🚀 go-pugleaf

Jon wrote:

>Uncle Samuel <Stars@Stripes.USA> wrote in message news:<_4Pfd.4027082$6p.671009@news.easynews.com>...
>  
>
>>Ryan Lankford, Libertarian Warrior wrote:
>>    
>>
>>>On Wed, 27 Oct 2004, Uncle Samuel <Stars@Stripes.USA> wrote
>>>      
>>>
>>>>this is a war on terror - Bush can win it.
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>The same way he's "winning" in Iraq?
>>>Or the same way he's captured Osama bin Laden.
>>>      
>>>
>>Likely dead, like 75% of the rest of al Qaeda's top brass.
>>    
>>
>
>Apparently not, since he and his number two man are both making new
>videos.
>http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_31-10-2004_pg7_30
>
>"the most obvious message of Friday's videotape is that bin Laden is
>alive and well. Ayman al-Zawahiri, also released a videotape last
>month, which aired on the third anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. The
>fact that both of al Qaeda's leaders have recently had the leisure to
>make videotaped statements suggest that they are feeling secure,
>wherever it is that they are hiding.
>
>Bush screwed up in Afghanistan.  He took his eye off the ball--
>shutting down Al Qaeda-- and decided to go off and invade somewhere
>else before he was done.
>
>
>
>  
>
    It took 10 years to get the Unibomber and 10 years to get that 
Russell guy who was hitting abortion clinics and they were right here in 
this country,. Then, it took how long to get Hitler and even still, we 
can only speculate on that because we have never seen his remains. What 
you want to do is spew more Bush hate. Your argument, 'go off and invade 
somewhere else before he was done' could be said about our intervention 
into Germany on D-Day where we lost 20,000 in one day while we were 
still fighting Japan.
    Your problem and the problem of the thinking process of those like 
you is that you have yet to realize that we are fighting a war with no 
boarders.... Terrorism. So, by your definition, every country we enter 
is a different war. By your flawed thought process, you would suggest we 
have no right preventing a terrorist act, only a right to respond to a 
terrorist act. You liken terrorism to domestic criminal activity and not 
that of an act of war. You have failed to recognize an enemy who flies 
the flag of Jihad, one that has no boarders or allegiance to any one 
nation's flag.
    You have not understood a thing about the virus effect the terrorist 
ideology has over nations and how consuming they can be in their 
influence over other nations.
You want an us against them against us type of campaign where it is 
nation against nation because you can pick it apart where as an 
theo-idological campaign might require going beyond the boarders.
    You cry out in stupidity that Bush has spread our military to thin 
yet you fail to indict your leftist in government heads who 'loathes' 
the military complex so they move to destroy it by stripping it of 
709,000+ active duty personnel and a third of the military installations 
used to facilitate them.
    You cry out in stupidity that Bush has failed to understand how to 
effectively employ our intelligence community yet it was a past 
administration that tied the hands of our intelligence community 
rendering them incapable of doing a competent job. I believe it was H. 
Clinton and M. Albright who gave the Yemen US Ambassador authority 
(unofficially blessed her decisions) to stand in the way of allowing US 
investigators on the ground in Yemen and went as far as to not honor the 
chief investigator's passport a visa stamp into Yemen to follow al Qaeda 
leads connecting it too the USS Cole bombing.
    I, for one, can see beyond your blindness because I understand hate 
and an the effect it has on your thinking. Because of your nearly 
uncontrollable hate for Bush, you refuse to consider or even consider to 
consider the possibility that there is a greater enemy out there and it 
has been peeking its ugly head over the horizon for years and it claims 
no nation of its own but has no problem hijacking a nation's politics 
ala Afghanistan to set up bases of operation. You are quick to endorse 
the discontent of those who vie to have us eliminated in the name of 
their theo-idological beliefs but you will not even consider for one 
moment that you just might be wrong about our national leaders faced 
with dealing with things like... oh... falling buildings.
