would have taken were I in his shoes.

But what's done is done. Now we can only pray and hope for the best . . . as we are well past the time when this administration had the sort of political capital it needed to decisively confront Syria and Iran and perhaps avoid the more catastrophic conflict that is sure to come.

It's like the administration were a pollyannaism boy scout who had gotten the old lady halfway across the street and then noticed that a stray dog had suddenly darted out into traffic. The boy scout abandons the old lady to save the dog, leaving the old girl to fend for herself . . . with a Mack truck bearing down on her.

It's a comedy of errors, topped off with an insincere gaggle of leftists swine -- the only thing in America that comes close to being true fascism -- in charge of Congress as a result.

Your charge is absurd and just another example of the sort of idiocy and confusion that seems to plague America in the midst of an historic challenge.

Where is your concern for victory against real evil after what we have already spent in blood and treasure?

This struggle is real, boy. You need a clue. You best start distinguishing the difference between mismanagement and tyranny, the difference between truth and the political expediency of the depraved.

There is no way in hell that our enemies can possibility stand against our collective might, except that stupidity and ignorance of the American ethos rule.

[Seabee]

Blue,

You hit the nail on the head about 4 times, I could not have put it better.

[Bluemoon_Rising]

Neocons are the ones who are ex-conservatives.


Son, you don't know what you're talking about. A good many of today’s so-called neocons, if not most, are former Rooseveltian liberals disillusioned by the anti-American liberalism of the 1960s and 70s. They're semi-converts, not originalists.

[RED]

Bush is intent on turning the country into a military dictatorship? Neocons are fascists? And now we're supposed to take you seriously? And if we don't, we must be naive nincompoops?

Dude, you're deluded.

I've spoken well of Bush in the past. I still believe him to be an essentially decent and well-meaning fellow, but I now know that his administration has served to squander a good deal of the gains made on the domestic front by classical liberalism in the last thirty years. And in my opinion, his administration has not merely mismanaged the Iraqi conflict, but has utterly misunderstood its nature, most especially with respect to its place within the context of the larger, world-wide conflict against Islamofascism.

If you think that Bush is intent on turning the country into a military dictatorship, than you'd really think me to be a fascist if you knew the sort of actions I would have taken were I in his shoes.

But what's done is done. Now we can only pray and hope for the best . . . as we are well past the time when this administration had the sort of political capital it needed to decisively confront Syria and Iran and perhaps avoid the more catastrophic conflict that is sure to come.

It's like the administration were a pollyannaism boy scout who had gotten the old lady halfway across the street and then noticed that a stray dog had suddenly darted out into traffic. The boy scout abandons the old lady to save the dog, leaving the old girl to fend for herself . . . with a Mack truck bearing down on her.

It's a comedy of errors, topped off with an insincere gaggle of leftists swine -- the only thing in America that comes close to being true fascism -- in charge of Congress as a result.

Your charge is absurd and just another example of the sort of idiocy and confusion that seems to plague America in the midst of an historic challenge.

Where is your concern for victory against real evil after what we have already spent in blood and treasure?

This struggle is real, boy. You need a clue. You best start distinguishing the difference between mismanagement and tyranny, the difference between truth and the political expediency of the depraved.

There is no way in hell that our enemies can possibility stand against our collective might, except that stupidity and ignorance of the American ethos rule.

Beautifully stated and 100% true. :claps:

[Naturalized-Texan]

Neocons are the ones who are ex-conservatives. GW Bush has presided over the biggest expansion of government since LBJ. Conservative is supposed to be against government expansion, not for it like the Nocons are doing!!!
You don't know what you're talking about.

Neocons are, by all definitions, classical liberals, like Ronald Reagan, who switched to conservatism and the Republican Party from the Democrat Party when it moved to the far left in the 1970s after the pro-Communists took over the party and nominated McGovern. Today those neocons are Reagan conservatives. BTW, when I refer to classical liberals, I'm referring to those who follow the principles of the Founding Fathers.

Most of the time when liberals and paleocons describe people as neocons, they are using the term as a derogatory code word for Jews.

[RED]

For the life of me, I can't understand why Bush subjects himself to interviews by the very people who have taken pleasure in destroying and ridiculing him, undermining our soldiers and emboldening our enemies in the war on terror. :flame:

Regardless of the fact that my thread has been hi-jacked by Joe Bisqwik, I'd like to continue. I'm not the only one that can't figure out why Bush would give an interview to the MSM. Rush can't see it, either.

