Coulter: 'Idiots' Who Vote Libertarian Will Cost GOP The Senate

[revelarts]

Ann Coulter: 'Idiots' Who Vote Libertarian Will Cost GOP The Senate


Conservative pundit Ann Coulter on Wednesday laid out the strategy she thinks will help the GOP win the Senate, trying to scare Republicans into following her detailed instructions.
She seems incredibly concerned that libertarian candidates and the people that vote for them will ruin the election for everyone.

"The biggest current danger for Republicans is that idiots will vote for Libertarian candidates in do-or-die Senate elections, including Kentucky, Kansas, North Carolina and Colorado," she wrote in her column (http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2014-09-17.html), adding that the independent candidate in the Kansas race also poses a threat to the party. "Democratic candidates don't have to put up with this crap — they're even trying to dump the official Democrat in Kansas to give the stealth Democrat a better shot."
Coulter has a point. In close races, libertarian candidates could pull votes from Republicans, helping out the Democrat, especially in states like Louisiana (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/03/31/2014-could-be-the-longest-election-season-ever.html) and North Carolina (http://www.wncn.com/story/26420769/libertarian-candidate-could-have-big-impact-on-senate-race).
"When we're all dying from lack of health care across the United States of Mexico, we'll be deeply impressed with your integrity, libertarians," Coulter wrote. "Which brings me to my final assignment this week: If you are considering voting for the Libertarian candidate in any Senate election, please send me your name and address so I can track you down and drown you."
Coulter also ordered Kansas Sen. Pat Roberts to "spend every day from now until Nov. 4 campaigning" and told conservatives to donate to Scott Brown in the New Hampshire race.


http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/ann-coulter-gop-senate-worried?utm_content=buffer38572&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

OK lets look at this in general.

When Obama ran the 1st time he promised "change"
but even many on the left admit now they've gotten more of the same. just bush 2.0
the only thing that's changed towards his left positions is Obamacare.
Other than that he's TALKED in support of abortion, homosexual marriage and fiddled with loosing immigration.

but some of what hasn't changed as he promised are :
•Gitmo's not closed
•still in and now BACK in Iraq.
•he promised more Afghanistan anyway
•NONE of the constitutional civil liberties promises have been kept, but in fact made worse.
•transparency is worse.
•More drone killings
•outright killing of Americans without due process added
•Embraced all Bush's assumed war powers
•Added assumed war powers to attack Libya
•He hasn't really helped minorities, which minorities hoped and some non-minorities feared.
•Hasn't reigned in the budget or dealt with the bail outs or debt.
•Hasn't gone after wall street or corporate crooks
•He has lobbiest on the executive payroll.

My question to the left is this.
Do you expect MORE change like above from another Dem in the WH or more in congress?

My question to the right is this.
Do you Expect a new Republican president of Senate to do anything DIFFERENT than what you see above?

will they balance the budget?
will they end Obama care?
will they restore civil liberties to constitutional levels?
will they stop or slow abortion?
stop or slow Homosexual marriage?
Fight a more effective war on terror? (they have no plans of ENDING any wars)
CiC Divest himself of the non-constitutional war powers?
kick out lobbiest?
better race relations?
reign in corporate crooks?
Do anything about immigration policy?
Do anything about the boarders?
be MORE transparent?
Not kill Americans without due process?
lower taxes on the middle class?


Please tell me what will really change with a new republican president and senate?
(or an new democrat president?)


Convince me of some significant CONSERVATIVE actions that will take place if we get republican President (senate or congress).
So that I might vote for a republican again.
Supreme court Judges and more conservative judges on federal the bench you say?
is that the best we can hope for out of an "electable" Republican president? really?

I don't buy the "it'd be worse with a democrat line".
From my POV i don't see much difference at all.

Please make it clear for me so that i can consider it.

[Gaffer]

Coulter is not referring to the presidency here. She's talking about the GOP taking control of the senate. A house and senate controlled by the GOP will either cripple the imam in the white house or force his hand.

Libertarians need to join with the Tea Party and change the GOP, not give the commie... I mean democrats, a win. We can worry about the presidency in two years.

[BoogyMan]

Rev I see the frustration in your comments and I, to a point, can see where you are coming from.

What I am struggling with is the abject denial that my very respected libertarian friends evidence when they openly contribute to the problem by refusing to join with those who wish to bring about a more conservative government. You claim that there is little difference between Mr. Obama and Mr. Bush. I disagree vehemently with this appraisal and if you speak to any service member out there you will likely find quite animated disagreement.

Mr. Obama is actually quite different in that Mr. Bush actually knew some limits (some I say because I too believe he stepped outside his constitutionally granted powers) wheras Mr. Obama seems to believe himself to be the equivalent of a King with his take on "executive power."

What makes sure that conservatism is pushed aside is the blasted purity tests that men are held to that fractures the voter base and gives great joy to the Democrats who are arguably the modern equivalent of the communist party.

[Gunny]

Rev I see the frustration in your comments and I, to a point, can see where you are coming from.

What I am struggling with is the abject denial that my very respected libertarian friends evidence when they openly contribute to the problem by refusing to join with those who wish to bring about a more conservative government. You claim that there is little difference between Mr. Obama and Mr. Bush. I disagree vehemently with this appraisal and if you speak to any service member out there you will likely find quite animated disagreement.

Mr. Obama is actually quite different in that Mr. Bush actually knew some limits (some I say because I too believe he stepped outside his constitutionally granted powers) wheras Mr. Obama seems to believe himself to be the equivalent of a King with his take on "executive power."

What makes sure that conservatism is pushed aside is the blasted purity tests that men are held to that fractures the voter base and gives great joy to the Democrats who are arguably the modern equivalent of the communist party.

You can't blame the idiots on the left for using a tactic that works. Accuse a Republican of something and the Republicans wince. The lefties laugh. The Republicans will crucify your own.

