55
   

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

 
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Apr, 2009 04:57 pm
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre,

you're only digging the hole you're in deeper. I cordially invite you to go back to where I posted these pictures. You will find that I posted these pictures without any comment whatsoever.

I did not pretend that those nutjobs were the only ones at the demonstrations. You're accusing me of dishonesty. Apparently completely and utterly incapable to discuss this matter without resorting to falsehoods, accusations and fingerpointing.

These sentences here are nothing but dishonest attacks against me:

Foxfyre wrote:
But for you to pretend that those few are the ONLY ones who showed at the rallies or all or even most of the rallies were like those you picture is where you become totally dishonest.

Foxfyre wrote:
Those who did attend were mostly hard working, decent working people, family people, concerned citizens--those YOU want to pretend weren't there.

Foxfyre wrote:
But if you insist on painting all with the brush you want to paint them with, then at least have the decency to admit that EVERYBODY who ever attended a leftwing rally for any purpose are all racist, hateful, bigoted, meanspirited, facists who would deny anybody any difference of opinion and wish the worst kind of scourge on all who hold anything other than the narrow, ugly opinions that the leftwing hatemongers hold.


I have never claimed that "all racist, hateful, bigoted, meanspirited, facists" speak for you or anybody else other than themselves. That's only the case if you let them. It's your choice whether to ignore this issue and derail the discussion by lying and fingerpointing, or to deal with it and disassociate yourself from these people.
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  3  
Reply Sat 18 Apr, 2009 05:02 pm
evidence of my assertion that bush's administration ordered the studies, not obama or napolitano.

also, evidence that fox is stirring the pot, using nothing but hot air and incorrect info.

DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Apr, 2009 05:06 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

DTOM, No fear; our son lives in the south, and I have many friends there also. One of my oldest friend I met in the service back in the late fifties lives in the south. I've met some good people from the south on my last 26-day cruise on the South Pacific who also happens to live in Austin, and I told them I will call them to invite them for a meal when I visit my son later this year. All good people.


thanks ci. most people in the south are real nice. that's why i get so pissed off at these idiots.
0 Replies
 
Debra Law
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Apr, 2009 05:08 pm
Timothy McVeigh
Convicted Oklahoma City Bomber
March 29, 2001

(CNN) -- Timothy McVeigh was born April 23, 1968 in Pendleton, New York, and grew up in that rural commuity near Buffalo, Niagara and Canada. He was the middle of three children, and the only boy.

His father worked at a nearby General Motors manufacturing plant; his mother worked for a travel agency. His parents separated for a third and final time in 1984.

High school classmates remember him as small, thin and quiet. He became involved in school functions -- football, track, extra-curricular activities -- but after joining them, soon dropped out. He was shy, did not have a girlfriend and did not date. He did not belong to any clique, but seemed to exist on the margins.

McVeigh graduated from high school in June, 1986 and in the fall, entered a two-year business college. He attended only a short time. During that time McVeigh lived at home with his father, worked at a Burger King and drove dilapidated, old cars.

In 1987 he got a pistol permit from Niagara County and a job in Buffalo as a guard on an armored car. A co-worker recalls that McVeigh owned numerous firearms and had a survivalist philosophy -- a tendency to stockpile weapons and food in preparation for what he believed to be the imminent breakdown of society. In 1988 McVeigh and a friend bought 10 acres of rural land and used it as a shooting range.

McVeigh enlisted in the Army in Buffalo in May 1988, and went through basic training at Fort Benning, Georgia. After basic training, his unit was transferred to Fort Riley, Kansas, and became part of the Army's 1st Infantry Division.

McVeigh became a gunner on a Bradley Fighting Vehicle. He was promoted to corporal, sergeant, then platoon leader. Fellow soldiers recalled that McVeigh was very interested in military stuff, kept his own personal collection of firearms and constantly cleaned and maintained them. Other soldiers went into town to look for entertainment or companionship but McVeigh stayed on base and cleaned his guns. During his time in the Army, he also read and recommended to others "The Turner Diaries,"-- a racist, anti-Semitic novel about a soldier in an underground army. A former roommate said that McVeigh would panic at the prospect of the government taking away peoples' guns, but that he was not a racist and was basically indifferent to racial matters.

While at Fort Riley, McVeigh reenlisted in the Army. He aspired to be a member of the Special Forces and in 1990 was accepted into a 3-week school to assess his potential for joining that elite unit. He had barely begun to prepare himself physically for Special Forces training when, in January 1991, the 1st Infantry Division was sent to participate in the Persian Gulf War. As a gunnery sergeant, McVeigh was in action during late February, 1991. Pursuing his desire of joining the Special Forces, he left the Persian Gulf theater early and went to Fort Bragg, North Carolina, where he took a battery of IQ, personality and aptitude tests to qualify for Special Forces. However, his participation in the Persian Gulf War had left him no time to prepare himself physically for the demands of Special Forces training. McVeigh was unable to endure a 90-minute march with a 45-pound pack, and he withdrew from the program after two days.