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=592 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD width=592 bgColor=#ffffff colSpan=3 height=12></TD></TR><TR><TD bgColor=#ffffff>http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/0.gif</TD><TD vAlign=top><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=572 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=502 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD style="PADDING-RIGHT: 2px; PADDING-LEFT: 2px; BACKGROUND-IMAGE: none; PADDING-BOTTOM: 2px; PADDING-TOP: 2px; BACKGROUND-REPEAT: repeat-y" vAlign=top width="100%">Why Does the White House Deal with CBS?</TD></TR><TR><TD width=1 height=3></TD></TR><TR><TD vAlign=top width="100%">January 15, 2007</TD></TR><TR><TD width=1 height=3></TD></TR><TR><TD vAlign=top width=486>


</TD></TR><TR><TD>http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/0.gif</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=502 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD width=1 height=3></TD></TR><TR><TD vAlign=top width=486>RUSH: Okay. Audio sound bite time, President Bush last night on 60 Minutes with Scott Pelley. Here Pelley tries to get Bush to apologize to the Iraqis, Bush not having any of it.

REPORTER: Do you think you owe the Iraqi people an apology for not doing a better job?

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_011507/content/rush_is_right.Par.0002.ImageFile.jpgTHE PRESIDENT: We liberated that country from a tyrant. I think the Iraqi people owe the American people a huge debt of gratitude. That's the problem here in America. They wonder whether or not there is a gratitude level that's significant enough in Iraq.

RUSH: Now, a perfect example from the 60 Minutes interview, Scott Pelley refers to US Marines as "your Marines." This is Bush's war, your Marines. They have to distance themselves from it of course. Listen to this exchange.

REPORTER: I was on the battlefield in Najaf when al-Sadr's people killed your United States Marines.

THE PRESIDENT: Right, and we killed them, as you recall.

REPORTER: Is Muqtada al-Sadr an enemy of the United States?

THE PRESIDENT: If he is ordering his people to kill Americans, he is.

RUSH: Yeah, well, you know, the interesting thing here is that CBS leaks all this stuff that Bush admits he made mistakes and Bush did this or that, and of course it was typical CBS. I'm still mystified why the president would appear on this. I don't care how you thought he did, I don't know how many people watched it after CBS put these leaks out that Bush admitted this and said he was sorry and made Iraq worse and all this sort of stuff. The war at home here is a political war. Why then go to 60 Minutes? Go anywhere, go to the new media, use the free media, write op-eds, use the Internet, use your grassroots operation out in the neighborhoods. If the war is worth fighting abroad, which it is, then you gotta fight the effort by the left at home to undermine it as they did during Vietnam. But going to 60 Minutes is like Nixon going to Cronkite. Especially after every effort that CBS has made to destroy this man's presidency. Look at who 60 Minutes has promoted: Joe Wilson, Richard Clarke, Bob Woodward, Bill Clinton, and Dan Rather (http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/eibessential/rathergate.member.html) tried to destroy Bush before the 2004 election with the forged documents.

These questions that Scott Pelley asked may as well been written by the Democrat National Committee. I swear. I'm going to tell you something, and this may make some of you mad. President Bush, with his new tone, and with his attempt to replicate what he had done in Texas by putting everybody together in one big happy family, bipartisanship and so forth, has taught a lot of Republicans to join with the Democrats. If the president does it, they can do it, too. It's a bad habit when it comes to policy. That's what he did with Ted Kennedy writing the educational bill, having the Kennedy family up to watch the latest Bay of Pigs movie, the popcorn machine on full bore, full blast, full pop. If Bush can reach out to Kennedy and play nice with this new-tone stuff, then he sets the stage for lesser politicians in his party and Congress to do the same thing. McCain's done it. McCain's gone out of his way to reach out to Democrats against his own party, against his own president. Look at Schwarzenegger out in California. We always end up joining with the Democrats, the left, to advance their agenda. Does anybody ever remember them joining with us to advance ours? I don't care what the issue. Look at the war, the war is the best example of it. I don't know. I don't understand it. What's to be gained by going on 60 Minutes?
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

[Lubbock]

" . . . Most of the time when liberals and paleocons describe people as neocons, they are using the term as a derogatory code word for Jews. . . . "

Bingo!

That's the dirty little secret: anti-semitism.

[Longhorn_Platinum]

Bluemoon_Rising:
And in my opinion, his administration has not merely mismanaged the Iraqi conflict, but has utterly misunderstood its nature, most especially with respect to its place within the context of the larger, world-wide conflict against Islamofascism.

:unsmile: While others applaud Bluemoon_Rising as being 100% on the money, I disagree with the above statement. We were attacked on 9/11, & Bush had to do something. He did more than Blowjob Billy or any other demonic rat would have done. But, no matter what he did, he would have had to deal with moo-slims, & die-hard devotees of that religion are not rational people. Bush is playing the hand he was dealt as best he can. And when you're playing bridge with a jacks-high hand, you'll be doing well to merely set the opponents's contract; but apparently, many Americans have been expecting him to score a grand slam*.

:unsmile: And it hasn't helped that W has had to fight a two-front war. I don't mean Afghanistan & Eye-rack. I mean the moo-slims & the leftwing nutbags here at home. If it weren't for that latter group, along with their fawning toadies in the media, we could have already finished our job in Eye-rack; & our troops, a few at a time, would already be on their way home for a much-deserved respite.

