IS RUSH A CONSERVATIVE?? WHAT DOES HE CONSERVE?

@OmSigDAVID,

It's only slavery in so much as they're under siege.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

izzythepush wrote:

It's only slavery in so much as they're under siege.

O, so u think that thay r free
to do what thay want, like in a free country ???????????

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

Freer than they were before.

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDavid: My position toward North Korea is not different than
my position toward Persia. You have to remember, Izzy, we are as easily frightened as children. In point of fact, my position is the same when my government raises the specter of any new boogeyman.

0 Replies

@izzythepush,

izzythepush wrote:

Freer than they were before.

Cuba has no freedom whatsoever.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

izzythepush wrote:

David you might like to know that Iran had nothing to do with 9/11.

I have not accused them of that.
Their nuclear threat remains, regardless.
It is not breaking news that thay r intensely anti-American ("the big satan").

izzythepush wrote:

If you unite the Moslem world against America expect lots more 9/11s,

Yea, like it won't happen anyway, right ?
Nothing happened on 9/11/1, because the Moslem world
was not united against us, right??????

izzythepush wrote:

your idea that you can take out Iran is ridiculous.

That is not my idea.
I only wanna annihiliate their nuclear production facilities.
U misunderstood me.

izzythepush wrote:

All you will do is make the world a far more dangerous place for Americans,
and unfortunately those of us in Europe as well. Remember what Churchill said, 'Jaw jaw is better than war war.

U mean the fellow that the socialists fired n threw out of office as soon as he defeated the nazis ?
Your posted filosofy shows little loyalty to HIS. He was brave, courageous & bold! (His mother was an American.)

David

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Quote:

Cuba has no freedom whatsoever.

They have the freedom to not be oppressed by thieving US politicians and gangsters. I know, I know, needless repetition on the two words.

They have the freedom to live, in that they have a lower infant mortality rate than the US.

They have a medical care system that is one of the finest in the world - this even after a half century of terrorist activities perpetrated upon the Cuban people by the US of Terrorism.

0 Replies

@RABEL222,

RABEL222 wrote:

Have you noticed that the ones who are too old to fight in wars
are the ones most in favor of them?

Like Roosevelt in World War II ?

I just don 't wanna get nuked.

David

0 Replies

@ehBeth,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

izzythepush wrote:
An invasion of Iran will make a terrorist attack on the West more likely.
Evidence qua the odds ??

ehBeth wrote:

100% if the U.S. takes military action against Iran . . .

I don 't believe that.

David

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

Don't be ridiculous, Churchill wasn't fired by Socialists, he lost an election, basically because he had no vision for the future, unlike the Labour party. Churchill won the following election, nobody fired him, it's called Democracy. I never realised how much of a problem you had with it.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

izzythepush wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:
izzythepush wrote:
David, why are you so horrified by the prospect of Iran having nuclear weapons, but at the same time quite relaxed about North Korea having them?

I cannot accept your premise, Izzy.
My position toward North Korea is not different than
my position toward Persia.

And since North Korea got nukes, none have gone off in NY have they?

The world responded to North Korea's nukes with crippling sanctions that will not be lifted until they give up their nukes.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

Thomas wrote:
9/11 was an embarrassment of America's national security more than anything else. It didn't even make a dent in America's 2001 murder rate. Not worth giving up ones libertarian principles over.

The intentional slaughter of thousands of civilians is no big deal?

The attacks of 9/11 killed just short of 3,000 people. The US government's ill-advised choice to invade Iraq on fraudulent premises killed 4,000-5,000 Americans and about 100,000 Iraqis. So what, from the perspective of a small-government advocate, is the greater problem: terrorism or big, militaristic government? I say it's big government by at least an order of magnitude. And that doesn't bode well for what David wants America to do in Iran.

4 Replies

@Thomas,

oralloy wrote:

Thomas wrote:
9/11 was an embarrassment of America's national security more than anything else.
It didn't even make a dent in America's 2001 murder rate.
Not worth giving up ones libertarian principles over.

The intentional slaughter of thousands of civilians is no big deal?

Thomas wrote:

The attacks of 9/11 killed just short of 3,000 people.
The US government's ill-advised choice to invade Iraq on fraudulent
premises killed 4,000-5,000 Americans and about 100,000 Iraqis.