This disappointing experience left him facing years of active service due to his reenlistment at Fort Riley. The Army was downsizing however, and after 3 1/2 years of service, McVeigh took the offer of an early discharge and got out of the military in the fall of 1991.

By January 1992, at age 24, McVeigh was back where he had started, living with his father in Pendleton, New York, driving an old car and working as a security guard.

In January 1993 McVeigh left Pendleton, and began to travel, moving himself and his belongings about in a series of battered old cars. He lived in cheap motels and trailer parks, but also stayed with two Army buddies, Michael Fortier in Kingman, Arizona, and Terry Nichols in Decker, Michigan.

McVeigh traveled to Waco, Texas during the March-April 1993 standoff between the Branch Davidians and federal agents, and was said to have been angry about what he saw. He sold firearms at a gun show in Arizona and was heard to remark on one weapon's ability to shoot down an ATF helicopter.

Although both Arizona and Michigan are host to militant anti-tax, anti-government, survivalist and racist groups, there is no evidence that he ever belonged to any extremist groups. He advertised to sell a weapon in what is described as a virulently anti-Semitic publication. After renting a Ryder truck that has been linked to the Oklahoma City bombing, McVeigh telephoned a religious community that preaches white supremacy, but no one there can remember knowing him or talking to him. His only known affiliations are as a registered Republican in his New York days, and as a member of the National Rifle Association while he was in the Army.

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/03/29/profile.mcveigh/
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Apr, 2009 05:09 pm
@DontTreadOnMe,
DTOM, It's amazing isn't it? They charge Obama for something Bush started.
I'd like to see those conservatives show us any evidence that Obama has made any indication of stopping free speech. Bet they can't do it; all hot empty air is spot on!
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Apr, 2009 05:30 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

DTOM, It's amazing isn't it? They charge Obama for something Bush started.
I'd like to see those conservatives show us any evidence that Obama has made any indication of stopping free speech. Bet they can't do it; all hot empty air is spot on!


yeah. i'm sitting here waiting for evidence of that to be posted. maybe i'll make a sammich, have a nap, wash the car, clean my gun, paint the house, learn to speak tagalog and plan my sixtieth birthday party while i wait.

i doubt i'll be interrupted by that post. Very Happy

0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Apr, 2009 06:47 pm
MY TEA PARTY ARGUMENT
The Bush administration spent billions of dollars per year in their violation of the Constitution of the USA.

The Obama administration is in the process of spending trillions of dollars per year in their violation of the Constitution of the USA.

We have tolerated this criminal activity long enough. Our federal government is mortgaging our children's and grandchildren's futures with their criminal activity.

Article I. ... Section 8. specifies the only powers and the limited powers the Constitution grants to the federal government to enable it "to provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States." Any members of the federal government who exercise powers other than these in order "to provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States," are criminals violating the "supreme law of the land."

ANOTHER'S TEA PARTY ARGUMENT
Quote:
Where Next After Tea Parties?

Written by Bill Wilson
Friday, 17 April 2009 15:18
This is a message from Bill Wilson, President of Americans for Limited Government.

It was a great day! While the controlled-media did everything in its power to ignore or ridicule the hundreds of Tea Parties across America, their disdain was only matched by ours for them. They had no effect.

But now that April 15 has come and gone, all of us are faced with essential question; where from here? Individuals proved they have the ability to pull off important events. Average citizens have shown they are more than capable of taking action. Now the challenge is to have the seeds that were planted yesterday sprout and begin to grow into a true movement that will take back the country.

There will be no end to the plans and suggestions. Politicians, no matter how good their intentions, will want to capture the energy unleashed for their own personal purposes. This needs to be avoided. The second the Tea Party Movement becomes an adjunct of any politician, it is dead. There will be national organizations that want to harness the movement and claim it as their own. This is a sure fire way to irrelevance.

And, there will be countless number of people looking to turn the entire affair into a “business opportunity”. These folks should be avoided at all costs.
The true power of the effort, the true potential of the Tea Parties, lies with the local organizers, the local people who showed up, the local focus. That cannot be given up for 30 pieces of silver or a handful of magic beans.

But the issue remains, how is yesterday turned into something that can grow and prepare to restore Constitutional government? The answer I believe is to seek out those things that can be done on a local level, to benefit local citizens and begin the hard work of actually doing them.