    I thank God every day for living in a nation where we openly oppose 
those who are incapable of rightful discernment.
klinjefferson@hotmail.com (FranklinJefferson) wrote in message 
news:<735b8de2.0410251656.2a9746c4@posting.google.com>...

>>>>A Contrarian View: Why conservatives should not support Bush.
>>>>
>>>>One reason that conservatives have had for supporting the candidacy of
>>>>George W. Bush is not that they favor Mr. Bush (many of us have grave
>>>>reservations about his policies) but that they worry about a Democrat
>>>>victory presaging a sharp turn of the country to the left.  But this
>>>>is an unfounded fear: it's simply not going to occur.  The Reagan
>>>>revolution happened, and, regardless of who is elected in November,
>>>>it's not about to be undone.
>>>> Actually, a Democrat winning the presidency in November would have
>>>>remarkably little effect on policy.  Republicans hold both houses of
>>>>Congress, and that's not about to change-- in fact, the best estimates
>>>>are that the Republican majority in both the house and the senate will
>>>>increase.  Liberal or not, a Democrat president isn't going to effect
>>>>any changes that won't first take a thorough Republican scrubbing.
>>>> There are, in fact, many advantages in having the president and the
>>>>Congress elected from opposite parties, and it's argued that America
>>>>is strongest when they are.  The congress can serve as an effective
>>>>anchor on presidential excess, and a skeptical president can cut the
>>>>worst of congressional pork-barrel spending.  I am not one to argue
>>>>that the government shouldn't be trusted... but when one party
>>>>controls the government's purse strings, without anybody watching out,
>>>>congress always seems to see the public treasury as a great big candy
>>>>store.  That's when you see pork-barrel spending running out of
>>>>control.  (It's worth noting that the budget surplus the later part of
>>>>the Clinton administration came from a Democrat president held firmly
>>>>in check by a Republican congress.)
>>>> But the main reason that conservatives shouldn't support Mr. Bush is
>>>>very simple: George W. Bush is not a conservative.  When you ignore
>>>>his talk, and looking at what he has actually done, you see that over
>>>>and over again, George W. Bush has betrayed every ideal that the
>>>>conservative movement has.
>>>> The heart and soul of the conservative thinking is fiscal
>>>>conservatism: the government should be responsible for how it spends
>>>>money.  The conservative economic view has always been very simple:
>>>>balance the budget, and quit deficit spending.  That idea somehow went
>>>>out the window when George W. Bush was elected (in fact, suddenly we
>>>>are even hearing how deficit spending is somehow good for the nation.)
>>>> What happened to the "lock box," where George Bush said he would put
>>>>the budget surplus to save it for social security?  The instant he got
>>>>elected, he seems to have forgotten his promise.
>>>> The fact is, George W. Bush has run up a record budget deficit-- the
>>>>largest deficit in history.  And, before you say that terrorism and
>>>>the response to the 9/11 atrocity is the source of the unexpected
>>>>budget deficit-- look at the data.   Only a small portion of the Bush
>>>>deficit can be tagged to the 9/11 terrorists.  Bragging about
>>>>"cutting" taxes while actually increasing government spending at the
>>>>same time isn't really a tax cut; it's just increasing the tax next
>>>>year.  America is about our children, and leaving our children and
>>>>grandchildren in debt is not what we mean by "family values."
>>>> The heart of America is our business.  Americans aren't afraid to
>>>>work... but where are the jobs?  A conservative president should be a
>>>>pro-business president, but in fact rather than helping business,
>>>>American businesses are going out of business; and the ones that are
>>>>staying in business are shipping jobs oversees.  No matter what Mr.
>>>>Bush's advisors may think, ramping up the deficit is not helping the
>>>>economy.
>>>>Mr. Bush says that education is his priority.  This is excellent, but
>>>>is the federal government really the right place to reform our
>>>>schools?  Education needs to be done at the local level-- right at the
>>>>level of homes and families-- and not by big-government mandate.  The
>>>>"no child left behind" laws, stripped of rhetoric, consist of nothing
>>>>except new  government-mandated standardized tests-- another unfunded
>>>>mandate from Washington that our states and cities have to pay for. 