Turn it around. Your President has a cigar fetish, congressman with a load of cash in his freezer, a Governor who allowed partisan politics to keep her from requesting Federal Aid in a timely manner .... ehh ... *yawn". They'll vote for them anyway.

Pelosi is a moron. She's in office. Rangel is just as dumb. Al Franken? And I am proud to say that Barbara Boxer personally hates ME. :) I earned it. :D

They stay in office because they've scared the GOP so far left it no longer represents the conservatives. The only people the GOP have left now are party sheep.

[BoogyMan]

You can't blame the idiots on the left for using a tactic that works. Accuse a Republican of something and the Republicans wince. The lefties laugh. The Republicans will crucify your own.

Turn it around. Your President has a cigar fetish, congressman with a load of cash in his freezer, a Governor who allowed partisan politics to keep her from requesting Federal Aid in a timely manner .... ehh ... *yawn". They'll vote for them anyway.

Pelosi is a moron. She's in office. Rangel is just as dumb. Al Franken? And I am proud to say that Barbara Boxer personally hates ME. :) I earned it. :D

They stay in office because they've scared the GOP so far left it no longer represents the conservatives. The only people the GOP have left now are party sheep.

The only folks I blame for the GOPs losses are those in the GOP who either refuse to vote or put stock in the current purity test fetish that has so fractured the right as to make electoral wins a whole lot like herding cats.

[Gunny]

The only folks I blame for the GOPs losses are those in the GOP who either refuse to vote or put stock in the current purity test fetish that has so fractured the right as to make electoral wins a whole lot like herding cats.

That's kind of what I said. BUT, it isn't just the voters in the "purity test fetish". The GOP itself is. Any Republicans that had balls, the left made bullshit accusations and the GOP kicked them out. Trent Lott. Henry Bonilla. The left doesn't have to do anything but leak an accusation to the media and the GOP will do their dirty work for them.

[BoogyMan]

That's kind of what I said. BUT, it isn't just the voters in the "purity test fetish". The GOP itself is. Any Republicans that had balls, the left made bullshit accusations and the GOP kicked them out. Trent Lott. Henry Bonilla. The left doesn't have to do anything but leak an accusation to the media and the GOP will do their dirty work for them.

You hit the nail on the head with this one.

With a wholly subservient media to aid them the communist party has essentially created an environment where a conservative can be rolled up in controversy over his/her choice to toilet paper.

[revelarts]

Rev I see the frustration in your comments and I, to a point, can see where you are coming from.

What I am struggling with is the abject denial that my very respected libertarian friends evidence when they openly contribute to the problem by refusing to join with those who wish to bring about a more conservative government. You claim that there is little difference between Mr. Obama and Mr. Bush. I disagree vehemently with this appraisal and if you speak to any service member out there you will likely find quite animated disagreement.

Mr. Obama is actually quite different in that Mr. Bush actually knew some limits (some I say because I too believe he stepped outside his constitutionally granted powers) wheras Mr. Obama seems to believe himself to be the equivalent of a King with his take on "executive power."

What makes sure that conservatism is pushed aside is the blasted purity tests that men are held to that fractures the voter base and gives great joy to the Democrats who are arguably the modern equivalent of the communist party.

I made some pretty strait forward specific policy comparisons. Am i wrong on any?
are there others that are more important that i missed?

a lot of people "feel" the 2 are very different however when just look at the actions whats the real difference. Only in degree in various areas. Bush pissed on the constitution with a cowboy hat on. Obama does it without and drops a trud as well.

even in the military.
Are the soldiers upset at the firings of there favorite generals? because they are still/going back to Iraq, still in Afghanistan, still at gitmo, still droning 8 other countries. Still without equipment they need, still with a rising suicide rates, still have a V.A. that's doing a hit and miss job. same as with Bush.

what difference are the troops upset about other than personality?
the actual work is basically the same.

If someone can point out where i'm wrong in my previous post I'm ready to listen.

[BoogyMan]

I made some pretty strait forward specific policy comparisons. Am i wrong on any?
are there others that are more important that i missed?

a lot of people "feel" the 2 are very different however when just look at the actions whats the real difference. Only in degree in various areas. Bush pissed on the constitution with a cowboy hat on. Obama does it without and drops a trud as well.

even in the military.
Are the soldiers upset at the firings of there favorite generals? because they are still/going back to Iraq, still in Afghanistan, still at gitmo, still droning 8 other countries. Still without equipment they need, still with a rising suicide rates, still have a V.A. that's doing a hit and miss job. same as with Bush.

what difference are the troops upset about other than personality?
the actual work is basically the same.

If someone can point out where i'm wrong in my previous post I'm ready to listen.

Wow, it seems like you don't even care to let someone partly agree with you.

I already pointed out that I believe that Mr. Bush overstepped his bounds, I do however believe that Mr. Obama has gone so far past Mr. Bush as to make him appear to be only a forward to a much large tome of abuse.

[revelarts]

Wow, it seems like you don't even care to let someone partly agree with you.

I already pointed out that I believe that Mr. Bush overstepped his bounds, I do however believe that Mr. Obama has gone so far past Mr. Bush as to make him appear to be only a forward to a much large tome of abuse.

i do appreciate the partial agreement. Didn't mean the tone to come off the way it did. read "Joe Friday" style. no offense meant.
And i agree with your point that Obama has gone farther , i just don't see it as much more than a step beyond.
Bush and the congress after 9/11 took several steps using 9/11 as an excuse. After the precedents were set Obama had no serious barriers and people have become somewhat use to it.

But in what issues do you think Obama has done far worse than Bush?

[revelarts]

Coulter is not referring to the presidency here. She's talking about the GOP taking control of the senate. A house and senate controlled by the GOP will either cripple the imam in the white house or force his hand.

Libertarians need to join with the Tea Party and change the GOP, not give the commie... I mean democrats, a win. We can worry about the presidency in two years.