American Majority has excellent training programs that can assist local leaders find and elect right-thinking people to local governments. What can local officials do? Plenty. Local officials can demonstrate what happens when taxes are reduced and government spending is cut to the bone. They can openly resist the imposition of the Federal government and force the courts to better define and reinstitute real separation of powers. And, they become the farm team, the generation of candidates that will run America when the current regime is but a bad memory.

We, at Americans for Limited Government, stand ready to assist with information on local initiative rules and opportunities " proposals that shut done the illicit “pay to play” scams, reassert real property rights, term limits, tax limitation and a host of others. It is not for us to decide what you do but we can supply ideas, background research and extensive experience on how to implement the ideas the local units want to pursue.

Eric Hofer wrote, “All great movements start as a cause, evolve into a business and end up a racket.” It is up to each of us individually to keep the movement a cause, a calling to the higher goal of the restoration of Constitutional government. And it is up to each of us to not allow the movement to sink into the same black hole of “racket” that has plagued the GOP and brought us to where we are today.

0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Apr, 2009 09:13 pm
@Debra Law,
Thats old news, Debra.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  0  
Reply Sun 19 Apr, 2009 01:47 pm
Bush tried multiple times to get Congress, including Chris Dodd and Barney Frank, to fix the 2FMs before it was too late. That failed multiple time. Bush then failed to take the issue to the public agressively enough, thereby failing again.

BO (i.e., Barack Obama) is making the 2FMs plus even worse. BO is thereby failing 5 times worse than Bush failed.
cicerone imposter
 
  0  
Reply Sun 19 Apr, 2009 02:03 pm
@ican711nm,
Wrong again, iron pants:

Quote:
washingtonpost.com
Is Bush Losing Congress?

By Dan Froomkin
Special to washingtonpost.com
Thursday, September 29, 2005; 12:09 PM

His second-term agenda is in shambles. His spending plan for Hurricane Katrina has torn his party apart. Support for his increasingly unpopular war is eroding. His political capital is spent.

And now he's lost his Hammer.

For President Bush, who was already seeing his influence wane in Congress, yesterday's indictment of Rep. Tom DeLay -- forcing the iron-fisted House majority leader to step down from his leadership post -- was an enormous blow.

Furthermore, DeLay's troubles add to the sense that the Republican Party and the White House are under siege, plagued by missteps and ethics scandals.
Breakup of a Power Couple

Dan Balz explains the stakes in The Washington Post: "Since the fall of House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) in 1998, no two Republicans have been more responsible for the GOP's recent electoral and legislative successes than DeLay and President Bush, a power tandem whose strengths have complemented one another repeatedly. Bush has been the party's public face, direction-setter and most effective campaigner. But in Washington, DeLay has been an iron force who bent the system to his will and priorities.

"Over the years, DeLay raised and moved vast sums of money to buttress GOP candidates, kept the party's often-narrow majority together to move a Bush agenda that drew little Democratic support and changed the terms by which K Street lobbyists did business with Congress."

But now, a sea change.

"On almost every front, Republicans see trouble. Bush is at the low point of his presidency, with Iraq, hurricane relief, rising gasoline prices and another Supreme Court vacancy all problems to be solved."

And, Balz writes: "What worries Republicans is the confluence of a large number of scandals when Bush and the GOP Congress are at the weakest point in years. In the same fortnight as DeLay's indictment and [Senate Majority Leader Bill] Frist coming under an ethics cloud, David H. Safavian was arrested in connection with the Abramoff investigation days after resigning as the government's top procurement officer."

How could it possibly get worse?

"Finally, the special counsel investigation into whether White House senior adviser Karl Rove or others in the administration broke the law by leaking the name of the CIA's Valerie Plame is nearing a conclusion."


ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Apr, 2009 03:54 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Wrong again, panty hose!

GB (i.e., George Bush) tried multiple times to get the Democrat Congress, including Chris Dodd and Barney Frank, to fix the 2FMs before it was too late. Those attempts failed multiple times. GB then failed to take the issue to the public agressively enough to cause the Democrat Congress to fix the sFMs, thereby failing again.

BO (i.e., Barack Obama) is making the 2FMs even worse. BO is thereby in the process of failing 5 times worse than GB failed.

GB's budget deficit over 8 years was less than 2 trillion, or on average about 0.25 trillion per year.

BO has promised to surpass that average by at least a factor of 5.

Hoover in 1932 tried to end the depression he started by raising taxes, increasing tariffs, and increasing budget deficits.

That did not work!

Roosevelt, 1933 to 1940, tried to end the depression Hoover started by raising taxes, retaining high tariffs, and increasing budget deficits.

That did not work!

Carter kept high taxes and high tariffs that led to Carter's recession.

Reagan ended Carter's recession by reducing taxes, lowering tariffs, and increasing spending.

That did work!