>>>>Teaching children how to do well on standardized tests-- is what we
>>>>want to teach our children?  When did conservatism start believing
>>>>that the government in Washington is the right place to run our
>>>>schools?
>>>> The conservative world view is that the era of Big Government is
>>>>over. Ronald Reagan knew that, and for that matter, so did President
>>>>George H. W. Bush.  But the younger Bush just hasn't gotten the
>>>>message.
>>>> Iraq.  It goes without saying that America needs to be strong, and
>>>>that we should use every means of defending ourselves against those
>>>>who detest our freedom and despise our way of life.   Destroying the
>>>>Taliban, the stronghold of the Al Qaida terrorists, was necessary and
>>>>unavoidable; it was required for the defense of America.  But invading
>>>>Iraq? Long ago, John Quincy Adams wrote, "Wherever the standard of
>>>>freedom shall be unfurled, there will [America's] heart, her
>>>>benedictions, and her prayers be.  But she goes not abroad in search
>>>>of monsters to destroy."  It doesn't matter how loathsome a dictator
>>>>Saddam Hussein was; America should go to war only with great
>>>>reluctance, and as a matter of last resort.  America isn't in the
>>>>business of nation building.  Once, even George W. Bush understood
>>>>that.  During a debate with then-Vice President Al Gore in 2000, Mr.
>>>>Bush said: "I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's
>>>>called nation-building . . .. Maybe I'm missing something here.  I
>>>>mean, we're going to have a kind of nation-building corps from
>>>>America? Absolutely not."   Apparently to Mr. Bush, it depends on what
>>>>the meaning of "absolutely not" is.
>>>> And fear of terrorism is no reason to erode our liberty. 
>>>>Conservative leader Pat Buchanan said, "It is remarkable how
>>>>complacent Americans seem to be, as our freedoms are gradually
>>>>restricted, and more and more power and wealth flow to Big Government
>>>>to protect us from terrorists."  Do we really need the 342-page
>>>>Patriot Act, to protect us from terrorism by giving the government
>>>>more rights?  Has we finally become a place where American citizens
>>>>can be picked up and held without lawyer and without charges,
>>>>indefinitely?  It is worth quoting Benjamin Franklin:  "They who would
>>>>give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither
>>>>liberty or security. "  When did we decide that we prefer our security
>>>>to our liberty?
>>>> A final reason why conservatives should not support Mr. Bush is that,
>>>>quite frankly, he is not merely destroying the credibility of the
>>>>Republican party, he is damaging the credibility of conservatives,
>>>>period.  Is Bush really the person who we want the world to view as
>>>>the public image of conservatism?  For the last twenty years, Ronald
>>>>Reagan has been the image of conservatism in American.  Do we want
>>>>George W. Bush to be the intellect who will shape conservatism for the
>>>>next  twenty years?  Conservatism can survive a term of  Mr. Kerry as
>>>>president-- it may even make us stronger and more focussed.  But can
>>>>conservatism survive another term of Mr. Bush?
>>>> No one will deny that Mr. Kerry is a liberal.  But even if he wins
>>>>the presidency, he will find a solid Republican Congress, and an
>>>>America united.  He is no threat to America.
>>>> Bush, a wolf in sheep's clothing, is eroding our economy, our
>>>>liberty, and the very standing of our nation in the world.  His words
>>>>say that he is a conservative.  His actions, on the other hand, say
>>>>exactly the opposite.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Recommended reading:
>>>>Where the Right Went Wrong: How Neoconservatives Subverted the Reagan
>>>>Revolution and Hijacked the Bush Presidency, by Pat Buchanan
>>>>
>>>>American Conservative magazine:
>>>>http://www.amconmag.com/2004_11_08/cover1.html
>>>>War without end: http://www.theamericancause.org/patthecheney.htm
>>>>The Case against Empire:
>>>>http://www.theamericancause.org/caseagainst.htm
>>>>The war party http://www.theamericancause.org/patthewarpartys.htm
>>>>http://www.americandaily.com/article/4687
>>>>        
>>>>