Libertarians were the Tea Party until the establishment Republicans basically pushed them out.
the very 1st Tea Party meetings were a Ron Paul fund raisers.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=6bNiDx7qTjA

But please tell me what's going to change if we get republicans in the Senate.

[aboutime]

Libertarians were the Tea Party until the establishment Republicans basically pushed them out.
the very 1st Tea Party meetings were a Ron Paul fund raisers.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=6bNiDx7qTjA

But please tell me what's going to change if we get republicans in the Senate.


rev. If you Honestly find any need to ask such a question...realistically. You don't deserve any answers from any of us because you probably would prefer to keep Harry Reid right where he is. Your Mutually significant Twin.

[revelarts]

rev. If you Honestly find any need to ask such a question...realistically. You don't deserve any answers from any of us because you probably would prefer to keep Harry Reid right where he is. Your Mutually significant Twin.

funny that no one seems to be able to give an answer so far AT.
do you have serious one?

[SassyLady]

funny that no one seems to be able to give an answer so far AT.
do you have serious one?

Rev ... I don't know how to answer your question. Can you tell me how voting for Libertarian is better than voting for a Republican. What's to say that the Libertarian wouldn't end up just like the last two presidents. They all say things we want to hear just to get them elected and then do what they damn well please once they get there. Witness the disillusion with the Dems with Obama. I think they are beginning to feel about him the way a lot of us started feeling about Bush towards the end of his presidency.

I truly do not know how to get all the issues/policies you want to see happen with the way the government functions these days.

This is why I can't really give a good answer to your question.

[revelarts]

Rev ... I don't know how to answer your question. Can you tell me how voting for Libertarian is better than voting for a Republican. What's to say that the Libertarian wouldn't end up just like the last two presidents. They all say things we want to hear just to get them elected and then do what they damn well please once they get there. Witness the disillusion with the Dems with Obama. I think they are beginning to feel about him the way a lot of us started feeling about Bush towards the end of his presidency.

I truly do not know how to get all the issues/policies you want to see happen with the way the government functions these days.

This is why I can't really give a good answer to your question.

I agree there's no guarantees with anyone,
But i think it's a SURE THING that we'll get more of the same slide by voting for establishment Ds or Rs.
And you know the old saying, One definition of insanity, is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.

My point is, isn't it worth a try?
At least to rattle the cage of the establishment. they'll get the message if we bail.
We didn't get to where we are now overnight and it won't be an overnight fix but if we just keep changing the conductors on the train from red to blue without seriously dealing with the fact that the train is on wrong track we're fooling ourselves IMO.

[jimnyc]

Rev ... I don't know how to answer your question. Can you tell me how voting for Libertarian is better than voting for a Republican. What's to say that the Libertarian wouldn't end up just like the last two presidents. They all say things we want to hear just to get them elected and then do what they damn well please once they get there. Witness the disillusion with the Dems with Obama. I think they are beginning to feel about him the way a lot of us started feeling about Bush towards the end of his presidency.

I truly do not know how to get all the issues/policies you want to see happen with the way the government functions these days.

This is why I can't really give a good answer to your question.0

Well, at least YOU were honest with your answer!! :thumb:

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Rev ... I don't know how to answer your question. Can you tell me how voting for Libertarian is better than voting for a Republican. What's to say that the Libertarian wouldn't end up just like the last two presidents. They all say things we want to hear just to get them elected and then do what they damn well please once they get there. Witness the disillusion with the Dems with Obama. I think they are beginning to feel about him the way a lot of us started feeling about Bush towards the end of his presidency.

I truly do not know how to get all the issues/policies you want to see happen with the way the government functions these days.

This is why I can't really give a good answer to your question.

Sad but truth is it is too broken to fix at the ballot box. Both parties are far too infected with a combination of power-mad greed, personal ambitions and globalist plants.
The sad reality is that only some type of overthrow can fix it. Let just hope it can be conducted by some miraculous way other that outright violence.
And the other side of the coin is that the dem party is already very, very far advanced into their "overthrow attempt" as witnessed by their putting Obama into office! Nothing about them or him is politics as usual--nothing!
That is what so many are missing--thanks to his slavish media(ally) coverage!!-Tyr

[BoogyMan]

I agree there's no guarantees with anyone,
But i think it's a SURE THING that we'll get more of the same slide by voting for establishment Ds or Rs.
And you know the old saying, One definition of insanity, is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.

My point is, isn't it worth a try?
At least to rattle the cage of the establishment. they'll get the message if we bail.
We didn't get to where we are now overnight and it won't be an overnight fix but if we just keep changing the conductors on the train from red to blue without seriously dealing with the fact that the train is on wrong track we're fooling ourselves IMO.

Rev, the problem is that even while our libertarian friends mean well they fracture the conservative vote and virtually ensure communist wins. This is the very reason I bring up the purity tests that candidates are put through. There is never going to be a candidate that all voters with conservative ideals agreee 100% with, but we can still rally behind a consensus candidate and after the win hold that candidate-elect responsible for consensus ideologies.

The purity tests are killing us as a party and the communists in the democrat party are watching and laughing all the way to their elected offices.

[revelarts]

Rev, the problem is that even while our libertarian friends mean well they fracture the conservative vote and virtually ensure communist wins. This is the very reason I bring up the purity tests that candidates are put through. There is never going to be a candidate that all voters with conservative ideals agreee 100% with, but we can still rally behind a consensus candidate and after the win hold that candidate-elect responsible for consensus ideologies.

The purity tests are killing us as a party and the communists in the democrat party are watching and laughing all the way to their elected offices.

Sure, that makes a lot of sense.
My problem is that the consensus candidates Only TALK as if they are conservative.
But once in they vote for bigger gov't, less constitution , no balanced budgets, no pro life actions, busting the bill of rights ..etc etc.
the ONLY thing we are guaranteed on getting from a republican is more war.

they don't have to pass a purity test, just the ACTION test on 2 or 3.. dare i say 4... of the conservative values they SAY they believe in.

and as a libertarian minded person myself , a guarantee of war is not a conservative value that's going to compel me to stick.