*Not a mixed metaphor. In bridge, "grand slam" means a contract to win all the tricks.

[Naturalized-Texan]

" . . . Most of the time when liberals and paleocons describe people as neocons, they are using the term as a derogatory code word for Jews. . . . "

Bingo!

That's the dirty little secret: anti-semitism.
That's exactly what I was thinking, but I didn't want to come right out and say it. I'm glad you did. Pat Buchanan has become as much an anti-Semite as Jimmy Carter.

[Bluemoon_Rising]

Today those neocons are Reagan conservatives. BTW, when I refer to classical liberals, I'm referring to those who follow the principles of the Founding Fathers.

Most of the time when liberals and paleocons describe people as neocons, they are using the term as a derogatory code word for Jews.


Some perhaps, not all. Some of them do in fact continue to embrace the sort of Rooseveltian "solutions" that Reagan came to eschew. As for "the derogatory code word for Jews", you got that right: from paleocons like Buchanan to liberals like Carter, the underlying anti-Semitism, or at the very least, the idea that it would be better that Israel did not exist with respect to the conflicts of the Middle East, is quite obvious.

[Lubbock]

What do you think would have happened on Spetember 12, 2001 if GWB had stood up and said Islam Is A Death Cult, rather than Islam Is A Religion Of Peace.

Does anyone remember that Roosevelt interned the Japanese right here on our own soil? Not because they needed protection, but because they were seen as the enemy.

[Bluemoon_Rising]

:unsmile: While others applaud Bluemoon_Rising as being 100% on the money, I disagree with the above statement. We were attacked on 9/11, & Bush had to do something. He did more than Blowjob Billy or any other demonic rat would have done. But, no matter what he did, he would have had to deal with moo-slims, & die-hard devotees of that religion are not rational people. Bush is playing the hand he was dealt as best he can. And when you're playing bridge with a jacks-high hand, you'll be doing well to merely set the opponents's contract; but apparently, many Americans have been expecting him to score a grand slam*.

:unsmile: And it hasn't helped that W has had to fight a two-front war. I don't mean Afghanistan & Eye-rack. I mean the moo-slims & the leftwing nutbags here at home. If it weren't for that latter group, along with their fawning toadies in the media, we could have already finished our job in Eye-rack; & our troops, a few at a time, would already be on their way home for a much-deserved respite.

*Not a mixed metaphor. In bridge, "grand slam" means a contract to win all the tricks.

I never expected Bush to score a grand slam; I expected him to sensibly follow through against Syria and Iran while he still had the sort of political capital he needed after toppling Hussein. Toppling that monster and establishing a base of operations from which we might slam the governing infrastructure of Syria and put the fear of Allah into the Mullahs of Iran . . . wait a minute, this administration never followed through with the latter, did it?

Note what I wrote:

If you think that Bush is intent on turning the country into a military dictatorship, than you'd really think me to be a fascist if you knew the sort of actions I would have taken were I in his shoes.

But what's done is done. Now we can only pray and hope for the best . . . as we are well past the time when this administration had the sort of political capital it needed to decisively confront Syria and Iran and perhaps avoid the more catastrophic conflict that is sure to come.

We should have struck Syria and closed on a single front against Iran three years ago.

I have advocated that from the beginning. My frustration has simply blossomed into exasperation.

[Longhorn_Platinum]

:unsmile: Good luck with that plan, though. We'd no sooner toppled SoDamn, than the nattering nabobs in the media started undermining the war effort. It's hard enough to finish the job in Iraq. Besides, there was no guarantee that we'd win the elections in 2004 & 2006, so getting further entangled in Syria & Iran could have backfired.

[RED]

:unsmile: While others applaud Bluemoon_Rising as being 100% on the money, I disagree with the above statement. We were attacked on 9/11, & Bush had to do something. He did more than Blowjob Billy or any other demonic rat would have done. But, no matter what he did, he would have had to deal with moo-slims, & die-hard devotees of that religion are not rational people. Bush is playing the hand he was dealt as best he can. And when you're playing bridge with a jacks-high hand, you'll be doing well to merely set the opponents's contract; but apparently, many Americans have been expecting him to score a grand slam*.

:unsmile: And it hasn't helped that W has had to fight a two-front war. I don't mean Afghanistan & Eye-rack. I mean the moo-slims & the leftwing nutbags here at home. If it weren't for that latter group, along with their fawning toadies in the media, we could have already finished our job in Eye-rack; & our troops, a few at a time, would already be on their way home for a much-deserved respite.

*Not a mixed metaphor. In bridge, "grand slam" means a contract to win all the tricks.

Look, I'm no genius, but when I found out what Islam is about, you'd have to wonder why anyone could think you could democratize them. We gave them freedom from a tyrant, and what do they do ... kill each other and anyone else around. Trying to lead these people to freedom, is like herding cats.

