The George Bush Loyalty Quiz.

[Brother John]

To do that, John, he has to agree to read the best reasoned arguments of the opposing viewpoint. Even better, I'd suggest conservative Republicans read the anti-Bush arguments put forth by those on the Right...like those at American Conservative Magazine. Try this on for size if you consider yourself one of those so enlightened:

http://www.amconmag.com/2004_11_08/cover1.html

Even Buchanan, who supported Bush, is scathing in his crticisms.
Mr. Bush was led up the garden path. And the returns from his mid-life conversion to neoconservatism are now in:
• A guerrilla war in Iraq is dividing and bleeding America with no end in sight. It carries the potential for chaos, civil war, and the dissolution of that country.

• Balkanization of America and the looming bankruptcy of California as poverty and crime rates soar from an annual invasion of indigent illegals is forcing native-born Californians to flee the state for the first time since gold was found at Sutter’s Mill.

• A fiscal deficit of 4 percent of GDP and merchandise trade deficit of 6 percent of GDP have produced a falling dollar, the highest level of foreign indebtedness in U.S. history, and the loss of one of every six manufacturing jobs since Bush took office.
If Bush loses, his conversion to neoconservatism, the Arian heresy of the American Right, will have killed his presidency.
As I'm not in his choir, I don't accept much of what Pat writes. Others might. Check the link for more.
Regards,
Steve

Me either.
I'm not in Buchanan's little corner of conservatism. If you really listen to Pat, the only people that make the best conservatives are President Nixon, President Reagan and himself...and he's the only going concern out of the three now.

I did read the article, and it didn't say anything to me except that the author is very opinionated and doesn't agree with Bush. A great deal of what the author put forward as fact was infact nothing but inuendo and hearsay, speculation and subjective opinion...laced, as most propaganda is, with a light salting of fact to make it palatable.

Ya know what, I don't agree with Bush on topics either. I do not agree with some of his stances on things... but overall, he was, I feel, the better pick.

Please don't think that Pat Buchanan speaks for Republicans, he seldom speaks for more than just himself.

Your Brother
John

 

[Brother John]

I was merely pointing out the logical implications of your statements --- using direct quotations, I might add. If you believe you may have misspoken, or said something you didn't actually intend, then merely say so. Its a simple matter.

Oh, I wish it were a 'simple matter', unfortunately...you've mixed the whole thing up. I made a statement in jest, that 51% of the people agreed with me.
OR DOURSE I KNOW that not 51% of the US citizenry agrees with me. That would be rediculous. LOTS do though, obviously. But that doesn't matter. I made a lighthearted poke... I didn't mean for you to get your panties in a bunch and start number crunching.
I did not misspeak, you distorted. I don't care if you used quotations, it doesn't make a difference.
I stated exactly what I intended to state, you took it wrong due to (I think) your heavily emotion-charged bias to disbelieve anything a conservative might say.
Listen, this is all way out of hand for just having made a flipant little comment.
If it bothers you, deal with it.
I think that this little mole hill you are fighting for is worthy of you...

I concede... :idunno: :whip:


Your Brother
John

 

[hardheadjarhead]

I did read the article, and it didn't say anything to me except that the author is very opinionated and doesn't agree with Bush. A great deal of what the author put forward as fact was infact nothing but inuendo and hearsay, speculation and subjective opinion...laced, as most propaganda is, with a light salting of fact to make it palatable.

God forbid a pundit should be opinionated, much less very much so.

What the author put forward was not, in fact, hearsay. Scott McConnell writes:

The launching of an invasion against a country that posed no threat to the U.S., the doling out of war profits and concessions to politically favored corporations, the financing of the war by ballooning the deficit to be passed on to the nation’s children, the ceaseless drive to cut taxes for those outside the middle class and working poor: it is as if Bush sought to resurrect every false 1960s-era left-wing cliché about predatory imperialism and turn it into administration policy....In Europe and indeed all over the world, he has made the United States despised by people who used to be its friends, by businessmen and the middle classes, by moderate and sensible liberals. Never before have democratic foreign governments needed to demonstrate disdain for Washington to their own electorates in order to survive in office. The poll numbers are shocking.

This isn't hearsay--these are the foundations of the arguments against Bush that both the Right and Left (odd bedfellows that they be) hold against him. Saying it is hearsay when these issues have been trotted out to the public for the last three years is silly and ineffectual. Pick any one of them and debate it in a separate thread (which has been allready done in most cases) and see how it plays. You'll find it difficult to counter the evidence brought against you.