If I'm off here please list out the conservative values that are put in action by the republicans.
Or are we only looking for a candidates to hold back certain aspects of the next wave of socialism? like Gov't college education and more gov't health care , gun confiscation.
Republican don't seem to repeal ANY of the socialist gov't items we already have AT ALL.

[Gaffer]

In the 80's every movie and TV show portrayed republicans and conservatives as evil war mongers. Rev took it all to heart and still see it the same way. Rev when you post this stuff I get flashbacks of the 80's TV.

Clinton was elected in 92 because Perio drew off 10% of the conservative vote. The Tea Party formed to change the GOP from within instead of wasting time on third party candidates that couldn't win and would give the victory to the dems over and over again. Voting libertarian is insanity defined.

More importantly is we need to change the GOP and fill the congress with conservatives. Both houses. They can then reign in any president.

[revelarts]

In the 80's every movie and TV show portrayed republicans and conservatives as evil war mongers. Rev took it all to heart and still see it the same way. Rev when you post this stuff I get flashbacks of the 80's TV.

So are you saying that the next republican president is going to END the war in Iraq and bring the troops home?
End the war in Afghanistan and bring the troops home?
End the war on terror?

Please tell me which war is not practically GUARANTEED to continue with the next Republican president gaffer?

Romney promised more war and agreed that Attacking Libya was a good Idea.
McCain promised more war if elected.
I have no doubt they would have made good on those promises.
W Bush SAID he didn't want to nation build... but we see what happened there. wars in 2 countries, military attacks in 5+ more
why would I have to reference 80's TV when all I have to do is look at the record and promises of the 2000s?

that's not to say that the Left establishment are real peace lovers, they are not. Clinton bombed the heck out several countries, for "humanitarian" purposes. historically the dems have started plenty, if not most, wars.

But right now the only party that's convinced of a dire need to use the military action into the indefinite future is the republican party.




Clinton was elected in 92 because Perio drew off 10% of the conservative vote. The Tea Party formed to change the GOP from within instead of wasting time on third party candidates that couldn't win and would give the victory to the dems over and over again. Voting libertarian is insanity defined.
please check the origin of the Tea Party in my post #11 (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?46688-Coulter-Idiots-Who-Vote-Libertarian-Will-Cost-GOP-The-Senate&p=705442#post705442). I agree if that had continued on the original line it'd make a real change but it's been largely hijacked by the establishment.



More importantly is we need to change the GOP and fill the congress with conservatives. Both houses. They can then reign in any president.
I agree that's another way to get a lot done. Constitutional MORE done really.
but as you say "we need to change the GOP".
the RINO's we're electing and the half baked Tea party guys who talk tough but vote party line won't get us there.

for example Balanced budget stuff for months they say "I won't vote for this" .. then they do.
what the heck?

[Drummond]

Revelarts .. if I read you correctly, you equate fighting terrorism with warmongering !! To say the least, that's perverse.

It's also a form of argument I've been hearing from the hard Left for years .. usually to discredit America.

Talking of bog-standard Leftie lines .. which I see a lot of, in your posting .. I see you're trying to make the 'they are as bad as one another' argument ? Well, on another forum, I argued at great length with a Democratic Party member, and ex-Trade Unionist activist, who tried for all he was worth to push that very same line. Indeed -- the nearer it came to Presidential election time, the harder that argument was pushed.

His purpose seemed clear enough (.. after all, it WAS a Right-wing forum, where he was doing it) ... he wanted the membership there to be too disillusioned with the GOP to vote for them. They'd either vote for a fringe candidate - and so waste their vote - or not bother at all.

The result, but of course, would be to get Obama elected by default.

I'm very far from expert on American politics .. hardly surprisingly. But one example of something particularly dire coming from your side of the fence was, a year ago, Obama reducing you to a state where your Federal Government actually suffered a shutdown .. for EIGHTEEN DAYS.

Maybe I'm wrong. But for the life of me, I can't ever recall any Government led by the Right reducing you to that !!

So, Revelarts, please don't waste your time trying to paint your 'they are the same as each other' picture for your major Parties.

By the way .. on issues such as Gitmo and Iraq, can't it be said that each are examples of Obama learning, the hard way, that the Right wing approach to each issue was THE RIGHT ONE TO FOLLOW ? Obama had his alternative approach to each, but had to undergo a rethink, because, of course, REALITIES forced that rethink.

Anyone considering that Right-wing politics isn't superior might want to chew that over. The Right set a lead, and Obama's had to bend to it.

[BoogyMan]

Sure, that makes a lot of sense.
My problem is that the consensus candidates Only TALK as if they are conservative.
But once in they vote for bigger gov't, less constitution , no balanced budgets, no pro life actions, busting the bill of rights ..etc etc.
the ONLY thing we are guaranteed on getting from a republican is more war.

they don't have to pass a purity test, just the ACTION test on 2 or 3.. dare i say 4... of the conservative values they SAY they believe in.

and as a libertarian minded person myself , a guarantee of war is not a conservative value that's going to compel me to stick.

If I'm off here please list out the conservative values that are put in action by the republicans.
Or are we only looking for a candidates to hold back certain aspects of the next wave of socialism? like Gov't college education and more gov't health care , gun confiscation.
Republican don't seem to repeal ANY of the socialist gov't items we already have AT ALL.

Rev, once again, I hear the frustration in your words and I understand where it comes from. What I DON'T understand is putting that frustration into action in such a way as to guarantee that no conservative candidate can win. I am a principled man and I have strong beliefs as I am sure that you do. I will not, however, assume to know that if I actually vote for the conservative candidate that nothing will come of it. I cannot even imagine such a scenario where I would use my vote for a candidate that I know good and well is not going to win and make it harder for the candidate claiming conservative values to win.