As far as his enemies in on the left, why did he not confront them. Why didn't he direct his entire administration to? Anyone could see the left is dangerous, not the patriots Bush himself called them. I don't want to hear he didn't have time or any other excuse. His failure to confront these traitors has caused him to lose his credibility, and put more American soldiers in harm's way. I'm not even going to bring up his cockeyed view on illegal immigration.

And there he goes, giving Dan Rather's old buddies an interview so they can make him look like a chump. And believe me, he didn't look good in that interview, either.

[Dilloduck]

Yep. Nobody else (but Vietnamese) claimed Indochina (which is Vietnam). It's hardly surprising that the Vietnamese would have a claim to Vietnam. But only they and the French gave a hoot.

You don't seem to have any sense of proportion. Berlin and Indochina are/were not similar cases and hence cannot be compared to each other, only contrasted. If you don't start making sense quickly I'm not going to discuss this futher with you.

We were in the heart of Germany in strength, having fought our way there; and history (two world wars) made it important that Germany never again be allowed to plunge the world into conflagration. That's why we were there and why it was important TO US to be there.

We weren't in Indochina in strength -- in fact, we were in China and Burma but only passing thru or over Indochina. It was only important to the French that the French be there and to the Vietnamese that the Vietnamese be there, and it didn't matter a bit to us to be there. Our concern was Japan, and we only went elsewhere in the Far East because we couldn't yet reach the Home Islands and those other places were where Japanese soldiers were.

You are assuming that I think that Indochina should have gone the the US. I'm simply saying that the land could have gone back to the Vietnamese just as easily had we supported them. They had every right to assume that the had received the "nod and a wink" agreement that if they assisted the allies in routing the Japanese the would recieve thier indepedence. Apparently others thought so too.

President Roosevelt personally and vehemently advocated independence for Indochina
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/pentagon/pent1.html
With British cooperation, French military forces were reestablished in South Vietnam in September, 1945

Apparently the frogs even needed help to even attempt to reclaim it's former colony.

[Lubbock]

Thank you, LP.

"Played the hand he was dealt," is the best defense to date.

I would like to see anyone do better.

Everyone thinks they know just what they would do, given the job. Everyone has a solution. Everyone could have done it better.

Let me see now . . .

If I had been President, where would I have started?

I know I could certainly have done a better job than George W. Bush . . .

[DesertFox]

you'd have to wonder why anyone could think you could democratize them. We gave them freedom from a tyrant, and what do they do ... kill each other and anyone else around. Trying to lead these people to freedom, is like herding cats. It's a violent culture with a violent religion, but not all Muslims are nut cases. Bush's idea was to hang around long enough to stablize things, so they could see what was possible; but he's had to expend so much effort here at home that it encouraged the nut cases, just as during Vietnam.

Moon's complaint hits the spot right smack in the center: If Bush were going to go to war, as he did, then he should have gone whole hog, torn up the whole damn Middle East including Iran and left them so gasping and bleeding that they couldn't make war on us. But Bush isn't a warrior; he's a politician, and he is now paying the price for half measures.
As far as his enemies in on the left, why did he not confront them. Why didn't he direct his entire administration to? Anyone could see the left is dangerous, not the patriots Bush himself called them.Agreed. That's what all of us here at FreeCon said at the time and what I've been bitching about ever since. Bush has played politics with the Left, and you can't play politics with the Left. The Left is no different from radical Islam -- it hates America and anyone who loves America, and it respects nothing whatsoever that stands in its path. It has no sense of decency, lies, cheats and double crosses to attain its ends and will not stop until America is socialized along European lines. Why Bush still can't see that escapes me.

[RED]

It's a violent culture with a violent religion, but not all Muslims are nut cases.

.

That's yet to be determined in my opinion.

[DesertFox]

You are assuming that I think that Indochina should have gone the the US. I'm simply saying that the land could have gone back to the Vietnamese just as easily had we supported them. Say what? Did you even read where I plainly said that only the French and the Vietnamese cared what happened to Vietnam? Here are my exact words: Nobody else (but Vietnamese) claimed Indochina (which is Vietnam). It's hardly surprising that the Vietnamese would have a claim to Vietnam. But only they and the French gave a hoot. Where in there is even the vaguest hint that Indochina should have gone to the US? What part of "Nobody else (but Vietnamese) claimed Indochina" do you not understand? America never claimed ANY part of Indochina and has never, ever, expressed any wish to HAVE any part of it, and I never said we did.

You're making stuff up, and doing a poor job of it at that.

[DesertFox]

That's yet to be determined in my opinion. I already have determined it. I have Muslim neighbors. They're in the sixties. They dress the old way and speak Arabic but their grandkids and grown kids dress like you and me and speak English and go to our schools and play baseball and eat at Mickey D's. The doctor who did my colonoscopy is also a Muslim, and a damn fine doc who thanks his lucky stars to be here.