As for it being propoganda--please tell me why a writer for American Conservative Magazine would embrace Liberal propoganda themes in argument against a sitting Republican President.

Why would four former Republican governors and a former Republican Senator openly endorse John Kerry? Why would Don Devine, a vice president of the American Conservative Union, refuse to shake Bush's hand at a speech this year? There is a growing list of well-placed conservatives who are opposing this administration--all victims of leftist propoganda? Since when did THAT become fashionable?

And what of this Republican civil war we hear tell of? Mere rumor?

Ya know what, I don't agree with Bush on topics either. I do not agree with some of his stances on things... but overall, he was, I feel, the better pick.

Which was what Buchanan said, if you read his article. He supported Bush, with reservations. His complaints are outlined in the article and his two books published in the last year or so. To say he is merely out for himself is an ad hominem attack, Brother John. You'll have to do better than that and get to the meat of the issues here.



Regards,


Steve

 

[rmcrobertson]

"I didn't mean for you to get your panties in a bunch and start number crunching.
I did not misspeak, you distorted. I don't care if you used quotations, it doesn't make a difference.
I stated exactly what I intended to state, you took it wrong due to (I think) your heavily emotion-charged bias to disbelieve anything a conservative might say.
Listen, this is all way out of hand for just having made a flipant little comment.
If it bothers you, deal with it.
I think that this little mole hill you are fighting for is worthy of you..."

O, moderators....hello....?

Peruse latest copy of "US NEWS and World Report." The guy on the front cover is William F. Buckley. he and George Will, and a buncha other conservatives, are not pleased about our splendid little war.

 

[Flatlander]

Hi Robert. The Mod staff is here. We are monitoring. You may use the Report to Mod function if you would like to report a post. :asian:

 

[Brother John]

God forbid a pundit should be opinionated, much less very much so.

That's why I don't listen to them without a huge grain of salt! Their strong bias is just as blaringly clear as that of any other pundit. It's what they do. It's also why I don't go to them and swallow what they have to say as true.
Not Hannity, Not Limbaugh (sp?) not Franken, not Moore...not any of them.

What the author put forward was not, in fact, hearsay.

Sure, it wasn't ALL hearsay... that's true. But there was a good strong healthy dose of it I think.

I do like to observe what the politicians say and then juxtapose that with their later actions/words, or those of their political allies. I think it's very enlightening.

For instance: it seems that you are putting forward (here and/or previously) that:
#1: G.W. Bush lied about the intelligence that Saddam had WMD or was seeking their creation. In fact it was recently put forth that Republicans may be ignorant and ill-informed because many believe that Iraq (pre-invasion) had weapons of mass destruction or was building up the capacity to create same.
Try these ignorant, ill-informed statements on for size then:

“Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation … And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction… So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real …”
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan.23.2003

Wow.
So in McConnells article that you put out there, he states that President Bush launched

an invasion against a country that posed no threat to the U.S

Yet Sen. Kerry stated

He presents a particularly grievous threat

That's different...

Here's another person who must be equally ill-informed and ignorant:

“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program.
He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.”
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

And...

“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.”
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

AND:

“We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country. Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.”
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

hers a few people:

“We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S.Constitution and Laws, to take necessary actions, (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.”
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998

and finally...

“If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.”
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

“One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.”
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

Did President and Mrs. Clinton, Al Gore, Ted Kennedy and John Kerry ALL make such blatant LIES?? Yet in the past several months of this election year it's been claimed over and over and over that President Bush: "Lied to the American People". really... Then why is it that the words of the political opposition support his supposed 'lie' time and again?? Are these leaders of the DNC all equally ignorant and ill-informed on such an important matter? Seems that stones have been thrown from the glass house here.

As for it being propoganda--please tell me why a writer for American Conservative Magazine would embrace Liberal propoganda themes in argument against a sitting Republican President.

It doesn't matter where it came from or who said it, it IS propaganda.
and 'Why.." you ask... because #1: It suits Pat's ends. #2: Not all "American Conservatives" are Republicans or believe in President Bush. So what? Not all Dems agree with Kerry or wanted him for their president. So what? That doesn't prove anything.

Why would four former Republican governors and a former Republican Senator openly endorse John Kerry?

I don't know, ask them.
Why would Sen. Miller (Not a 'former senator') endorse President Bush and deliver a scathing rebuke of his own party at the GOP convention?? As he said at the end of it

In this hour of danger our President has had the courage to stand up. And this Democrat is proud to stand up with him.

So?

And what of this Republican civil war we hear tell of? Mere rumor?

I've not heard this rumor, could you site it or give a link? Thanks.