ANY conservatively minded person would have been immensely better for America than the communist we have in the White House now. ANY conservatively minded person would have done less to polarize americans into factions pointing fingers at one another. ANY conservatively minded person would have intruded less into my daily life and kept his hands out of my pockets.

You want to boil this discussion down to just the hot button topics for yourself, my friend, but I find that effort short sighted. Once again are we going to agree 100% on everything a candidate does? No! Can we still elect someone without the purity tests that will defend the constitution and do MUCH LESS damage to the cohesiveness of the American people? Yes!

[revelarts]

Revelarts .. if I read you correctly, you equate fighting terrorism with warmongering !! To say the least, that's perverse.

is that what i wrote?
then don't read it that way.

Was Iraq "fighting terrorism", no not at all. They were never a threat to the U.S. even.
And there another thread where i mention in some detail the alternatives to MILITARY ACTION in dealing with terrorism.
As I've mentioned several times military forces are not the best tool to deal with THUGS.
So promising WAR around the globe into the indefinite future is what's truly perverse.



It's also a form of argument I've been hearing from the hard Left for years .. usually to discredit America.
Talking of bog-standard Leftie lines .. which I see a lot of, in your posting .. I see you're trying to make the 'they are as bad as one another' argument ? Well, on another forum, I argued at great length with a Democratic Party member, and ex-Trade Unionist activist, who tried for all he was worth to push that very same line. Indeed -- the nearer it came to Presidential election time, the harder that argument was pushed.

His purpose seemed clear enough (.. after all, it WAS a Right-wing forum, where he was doing it) ... he wanted the membership there to be too disillusioned with the GOP to vote for them. They'd either vote for a fringe candidate - and so waste their vote - or not bother at all.

The result, but of course, would be to get Obama elected by default.

I'm very far from expert on American politics .. hardly surprisingly. But one example of something particularly dire coming from your side of the fence was, a year ago, Obama reducing you to a state where your Federal Government actually suffered a shutdown .. for EIGHTEEN DAYS.

Maybe I'm wrong. But for the life of me, I can't ever recall any Government led by the Right reducing you to that !!

So, Revelarts, please don't waste your time trying to paint your 'they are the same as each other' picture for your major Parties.

By the way .. on issues such as Gitmo and Iraq, can't it be said that each are examples of Obama learning, the hard way, that the Right wing approach to each issue was THE RIGHT ONE TO FOLLOW ? Obama had his alternative approach to each, but had to undergo a rethink, because, of course, REALITIES forced that rethink.

Anyone considering that Right-wing politics isn't superior might want to chew that over. The Right set a lead, and Obama's had to bend to it.

and again i read more assertions of "OF COURSE THEY ARE DIFFERENT".
but I've yet to see any detailed reply to my specific points.
Conservative ACTIONS, not talk. If i wanted to vote for talk I'd vote republican ever time. but where are the conservative actions?

[revelarts]

Rev, once again, I hear the frustration in your words and I understand where it comes from. What I DON'T understand is putting that frustration into action in such a way as to guarantee that no conservative candidate can win. I am a principled man and I have strong beliefs as I am sure that you do. I will not, however, assume to know that if I actually vote for the conservative candidate that nothing will come of it. I cannot even imagine such a scenario where I would use my vote for a candidate that I know good and well is not going to win and make it harder for the candidate claiming conservative values to win.

ANY conservatively minded person would have been immensely better for America than the communist we have in the White House now. ANY conservatively minded person would have done less to polarize americans into factions pointing fingers at one another. ANY conservatively minded person would have intruded less into my daily life and kept his hands out of my pockets.

You want to boil this discussion down to just the hot button topics for yourself, my friend, but I find that effort short sighted. Once again are we going to agree 100% on everything a candidate does? No! Can we still elect someone without the purity tests that will defend the constitution and do MUCH LESS damage to the cohesiveness of the American people? Yes!

I appreciate that you are principled person and most conservative voters are TRULY conservative.
but I stand by my statement that when voting republican we are NOT actually getting any conservative policies implemented.
at best we are only loosing them slower with "conservative" republicans in office.

you've said several times that you think i want republicans to agree with me 100%.
I've never said that, And I pointed out that the only "conservative" policy that the republicans consistently deliver on is WAR.

I'm not a fan of that in most instances however, I'll ask again, list for me the conservative policies that you are sure .. fairly confident... will be promoted with the typical republicans in congress or the executive.

balanced budget
address the nat'l debt
get money back from bail outs
not bail out others
pro-life issues
protect gun rights
tax relief for the middle class
less corruption in congress
more transparency in gov't
repeal warrantless wire tapping
removal of free speech zone policies
war powers back in the hands of congress
ending obamacare
reign in corporate crooks
Protect traditional marriage
fix immigration policy
Do something about the boarders
Not kill Americans without due process
make the federal gov't smaller

there are other conservative issues, name a few.
But I don't need a candidate to do them all.
Name me 3 or 4 that your confident will get done/progress by a republican congress?
By a republican president?

Is it wrong to expect more than 3 or 4?
But you'd think at least 3 or 4 right?
if they SAY they believe in them ALL and are conservative "MINDED".

personally I don't see much but a personality difference in Bush to Obama. both have increased the debt, increased the wars, increased the size of gov't, and basiaclly have not done anything significantly positive in the list above.

A lot of the partisan Rancors is just BS window dressing imo. as i said the ONLY real thing Obamas done that's more commie than Bush is Obamacare and that's just a version of Romney Care.
Plus no republican is serious about repealing it. EVEN if they had 2/3rd of the house and 75% of the senate. I'm i wrong on that point?

[aboutime]

In the 80's every movie and TV show portrayed republicans and conservatives as evil war mongers. Rev took it all to heart and still see it the same way. Rev when you post this stuff I get flashbacks of the 80's TV.

Clinton was elected in 92 because Perio drew off 10% of the conservative vote. The Tea Party formed to change the GOP from within instead of wasting time on third party candidates that couldn't win and would give the victory to the dems over and over again. Voting libertarian is insanity defined.