[Dilloduck]

Say what? Did you even read where I plainly said that only the French and the Vietnamese cared what happened to Vietnam? Here are my exact words: Where in there is even the vaguest hint that Indochina should have gone to the US? What part of "Nobody else (but Vietnamese) claimed Indochina" do you not understand? America never claimed ANY part of Indochina and has never, ever, expressed any wish to HAVE any part of it, and I never said we did.

You're making stuff up, and doing a poor job of it at that.

Yes and I also showed you where President Roosevelt personally and vehemently advocated independence for Indochina . Sounds like he had quite an interest in it.

I didn't "make up" the pentagon papers.

[DesertFox]

You "made up" that I said the US should have gotten Vietnam, Vietnam. The Pentagon papers had nothing to do with what we're talking about. They happened in the Seventies.

You seem to have trouble keeping up. I'll not continue this with you.

[Tazeeyore]

Unfortunately for America, Vietnam, a police action that we were winning according to Ho Chi himself, was a critical mass turning point in this country. We forgot how to do WAR. If an enemy deserves to be "Thumped", as Bush would say, then thump their ass into oblivion and come home. WAR is meant to destroy everthing and kill every enemy of the offended country. Americans just don't have the will or the tenacity to fight wars because of world opinion. What really irks me is that the world hates us, has always hated us and will always hate us no matter what we do. So I would suggest that if we go to war against any enemy then kick their ass into the nether regions as we are capable of doing and tell the world to piss off. If we send 20,000 more kids into Iraq then we better turn them loose to do what they are trained and capable of doing and damn the world opinion or don't send them at all.

[RED]

I already have determined it. I have Muslim neighbors. They're in the sixties. They dress the old way and speak Arabic but their grandkids and grown kids dress like you and me and speak English and go to our schools and play baseball and eat at Mickey D's. The doctor who did my colonoscopy is also a Muslim, and a damn fine doc who thanks his lucky stars to be here.

If that determines it for you, what can I say other than liberals are liberals first just as Muslims are muslims first.

[Dilloduck]

You "made up" that I said the US should have gotten Vietnam, Vietnam. The Pentagon papers had nothing to do with what we're talking about. They happened in the Seventies.

You seem to have trouble keeping up. I'll not continue this with you.

I cited the Pentagon papers and they DO refer to Viet Nam. Is this treatment some newbie hazing ?

[RED]

Unfortunately for America, Vietnam, a police action that we were winning according to Ho Chi himself, was a critical mass turning point in this country. We forgot how to do WAR. If an enemy deserves to be "Thumped", as Bush would say, then thump their ass into oblivion and come home. WAR is meant to destroy everthing and kill every enemy of the offended country. Americans just don't have the will or the tenacity to fight wars because of world opinion. What really irks me is that the world hates us, has always hated us and will always hate us no matter what we do. So I would suggest that if we go to war against any enemy then kick their ass into the nether regions as we are capable of doing and tell the world to piss off. If we send 20,000 more kids into Iraq then we better turn them loose to do what they are trained and capable of doing and damn the world opinion or don't send them at all.

Amen to all of that. The left has done all they can to feminize America and have instilled political correctness to weaken our leaders. I have to laugh whenever demented libs whine that we've lost respect in the world community. The DIMs would like to model this country after their European counterparts, even as those very same Euros sit by and wait for the Muslims to take over their countries.

[Lubbock]

I was trying to follow the sub-thread [Vietman] because I don't know everything I would like to know about it. I am pretty well versed in WWII history, and Korea. Fox is a great history teacher, and always knows whereof he speaks. [There are a lot of great history teachers here at FC.] I was living in another part of the world when the Vietnam controversy was raging, and we didn't get a lot of US news there. [Ask me sometime about how we got the news of the Kennedy assissanation.]

I was following pretty things pretty good until the Pentagon Papers got thrown into the mix, and now, like Fox, I'm outta here.

Pentagon Papers?

Yes, I know all about Daniel Ellsburg and his psychiatrist.

From Roosevelt, to Truman, to Pentagon Papers.

Some where along the way, I missed the leap and got lost.

Completely.

[Bluemoon_Rising]

:unsmile: Good luck with that plan, though. We'd no sooner toppled SoDamn, than the nattering nabobs in the media started undermining the war effort. It's hard enough to finish the job in Iraq. Besides, there was no guarantee that we'd win the elections in 2004 & 2006, so getting further entangled in Syria & Iran could have backfired.

Did I say three years ago. My mistake. I expected Bush to do more than simply tell the Syrians to stop the flow of arms and insurgents into Iraq roughly three to five months after we toppled Hussein. But he failed to do that. I kept waiting for the administration -- via backwater communications -- to explain to the Syrians that if they failed to heed our warnings, the U.S. would make war on them beginning with a devastating aerial assualt -- sooner rather than later. That's what I would have done.