I favored deposing Saddam. I 'm glad that we did it,
but that mission was successfully accomplished several years ago,
during W 's Administration. He was too slow to get IN,
and too slow to get OUT, preferring to create democracy there,
which is none of our business. We couda spent that $$ in America.

Thomas wrote:

So what, from the perspective of a small-government advocate, is the greater problem:
terrorism or big, militaristic government?

MORE than anything else,
the reason for the existence of government is defense from aliens.
We shud not follow the citizens of Hiroshima,
at the behest of suicidal Moslems.

Thomas wrote:

I say it's big government by at least an order of magnitude.
And that doesn't bode well for what David wants America to do in Iran.

I disfavor any occupation, unless it is to protect our oil supply.

David

0 Replies

@Rockhead,

They're not only weak minded, but are robots who has no mind of their own.

0 Replies

@Thomas,

Quote:

The US government's ill-advised choice to invade Iraq on fraudulent premises killed 4,000-5,000 Americans and about 100,000 Iraqis. So what, from the perspective of a small-government advocate, is the greater problem: terrorism or big, militaristic government? I say it's big government by at least an order of magnitude. And that doesn't bode well for what David wants America to do in Iran.

THe take away from our post 9/11 response is that those repubs who claim that government cant do anything right have had their argument strengthened. The american government consistently bungles its day job both at home and abroad even as it relentlessly drills for more power.

0 Replies

@izzythepush,

izzythepush wrote:

Don't be ridiculous, Churchill wasn't fired by Socialists, he lost an election,
basically because he had no vision for the future, unlike the Labour party.

GEEEEEEEEeeeeez, Izzy! ` EVERY voting socialist fired Churchill,
as soon as he won the war for England!

Surviving nazis must have gotten a good chuckle out of THAT !

Likely, Stalin enjoyed that profoundly, too!

The English voters tickled the nazis and the commies at the same time!

izzythepush wrote:

Churchill won the following election, nobody fired him, it's called Democracy.

The socialists still fired Churchill, NO MATTER WHAT u call it.

David

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

oralloy wrote:
Thomas wrote:
9/11 was an embarrassment of America's national security more than anything else. It didn't even make a dent in America's 2001 murder rate. Not worth giving up ones libertarian principles over.

The intentional slaughter of thousands of civilians is no big deal?

The attacks of 9/11 killed just short of 3,000 people. The US government's ill-advised choice to invade Iraq on fraudulent premises killed 4,000-5,000 Americans and about 100,000 Iraqis.

I am skeptical of the 100,000 number. Collateral damage wouldn't have been more than 10,000. Could we have killed 90,000 enemy fighters in Iraq? I suspect not.

In any case, there is a huge qualitative difference between "a war that kills thousands of fighters" and "the intentional slaughter of thousands of civilians".

The intentional massacre of civilians outweighs any possible number of soldiers killed in combat.

Even collateral damage is not in the same league as the intentional massacre of innocents.

Thomas wrote:

So what, from the perspective of a small-government advocate, is the greater problem: terrorism or big, militaristic government? I say it's big government by at least an order of magnitude.

I am not a small government advocate. I do like the Libertarians when it comes to their views on civil rights. But so long as civil rights are enforced, I like my government BIG.

Thomas wrote:

And that doesn't bode well for what David wants America to do in Iran.

Well, it's pretty obvious that Iran is going to have to be bombed sometime soon.

There are also some important deadlines that we won't want to miss. For instance, there are reactors that we need to bomb. If we blow them up after they start operating, it will cause meltdowns that will make Chernobyl look like a minor event.

0 Replies

@Thomas,

As a thawt experiment, Tom:
how 'd u feel regarding your pacifistic posting, the day after
the Moslems put a mini-nuke on a sailboat and detonated it
by remote control or on a timer, as it approached, floating up toward an American port ?

2 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

What if we flew a couple of B52's to the country responsible, and dropped a couple of thermonukes?

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

I would feel pretty bad. But then again, the US hasn't ruled out using nuclear weapans against Iran either. (Some circles appear to be quite fond of nuclear bunker busters.) So if your thought experiment suggested to me that America should get tough on Iran, it would also suggest to an Iranian that Iran should get tough on the USA. Fortunately, it's all hypothetical, because there's no evidence at all that the Iranians are planning such a thing.

2 Replies

IS RUSH A CONSERVATIVE?? WHAT DOES HE CONSERVE?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know