More importantly is we need to change the GOP and fill the congress with conservatives. Both houses. They can then reign in any president.


Sad to have to admit this here. But, I have come to my own conclusion about rev, and nobody here will agree or like it.

I see rev as a member who is always trying to prove how...ONLY REV is permitted to be correct, and the sole deciding vote on nearly every topic we read about here. Anyone else who disagree's IN ANY WAY with the preachings of rev must be shunned, and singled-out for being the exact opposite of nearly everything ONLY rev says. Which disqualifies ANYONE..or, ANY MEMBER that doesn't walk the rev's line here.
Or, to shorten everything I said above. Rev has become the OBAMA of DP.

[BoogyMan]

I appreciate that you are principled person and most conservative voters are TRULY conservative.
but I stand by my statement that when voting republican we are NOT actually getting any conservative policies implemented.
at best we are only loosing them slower with "conservative" republicans in office.

you've said several times that you think i want republicans to agree with me 100%.
I've never said that, And I pointed out that the only "conservative" policy that the republicans consistently deliver on is WAR.

I'm not a fan of that in most instances however, I'll ask again, list for me the conservative policies that you are sure .. fairly confident... will be promoted with the typical republicans in congress or the executive.

balanced budget
address the nat'l debt
get money back from bail outs
not bail out others
pro-life issues
protect gun rights
tax relief for the middle class
less corruption in congress
more transparency in gov't
repeal warrantless wire tapping
removal of free speech zone policies
war powers back in the hands of congress
ending obamacare
reign in corporate crooks
Protect traditional marriage
fix immigration policy
Do something about the boarders
Not kill Americans without due process
make the federal gov't smaller

there are other conservative issues, name a few.
But I don't need a candidate to do them all.
Name me 3 or 4 that your confident will get done/progress by a republican congress?
By a republican president?

Is it wrong to expect more than 3 or 4?
But you'd think at least 3 or 4 right?
if they SAY they believe in them ALL and are conservative "MINDED".

personally I don't see much but a personality difference in Bush to Obama. both have increased the debt, increased the wars, increased the size of gov't, and basiaclly have not done anything significantly positive in the list above.

A lot of the partisan Rancors is just BS window dressing imo. as i said the ONLY real thing Obamas done that's more commie than Bush is Obamacare and that's just a version of Romney Care.
Plus no republican is serious about repealing it. EVEN if they had 2/3rd of the house and 75% of the senate. I'm i wrong on that point?

Once again you speak as if Mr. Bush were up for re-election as a reason to vote in such a way as to do damage to conservatives running for office. Mr. Bush is NOT up for re-election and using him as a continued talking point is simply a deflection technique to try and turn the discussion from throwing away your vote to the very same purity tests you claim you don't uphold.

You want to talk about policy I will talk with you all day long, but you want to condemn the whole with broad strokes to justify fracturing the conservative vote and ensuring that the American communist party continues to win elections. I won't play that game.

We need to unite behind a conservative that can win and then hold his/her feet to the fire to make sure that the constitution is the standard for all policy making.

Pre-WWII type isolationism/protectionism isn't going to get us anywhere either.

If you see no character differences between Mr. Bush and Mr. Obama you are a lost cause, good sir.

[revelarts]

... turn the discussion from throwing away your vote to the very same purity tests you claim you don't uphold.

You want to talk about policy I will talk with you all day long, but you want to condemn the whole with broad strokes to justify fracturing the conservative vote and ensuring that the American communist party continues to win elections. I won't play that game.

We need to unite behind a conservative that can win and then hold his/her feet to the fire to make sure that the constitution is the standard for all policy making.


I just listed 19 SEPARATE conservative issues. and asked that you give me 3 or 4 that your Confident the general republican will DO.
IF that's a "purity test" then well OK.
you seem to be saying we shouldn't expect ANYTHING conservative from republicans.
But we should get mad at libertarians for not voting for them.
what are we voting for if they don't have any confidence they'll do ANY of it?!?!
we have the name for that already -Republicans In Name Only-.

but Ok lets say we all vote in a house full of Rinos and half arse tea party guys.
and promise to vote them in for the next 20 years.
How exactly do we hold their feet to the fire?
Not by voting, because we'll do that anyway.
so what is the reason a RINO will enact real conservative policies?

Please tell me,
I was never in the party JUST for the party, I was told that conservatives want to get some things done.
I don't give a flip about parties fracturing, that means nothing to me.

If I hire a plumber to fix the sink and it still leaks after calling them for 30 years, i say it's past time to call a new plumbers. I don't want to hear any stuff about loyalty, or that i shouldn't use a "leak test". i want the sink fixed.

[gabosaurus]

Coulter is the conservative answer to Michael Moore -- stupid, clueless and willing to do anything to create publicity (favorable or unfavorable) for herself. They would actually make a good couple.

Otherwise, controlling the House and Senate might be the worst thing for the GOP's hopes to regain the White House in 2016.
Obama's attempts at legislation will go nowhere against partisan opposition. Being a lame duck president, Obama won't care. He will blame all government failures on conservatives. Any setbacks such as a recession would be blamed on Congress. People dislike unpopular presidents, but they dislike Congress more.
This will amplify GOP disputes during the 2016 campaign as the Tea Party squares off against more moderate Republicans. The only winner of that battle will be Democrats.

[BoogyMan]

Coulter is the conservative answer to Michael Moore -- stupid, clueless and willing to do anything to create publicity (favorable or unfavorable) for herself. They would actually make a good couple.

Otherwise, controlling the House and Senate might be the worst thing for the GOP's hopes to regain the White House in 2016.
Obama's attempts at legislation will go nowhere against partisan opposition. Being a lame duck president, Obama won't care. He will blame all government failures on conservatives. Any setbacks such as a recession would be blamed on Congress. People dislike unpopular presidents, but they dislike Congress more.
This will amplify GOP disputes during the 2016 campaign as the Tea Party squares off against more moderate Republicans. The only winner of that battle will be Democrats.