The Syrians and Iranians have been killing our troops via surrogates.

What has Bush been waiting on? These nations are not nuclear powers? The regimes that rule them are not particularly welcome by a substantial portion of their respective populations.

Did he and Rove really believe that a Repblican president could pacify the leftist establishment with education and prescription-drug initiatives in the meantime?

There's no go-along-and-get-along with the left. There never has been since the 70s.

Bush had the political capital he needed at the time to hold the people's support and confidence. As long as a conservative president has these things, the media is irrelevant. Reagan proved that.

Now, the central problem is not so much an insurgency as it is the bloody internal strife between the indigenous factions of a nation that never got the sort of breathing space it needed to reorganize itself.

It’s a friggin’ mess.

What Americans have forgotten -- as if the first war against Hussein and its aftermath never occurred -- is that having failed to precipitate the overthrow of Hussein’s regime from within, we were locked into an indefinite military presence in order to protect the Kurdish and Shi’ite populations in the north and south of Iraq against genocidal mayhem.

There’s no friggin’ way any decent human being, certainly any real Christian, could have been proud of this nation had we simply up and abandoned them, especially the Kurds.

How long were we supposed to maintain a protective barrier, not only for them, but for the Kuwaitis and the Saudis?

9/11 or no 9/11: we're talkin' unfinished business.

Hussein had to go! And if making Hussein go away and replacing his regime with a stable and reasonably sane government means making war on Syria and Iran then so be it!

Otherwise shut up and just keep enforcing no-fly and demilitarized zones forever.

Dear Lord, get on with it!

[DesertFox]

I cited the Pentagon papers and they DO refer to Viet Nam. Is this treatment some newbie hazing ? You didn't 'cite' the Pentagon Papers. You mentioned them. Mentioning something and citing from it aren't the same thing at all.

What 'treatment'? The insistence that you make sense? No, that has nothing to do with newbies.

Just "referring to Vietnam" doesn't mean it makes sense to bring the Pentagon Papers into this discussion when they have nothing to do with this discussion. Might as well say, "Joe Blow said 'Vietnam' in 1980. There. He referred to Vietnam so he belongs in this discussion." No, he doesn't. Nor do the Pentagon Papers. At least, not so far. You haven't shown why they matter; all you've done is mention them.

You have to make sense or nobody wants to talk with you. You senselessly said that I assumed that you thought that America should get Vietnam after WWII. I said nothing of the kind, made no assumption of the kind, and where you got that idea only you know. It certainly did not follow from what went before in the discussion and therefore made no sense. And neither does just mentioning the Pentagon Papers make sense in this discussion of US policy vis-a-vis Vietnam at the end of WWII. If there's something IN the Pentagon Papers that you want to bring up, then bring it up. Just saying "the Pentagon Papers" doesn't do that.

Do you get it now? Because if you don't, you're not smart enough to talk with anymore about it.

[DesertFox]

Bush has got me good and fed up. Knowing what he knew about how the Vietnam thing went to shit because of half measures and the Left and a traitorous media, he with eyes open went and put us right back into that very situation again. I'd beat the shit out of him if I could. As Moon says, he had the capital to do the job right and he just piddled it away. :flame:

[Dilloduck]

I was trying to follow the sub-thread [Vietman] because I don't know everything I would like to know about it. I am pretty well versed in WWII history, and Korea. Fox is a great history teacher, and always knows whereof he speaks. [There are a lot of great history teachers here at FC.] I was living in another part of the world when the Vietnam controversy was raging, and we didn't get a lot of US news there. [Ask me sometime about how we got the news of the Kennedy assissanation.]

I was following pretty things pretty good until the Pentagon Papers got thrown into the mix, and now, like Fox, I'm outta here.

Pentagon Papers?

Yes, I know all about Daniel Ellsburg and his psychiatrist.

From Roosevelt, to Truman, to Pentagon Papers.

Some where along the way, I missed the leap and got lost.

Completely.

Vietnam arose in the discussion and I suggested that we should have let them have thier independence instead of supporting Frances pitiful attempt to recolonize it. They kicked Japanese ass.

I'm referring to these Pentagon Papers

The Pentagon Papers
Gravel Edition
Volume 1
Chapter I, "Background to the Crisis, 1940-50," pp. 1-52.
(Boston: Beacon Press, 1971)

http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/pentagon/pent1.html

If you actually go to the link you will see that it very clearly mentions US policy towards Indochina ( which I know is where Vietnam is located) post WWII.

Sorry to confuse you.

[RED]

Bush has got me good and fed up. Knowing what he knew about how the Vietnam thing went to shit because of half measures and the Left and a traitorous media, he with eyes open went and put us right back into that very situation again. I'd beat the shit out of him if I could. As Moon says, he had the capital to do the job right and he just piddled it away. :flame:

I agree.