GB reduced the recession by 2007, that followed to 2003 Clinton's raising taxes, by reducing taxes. But afterwards in 2008, GB's 2FM failures cited above, created a new recession.

Now BO thinks he can end GB's recession by doing what failed for Hoover, Roosevelt, Carter, and by magnifying GB's 2FM failures.

BO is incompetent!
parados
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Apr, 2009 06:03 pm
@ican711nm,
Quote:
GB's budget deficit over 8 years was less than 2 trillion, or on average about 0.25 trillion per year.

Where did you get your numbers from?
It seems you don't know when budgets are signed and by whom.
Bush's budgets are not 2001-2008. They are 2002-2009. The projected deficit for 2009 is 1.5 trillion. Fiscal year 2009 started in Oct of 2008. While you can try to blame some of the spending on Obama you can't put it all on him.


Quote:


BO has promised to surpass that average by at least a factor of 5.
Even if we blame Obama for all of 2009 and give Bush credit for all of the 2001 budget (which was passed under Clinton prior to Bush's tax cuts) it isn't a factor of 5.

2001-2008 total deficit is 1.958
2009-2016 total projected deficit is 7.549

As usual ican, your math seems to be rather fuzzy. I only come up with a factor of 3.85 not the 5 you are claiming.
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Apr, 2009 06:24 pm
@ican711nm,
The Dems had zero power until 2007. Up to then, the Reps had control of all three branches of the govt. People like Dodd and Frank only had their own votes, but no power. Even in 2007 and 2008, the Dems had no power to initiate since the senate was Rep controlled, and Bush had a veto power that could not be overrriden. I am surprised at you.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Apr, 2009 06:46 pm
@Advocate,
ican usually bases his opinion on his own imagination and sources that are not credible.

Any simpleton should know that the republicans controlled both the administration and congress since 2000 through 2006, and could force most initiatives from 2006 to 2008 - which they did, many with democratic votes.

He also seems to forget the simple fact that congress had a lower performance rating than Bush - and that's saying something!

Bush never vetoed anything he didn't like, and most of us who know our history know how many that is. LOL

Quote:
Bush vetoes Iraq spending bill over timelines
President warns withdrawing troops would be ‘prescription for chaos’

Bush vetoes Iraq war supplemental bill
May 1: Congress held a public signing celebration of the Iraq war supplemental bill even as President Bush prepared to veto it. NBC's David Gregory reports, and Tim Russert offers analysis.


msnbc.com and NBC News
updated 5:21 p.m. PT, Tues., May 1, 2007

President Bush used his veto pen for only the second time Tuesday after Congress sent him a war spending bill that would impose timelines to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq, which he called a “prescription for chaos.”
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Apr, 2009 07:10 pm
@Advocate,
Bush attempted to get oversight over both FM's from the Republican controlled Senate and Congress and they blocked it. No matter what Hoover or Roosevelt tried to do, the Feds let interest rate remain high and the money flow to drop to one-third, which is not happening now. Times have changed -- welcome to the 21st Century (which Bush and Co. ignored in favor of riding the 9/11 wave and starting wars they had absolutely no idea they could finish). Revisionist history doesn't work anymore.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Apr, 2009 08:16 pm
@Lightwizard,
Bush never had an exit strategy for Iraq. Also, he gets credited for the "surge," but if he had listened to General Shinseki from the start of the war, he wouldn't have needed the surge five years later.
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Apr, 2009 08:22 pm
@cicerone imposter,
The "surge" was an increase in pay for the various Muslim kingpins to cease siding with insurgents and terrorists. It had nothing to do with more troops.
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Apr, 2009 08:30 pm
@Lightwizard,
Not true. Both factors were important in reducing the level of civil violence.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Apr, 2009 08:32 pm
@Lightwizard,
That probably happened too, but I was one of those who believed our media sources.

Quote:
Bush set to announce U.S. troop surge in Iraq

NBC News
updated 4:55 a.m. PT, Thurs., Jan. 4, 2007


Jim Miklaszewski
Chief Pentagon correspondent

WASHINGTON - Although nothing is final until President Bush puts his stamp on it, administration officials tell NBC News the president has all but decided on a temporary surge of additional American forces into Iraq in an effort to bring sectarian violence in Baghdad under control.

While no one is talking specific numbers, military officials believe it would involve some 20,000 additional soldiers and Marines.

Most of the increase would be achieved by extending the deployments of those troops already in Iraq by 90 days and accelerating the deployments for troops scheduled to deploy by sending them into Iraq sooner.
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Apr, 2009 07:32 am
@Lightwizard,
The reduction in violence was also because the head Shiite, al-Sadr, declared a unilateral truce before there was any surge.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.12 seconds on 05/07/2025 at 03:00:39