Obama has already done what you list here. Every Obama failure has been blamed on everyone but himself. The leader of the communist party in America is not a bright man nor does he possess any singular ability to lead. One could even say his failure is his biggest achievement.

[BoogyMan]

I just listed 19 SEPARATE conservative issues. and asked that you give me 3 or 4 that your Confident the general republican will DO.
IF that's a "purity test" then well OK.
you seem to be saying we shouldn't expect ANYTHING conservative from republicans.
But we should get mad at libertarians for not voting for them.
what are we voting for if they don't have any confidence they'll do ANY of it?!?!
we have the name for that already -Republicans In Name Only-.

but Ok lets say we all vote in a house full of Rinos and half arse tea party guys.
and promise to vote them in for the next 20 years.
How exactly do we hold their feet to the fire?
Not by voting, because we'll do that anyway.
so what is the reason a RINO will enact real conservative policies?

Please tell me,
I was never in the party JUST for the party, I was told that conservatives want to get some things done.
I don't give a flip about parties fracturing, that means nothing to me.

If I hire a plumber to fix the sink and it still leaks after calling them for 30 years, i say it's past time to call a new plumbers. I don't want to hear any stuff about loyalty, or that i shouldn't use a "leak test". i want the sink fixed.

I really and truly despise the term RINO. It seems to be tossed out every time someone disagrees with a conservative on an issue and it does more damage than good.

It is obvious that you don't give a flip about fracturing the vote and it is good to see you finally admit it. That is what most folks who think like you do, toss away their vote on a candidate they know has NO chance of winning and salve any conscience issues by claiming that they have done what is right to "save the republic." In doing so they also take a vote away from a candidate who could have actually done something against the power mad crazies in the Democrat party who actually DO want to do damage to our republic and DO want to control every waking thought in your head.

You honestly don't know how the people hold an elected official's feet to the fire? Maybe you should do some reading.

[aboutime]

Coulter is the conservative answer to Michael Moore -- stupid, clueless and willing to do anything to create publicity (favorable or unfavorable) for herself. They would actually make a good couple.

Otherwise, controlling the House and Senate might be the worst thing for the GOP's hopes to regain the White House in 2016.
Obama's attempts at legislation will go nowhere against partisan opposition. Being a lame duck president, Obama won't care. He will blame all government failures on conservatives. Any setbacks such as a recession would be blamed on Congress. People dislike unpopular presidents, but they dislike Congress more.
This will amplify GOP disputes during the 2016 campaign as the Tea Party squares off against more moderate Republicans. The only winner of that battle will be Democrats.


Sure thing gabby. And look at how intentionally you failed to mention how your hatred for Coulter intentionally ignores the number of NEW YORK TIMES best seller's Coulter has had....compared to all of those BEST SELLERS....You had???

[gabosaurus]

Sure thing gabby. And look at how intentionally you failed to mention how your hatred for Coulter intentionally ignores the number of NEW YORK TIMES best seller's Coulter has had....compared to all of those BEST SELLERS....You had???

What does that have to do with anything? :rolleyes:

[aboutime]

What does that have to do with anything? :rolleyes:


Coming from you. Or about you? Absolutely nothing if you are "anything".

[revelarts]

I really and truly despise the term RINO. It seems to be tossed out every time someone disagrees with a conservative on an issue and it does more damage than good.

It is obvious that you don't give a flip about fracturing the vote and it is good to see you finally admit it. That is what most folks who think like you do, toss away their vote on a candidate they know has NO chance of winning and salve any conscience issues by claiming that they have done what is right to "save the republic." In doing so they also take a vote away from a candidate who could have actually done something against the power mad crazies in the Democrat party who actually DO want to do damage to our republic and DO want to control every waking thought in your head.

You honestly don't know how the people hold an elected official's feet to the fire? Maybe you should do some reading.
Republicans have to DO something against the power mad dems Boggie, what are they DOING? that's my whole point.

Boggie I'm still waiting 3 or 4 examples of conservative issues that you are sure will get serious working attention or done.
I guess your not going to give me any.
you just keep telling me i just need to vote republican ANYWAY no matter what.
Are the conservative issues important at all, any of them?
Or is the party more important?

Admitting that i don't care about Fracturing the vote if it means the vote is MEANINGLESS anyway. sure.
Especially when there are candidates that on the ticket that will actually do something.
I gladly admit it, and pray to God that others do the same.

If all my fellow conservatives would have the faith to step out and vote their principals, all it would take is ONE election for a GOP wake up call.
Look, there are people even on this board talking about a coming violent revolution because the country is "at the brink of destruction."
But if I and others asked people vote their conservative values and maybe even 3rd party to save the country that's assumed to be TOO RADICAL and a waste?!. I call BS on that idea.

the republican party itself was a formed from votes FRACTURED from the Whigs and Democrats over principals.
I make no apologies for following that tradition.

look at whats happening here.
1st the republicans up for election are not committed to conservative values or restoring the constitution,
then Coulter calls Libertarians idiots, and then you insult their conviction to conservative principals... which you say you agree with.
Is there any wonder that the GOP can't get people to vote for them?

[BoogyMan]

Republicans have to DO something against the power mad dems Boggie, what are they DOING? that's my whole point.

Boggie I'm still waiting 3 or 4 examples of conservative issues that you are sure will get serious working attention or done.
I guess your not going to give me any.
you just keep telling me i just need to vote republican ANYWAY no matter what.
Are the conservative issues important at all, any of them?
Or is the party more important?

Admitting that i don't care about Fracturing the vote if it means the vote is MEANINGLESS anyway. sure.
Especially when there are candidates that on the ticket that will actually do something.
I gladly admit it, and pray to God that others do the same.