[Bluemoon_Rising]

Bush has got me good and fed up. Knowing what he knew about how the Vietnam thing went to shit because of half measures and the Left and a traitorous media, he with eyes open went and put us right back into that very situation again. I'd beat the shit out of him if I could. As Moon says, he had the capital to do the job right and he just piddled it away. :flame:

Yes. Precisely. Me too. Damn it!

[Longhorn_Platinum]

Lubbock:
Thank you, LP.

"Played the hand he was dealt," is the best defense to date.

I would like to see anyone do better.

:unsmile: Thank you, but RED has a point. W could have done a better job of calling the left on the carpet. But, I guess he hoped diplomacy would work with demonic rats where it failed with moo-slims. He was wrong about that.

[Longhorn_Platinum]

:unsmile: Moon, after we toppled SoDamn Insane, we only had 19 months before the next election. Even after we'd cleaned house in Syria & Iran, we'd only have what, another 16 months, at best, to clean up? And if the war criminal had found a way to steal the 2004 election like Igor almost did, we'd have to leave the job unfinished. You don't think W had his hands full, just trying to finish the job in Iraq, with the libs in this country declaring the war lost, even while we were way ahead? You can be disgusted with him for not doing the job the way you would have, but you can't say with certainty that had he listened to you, we wouldn't still be having problems, especially from the traitors at home.

[Lubbock]

One of the biggest obstacles that GWB has had thrown at him in fighting this War On Terror [of which Iraq is a huge part] is his very own State Department --headed by who? Colin Powell.

Powell has turned out to be one of the biggest disappointments of my life.

Bush can only operate on the information and advice he's given, and Powell was working against Bush from day one.

I truly believe Powell didn't want to be at State. He wanted Defense, and I turly believe he hated Rumsfeld and worked against him.

Powell has a hell of a lot bigger ego than I would have ever believed, and he let his ego get in the way.

Armitage.

Powell knew about Armitage being the leak in the Plame Game, and he sat on it for no other reason than to make one more distraction for GWB, and to help tarnish the administration.

We had one of two way of fighting in Iraq --Try to lead the horse to water and let him understand that he really was thirsty; throw him on the ground and pour water down his gullet by the buckets full.

Go into the vast majority of the Middle East with so much firepower that we leveled everything standing --truly bombed the entire region back to the stone age; or go in with a smaller footprint, causing a lesser amount of destruction, topple Saddam and give the Iraqis a taste of freedom.

In either case, GWB was going to be vilified by the Left. Makes no difference. The Left hate him, and it wouldn't matter if he cured cancer, fed every starving child in Africa, and brought World Peace. The Left hate him, and they would find a way to vilify him.

In retrospect, maybe we should have bombed the region to rubble.

Believe this: At some time in the future, the region will be bombed to rubble, and the United States of America will be the nation that does it.

It's coming.

Radical Islam will have to be dealt with in the only language they understand or accept.

[Longhorn_Platinum]

Lubbock:
elieve this: At some time in the future, the region will be bombed to rubble, and the United States of America will be the nation that does it.

:unsmile: Israël might have a hand in it.

[Lubbock]

Israel may have a hand in it if we haven't so completely abandoned them, and alienated them, and bullied them into capitulation to Hezolaah and Hamas that they've ceased to exist.

[Timberwolf]

Ya hit that nail squarely, Lub....repeatedly.

[DesertFox]

Well said, Lub. I don't agree with all of it, but you're on target with most of it.

[RED]

In either case, GWB was going to be vilified by the Left. Makes no difference. The Left hate him, and it wouldn't matter if he cured cancer, fed every starving child in Africa, and brought World Peace. The Left hate him, and they would find a way to vilify him.



.

Unfortunately, conservatives also have a bone to pick with George Bush. We could have won the Novermber elections, but instead, GW chose to buck his substantial base on the illegal immigration issue because he is no conservative. Had he led those who desperately wanted to follow him, those who had been fighting his battles for 6 years, he would have led the Senate to pass the House's strict border security bill they passed. The left would like us to believe that the war was the only factor in the Republican's defeat. Not in my opinion. I blame Bush with his Amnesty policy and his convoluted leadership. Consequently, the only way we can win in 08 is to have an strong, no nonsense, conservative leader who does not pander to the left, and can inspire untold millions of common sense Americans to come out and vote, to counteract the millions of braindead voters we saw in 06.

[DesertFox]

Which is what I said here (http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/showthread.php?p=508819#post508819) in more detail.

[Joe Btsflk]

Lubbock - your logo is appropriate, GW Bush standing in front of a tattered US flag. The only way it could be more appropriate is if it was a tattered US Constitution. I suppose you neocons don't believe that he called it "just a Goddamned piece of paper!"

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_7779.shtml

He doesn't deny it because it's true!!!

[RED]

Which is what I said here (http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/showthread.php?p=508819#post508819) in more detail.