To say he is merely out for himself is an ad hominem attack, Brother John.

Call it what you like Steve, I stand by it and believe I'm safe in doing so.

Your Brother
John

 

[Brother John]

O, moderators....hello....?
Peruse latest copy of "US NEWS and World Report." The guy on the front cover is William F. Buckley. he and George Will, and a buncha other conservatives, are not pleased about our splendid little war.

Well... good for them! A little face time on "US NEWS" never hurt any politician.

And why, praytell, do I need the moderators summoned Robert?
Because I've been making a stand for what I believe, taking the heat for it, refuse to lie down and play dead when confronted by the 'aggressive' opposition...and pretty much doing so alone against men with strong and bright minds, such as yourself, Steve, Heretic, Michael and Kaith himself??

How very naughty of me.


If I DIDN'T do this, then this board would be little more than you guys agreeing with one another with the occassional "YUP!" from the peanut gallery.

Your Brother
John

 

[rmcrobertson]

Nah, I'm just being a jerk about some nastiness. I don't report (well, I did once) and I don't use the reputation points either.

 

[Brother John]

Nah, I'm just being a jerk about some nastiness. I don't report (well, I did once) and I don't use the reputation points either.

Nastiness abounds my friend, why stop with just one person?
Report if you feel you should, use the rep points if you feel you should... (it's what they are for) but do so evenly.

Your Brother
John

 

[hardheadjarhead]

And why, praytell, do I need the moderators summoned Robert?
Because I've been making a stand for what I believe, taking the heat for it, refuse to lie down and play dead when confronted by the 'aggressive' opposition...and pretty much doing so alone against men with strong and bright minds, such as yourself, Steve, Heretic, Michael and Kaith himself??

I knew there was a reason the color scheme for MT was blue.

I appreciate the compliment, Brother John, but is it really all that bad? You're making it sound just a tad like Tennyson, which I paraphrase--

Cannons to the left of him, cannons to the right of him...ooooh...better yet, Kipling verbatim!

"When you're wounded and lying on Afghanistan's plains,
And the women come out to cut up what remains,
Just roll to your rifle and blow out your brains,
And go to your God like a so'jer."



May I succor you with this?

http://www.niehs.nih.gov/kids/lyrics/walkalone.htm

(Remember, succoring a person of the same gender is no longer illegal in any state of the Union. I am thus morally unblemished.)


Regards,


Steve

 

[Brother John]

I knew there was a reason the color scheme for MT was blue.

I appreciate the compliment, Brother John, but is it really all that bad?

No, it's not all that bad. I didn't say it was bad, but maybe if it seems that I'm reacting strongly or forcefully, It's simply a fact that I'm arguing against multiples alone. Neither in the martial arts, nor in a debate, is this easy.
But things don't have to be easy for me to take them on. I wasn't complaining. If I was I'd be making an appeal to the other conservative Republicans out there who aren't saying anything. (Hey guys) I don't care if I say it alone here on the forums, but it should be noted.
and I did.

Thanks for the succoring. (Nice enough song, never heard it before) Not needed, but hey...it's the gesture that matters huh?? :ultracool Besides, I've not had a good succoring in some time. lol
And since I've not been "Hammered" in some time, I'm hardly ready to roll over to my rifle and do anything but clean it. I'll go to God in his own good time. ((I'm not afraid of death, but I'm planning on putting it off until the last moment)) :uhyeah:

Your Brother
John

 

[Brother John]

I appreciate the compliment, Brother John
Regards,
Steve

BTW: The compliment is genuine , toward each of you.
Sure, we are disagreeing and are on opposite sides of the isle...
But I'm glad you are on our side! (USA)
You, Michael, Robert and Kaith are all very intelligent.

Metal sharpens upon metal...
Man sharpens upon man!

I may be speaking 'alone', but I'm getting sharper.

Your Brother
John

 

[hardheadjarhead]

That's why I don't listen to them without a huge grain of salt! Their strong bias is just as blaringly clear as that of any other pundit. It's what they do. It's also why I don't go to them and swallow what they have to say as true.

This is easier to say than debunking WHAT they say. Bias aside, they could well be telling the truth either wholly or in part. Merely dismissing it as propoganda does not falsify any of their claims.

Sure, it wasn't ALL hearsay... that's true. But there was a good strong healthy dose of it I think.

Then acknowledge the valid points and point out the hearsay so that it can be addressed. Merely saying it is hearsay doesn't make it so.

Try these ignorant, ill-informed statements on for size then:

I'd ask readers to note what Brother John originally posted. Here is a link to the actual speech and the text in question:

http://www2.gwu.edu/~action/2004/issues/kerr012303spfp.html

Second, without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses.