Is that in response to me? If so, wrong url.

[DesertFox]

Red, it's the right URL. I said in great detail at that URL (What America needs) what you said in your post above.

[DesertFox]

I suppose you neocons don't believe that he called it "just a Goddamned piece of paper!"

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artma...cle_7779.shtml

He doesn't deny it because it's true!!!Joe, go peddle your lunacy somewhere else.

[RED]

The best thing to do about known repetitive agitators, is to put them on your ignore list.

[Lubbock]

Hard Drugs or just plain old Loony Tunes?

Either way it's getting tiresome.

[RED]

Red, it's the right URL. I said in great detail at that URL (What America needs) what you said in your post above.

Got it! ;)

[Joe Btsflk]

Joe, go peddle your lunacy somewhere else.

What's the matter neocons? can't you take it that you are now in a small minority or does the truth about GW Bush upset you? I haven't heard one comment from any of you about his condemning the Constitution as "just a Goddamned piece of paper!" he took an oath to preserve, defend and protect that "Goddamned piece of paper" so what kind of a hypocrit does that make him???

[Naturalized-Texan]

Joe, go peddle your lunacy somewhere else.
Maybe you should just ensure that he peddles his lunacy elsewhere. All he knows how to do is insult FC and lie about President Bush. He is an embarrassment to the conservative movement and should not be tolerated.

[Joe Btsflk]

Maybe you should just ensure that he peddles his lunacy elsewhere. All he knows how to do is insult FC and lie about President Bush. He is an embarrassment to the conservative movement and should not be tolerated.

Yeah, NT! The story is a figment of my imagination. As it is the figment of the news reporter who did the story at the following link:

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_7779.shtml

Why don't you follow the link and read it?

I guess you are afraid of the truth!!!

By the way, who or what is FC

[Joe Btsflk]

OK - so it's FreeConservatives. You shouldn't use acronyms until after you've written out what they are acronyms for.

[Naturalized-Texan]

Yeah, NT! The story is a figment of my imagination. As it is the figment of the news reporter who did the story at the following link:

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_7779.shtml

Why don't you follow the link and read it?
I did read it and it's a pack of lies, and you know it. You and that lying nut you quote are full of :bsflag:

[Joe Btsflk]

I did read it and it's a pack of lies, and you know it. You and that lying nut you quote are full of :bsflag:

OK, if it's a pack of lies, why doesn't GWB come out and condemn it?

He doesn't condemn it because it's true.

Why don't you write him (his office) and ask him if it's true?

I tried to get a response from him or his office a long time ago and they never answered. It's pretty obvious why they didn't answer, THE STORY IS TRUE!

They are trying to do to it what Nixon tried to do about Watergate, cover it up. Trouble is one confidential informant blew the whistle on Nixon. The author of this story claims to have TWO confidential informants, but the major news media hates the Constitution and wants to do away with it so they won't pick up on the story. They call the major news media "liberal" but they are really "socialists" and the Constitution stands in their way of socializing this country so they probably applauded GWB for saying it.

[DesertFox]

You are a kook and you are outta here.

[Rhino]

You beat me to it. What an idiot!

[CountryGent]

You are a kook and you are outta here.

Bravo.....and about time!:biggrin:

[Air-Warrior]

OK, if it's a pack of lies, why doesn't GWB come out and condemn it?

He doesn't condemn it because it's true.

Why don't you write him (his office) and ask him if it's true?

I tried to get a response from him or his office a long time ago and they never answered. It's pretty obvious why they didn't answer, THE STORY IS TRUE!You shouldn't have dropped out of high school ya goober!

If someone claims that Bush is a space alien...does Bush's failure to respond to that nonsense categorically mean that GWB is indeed from another planet? :rolleyes:

Nevermind, your slackjawed self has been banned. 3 cheers!

[Lubbock]

Sixteen years old at the most.

Probably out of school due to the Global Warming that's hit the Midwest.

[Naturalized-Texan]

You are a kook and you are outta here.
Thanks. If there is a way to delete or hide all his posts, please do so.

[Longhorn_Platinum]

Joe Btsflk:
I haven't heard one comment from any of you about his condemning the Constitution as "just a G**damned piece of paper!"

:nono: That's a bald-faced lie. I responded, & you didn't respond to me.

[Lubbock]

And now he's banned.

Hehehehehehe . . .

[RED]

:nono: That's a bald-faced lie. I responded, & you didn't respond to me.

Joe Bisqwik? He never responded to anything. Just kept making the same two statements over and over. He was a paleo-neanderthal, and he liked Ron Paul. That's enough for me. Ron Paul for President! :roar: :limp:

[DesertFox]

I, too, responded to that silliness, and he never answered me, either. Guess we were all supposed to just take his word for whatever he said and jump off the same cliff he jumped off when he cracked open his skull and the few brains left in there trickled out.