He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. He miscalculated an eight-year war with Iran. He miscalculated the invasion of Kuwait. He miscalculated America's response to that act of naked aggression. He miscalculated the result of setting oil rigs on fire. He miscalculated the impact of sending scuds into Israel and trying to assassinate an American President. He miscalculated his own military strength. He miscalculated the Arab world's response to his misconduct. And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction.

So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War. Regrettably the current Administration failed to take the opportunity to bring this issue to the United Nations two years ago or immediately after September 11th, when we had such unity of spirit with our allies. When it finally did speak, it was with hasty war talk instead of a coherent call for Iraqi disarmament. And that made it possible for other Arab regimes to shift their focus to the perils of war for themselves rather than keeping the focus on the perils posed by Saddam's deadly arsenal. Indeed, for a time, the Administration's unilateralism, in effect, elevated Saddam in the eyes of his neighbors to a level he never would have achieved on his own, undermining America's standing with most of the coalition partners which had joined us in repelling the invasion of Kuwait a decade ago.





Wow.

Wow indeed. Seems you've taken things out of context, and are somewhat lazy in you research. It took me three minutes to "Google It."

Did President and Mrs. Clinton, Al Gore, Ted Kennedy and John Kerry ALL make such blatant LIES?? Yet in the past several months of this election year it's been claimed over and over and over that President Bush: "Lied to the American People".

That's because he did. We've outlined that in detail in "Did We Have Justification," and elsewhere.


really... Then why is it that the words of the political opposition support his supposed 'lie' time and again??

They didn't support his lie.

Are these leaders of the DNC all equally ignorant and ill-informed on such an important matter?

No, Brother John. But clearly you are given your willingness to embrace a statement without verifying it.


It doesn't matter where it came from or who said it, it IS propaganda.
and 'Why.." you ask... because #1: It suits Pat's ends. #2: Not all "American Conservatives" are Republicans or believe in President Bush. So what? Not all Dems agree with Kerry or wanted him for their president. So what? That doesn't prove anything.

When you have a number of well placed Republicans taking a stand against Bush, and only Zell Miller taking a stand against Kerry...I'd say that indicates a lot. As to it "suiting Pat's ends", you assume he has "ends" without proving what they are. Is this how you debate? Making unverifiable claims and ad hominem attacks?


Why would Sen. Miller (Not a 'former senator') endorse President Bush and deliver a scathing rebuke of his own party at the GOP convention??

I'll see your lameduck Senator and raise you one former Right Wing Senator Bob Smith (known as the most conservative member of the Senate):

http://www.johnkerry.com/pdf/102904_smith_letter.pdf

Better yet, let me add another one:

http://p198.ezboard.com/frepublicansforkerryfrm2.showMessage?topicID=398.topic

My goodness. Look at the name of that web site. Republicans for Kerry?

I've not heard this rumor, could you site it or give a link? Thanks.

Learn to Google, Brother John. I typed in "Republican Civil War". Simple. Here it is:

http://www.independent-media.tv/itemprint.cfm?fmedia_id=9436&fcategory_desc=Under Reported


Call it what you like Steve, I stand by it and believe I'm safe in doing so.

It is still an ad hominem attack...and easily disputed. You attack the man rather than his statements, by saying what is in effect "Well, consider the source," or by suggesting that he has suspect motives. His motives might indeed be impure or unethical, but that doesn't falsify his statements.

Regards,


Steve

 

[hardheadjarhead]

I guess I got ya on that Kerry quote issue, eh?



Regards,


Steve

 

[heretic888]

Seriously, though, citing Zell Miller as a supporter isn't exactly the best way to make your case.

Anyone actually heard this guy talk?? He's a friggen' lunatic.

 

[Makalakumu]

Seriously, though, citing Zell Miller as a supporter isn't exactly the best way to make your case.

Anyone actually heard this guy talk?? He's a friggen' lunatic.

Zellaphant.

Zellonearth.

Gotozell.

 

[hardheadjarhead]

Seriously, though, citing Zell Miller as a supporter isn't exactly the best way to make your case.

Anyone actually heard this guy talk?? He's a friggen' lunatic.

You'll note too that Brother John seems to think that attaching a "former" onto Bob Smith's title of Senator somehow diminishes his stature as a public servant. I suppose that would apply to the "former" governors I listed.

These men have no political agenda, being retired. They don't have constituents to answer to, nor allies to lose. They can shoot from the hip and call the shots as they see them.

They see Bush as a liability.


Regards,


Steve