If all my fellow conservatives would have the faith to step out and vote their principals, all it would take is ONE election for a GOP wake up call.
Look, there are people even on this board talking about a coming violent revolution because the country is "at the brink of destruction."
But if I and others asked people vote their conservative values and maybe even 3rd party to save the country that's assumed to be TOO RADICAL and a waste?!. I call BS on that idea.

the republican party itself was a formed from votes FRACTURED from the Whigs and Democrats over principals.
I make no apologies for following that tradition.

look at whats happening here.
1st the republicans up for election are not committed to conservative values or restoring the constitution,
then Coulter calls Libertarians idiots, and then you insult their conviction to conservative principals... which you say you agree with.
Is there any wonder that the GOP can't get people to vote for them?

I find your efforts at righteous indignation to be comical when you base them on your own supposed superiority over those with whom you cannot agree 100%.

Tell me who exactly is not conservative? I don't want your purity tested claptrap, but who we are going to officially expel from the party because they can no longer meet your standard of conservative enough to get your vote. There are many I disagree with, but disagreement on an issue or two does not equate to tossing my vote in the trash to make me feel good about my convictions either.

I don't need to pick from your buffet of privately held purity test rhetoric, Rev. What I do need to do is put your rhetoric to open shame and hope that you will come to your senses.

When the choice is power mad lunatics who want to control every facet of your life by blindly recalling the despotism of the 20th century or a conservative I don't agree with on every issue it is going to be the conservative....every time.

[Drummond]

is that what i wrote?
then don't read it that way.

You implied .. I picked up on it.


Was Iraq "fighting terrorism", no not at all. They were never a threat to the U.S. even.

Iraq was taken on, militarily, as a result of Saddam's failure to comply with UN Resolution 1441, and his failure to show that his regime wasn't hiding / stockpiling WMD's.

Some countries can be trusted with such weaponry. Iraq had proven not to be one of them (as the Kurds could readily testify .. the survivors, anyway).

In case you've forgotten - the 2003 invasion was part of the War on Terror. Saddam ran a rogue regime, one with a history of its OWN warmongering .. and importantly, it was known to be a terrorist facilitator. For example -- Saddam's bankrolling of Hamas !!

Saddam couldn't be trusted not to pass on WMD weaponry to terrorists, and well you know it (.. or if you think otherwise, present your proof !!). This in itself suggested the great need to deal with his regime once and for all.


And there another thread where i mention in some detail the alternatives to MILITARY ACTION in dealing with terrorism.
As I've mentioned several times military forces are not the best tool to deal with THUGS.
So promising WAR around the globe into the indefinite future is what's truly perverse.

Solutions need to be workable and effective. The Left supplies neither. And as for your last sentence ... if you want to look for perversity in such matters, consider the utter perversity involved in SOFT PEDALLING against terrorism, when you have the power to do the opposite !!

[aboutime]

You implied .. I picked up on it.



Iraq was taken on, militarily, as a result of Saddam's failure to comply with UN Resolution 1441, and his failure to show that his regime wasn't hiding / stockpiling WMD's.

Some countries can be trusted with such weaponry. Iraq had proven not to be one of them (as the Kurds could readily testify .. the survivors, anyway).

In case you've forgotten - the 2003 invasion was part of the War on Terror. Saddam ran a rogue regime, one with a history of its OWN warmongering .. and importantly, it was known to be a terrorist facilitator. For example -- Saddam's bankrolling of Hamas !!

Saddam couldn't be trusted not to pass on WMD weaponry to terrorists, and well you know it (.. or if you think otherwise, present your proof !!). This in itself suggested the great need to deal with his regime once and for all.



Solutions need to be workable and effective. The Left supplies neither. And as for your last sentence ... if you want to look for perversity in such matters, consider the utter perversity involved in SOFT PEDALLING against terrorism, when you have the power to do the opposite !!



Sir Drummond. As a veteran of the FIRST GULF WAR, what we called Operation Desert Shield/Storm in 1990-91. Rev, and other Bush haters fail to remember, or intentionally never remember that THERE WAS NEVER ANY PEACE TREATY declared after Saddam's military was routed from Kuwait. So...Legally, and Politically speaking. The 2nd Gulf War was just the continuation, and end of Saddam's rule. For better, or for worse. Like the whiners/ conspiracy theorists over 911, they cannot change the TRUTH.

[tailfins]

Coulter is the conservative answer to Michael Moore -- stupid, clueless and willing to do anything to create publicity (favorable or unfavorable) for herself. They would actually make a good couple.

Otherwise, controlling the House and Senate might be the worst thing for the GOP's hopes to regain the White House in 2016.
Obama's attempts at legislation will go nowhere against partisan opposition. Being a lame duck president, Obama won't care. He will blame all government failures on conservatives. Any setbacks such as a recession would be blamed on Congress. People dislike unpopular presidents, but they dislike Congress more.
This will amplify GOP disputes during the 2016 campaign as the Tea Party squares off against more moderate Republicans. The only winner of that battle will be Democrats.

Many people are tired of the excrement sandwich served up by Obama. After spending three years seeing first hand what that means by living in leftist Meccas like Massachusetts and Rhode Island, I wonder why would a majority sign up for such a thing. Housing shortages, traffic jams, high prices at the store, schools that cater to low achievers, obscene health insurance rates, etc., gets old after awhile. You're shielded from the excrement sandwich by your husband. That doesn't mean it's not there. The GOP in power represents a CHANCE to having a livable place, the Dems don't even try to make an enjoyable country for anyone except their interest groups. That's what they mean every time you hear them use the word "targeted".

[revelarts]

I find your efforts at righteous indignation to be comical when you base them on your own supposed superiority over those with whom you cannot agree 100%.

Tell me who exactly is not conservative? I don't want your purity tested claptrap, but who we are going to officially expel from the party because they can no longer meet your standard of conservative enough to get your vote. There are many I disagree with, but disagreement on an issue or two does not equate to tossing my vote in the trash to make me feel good about my convictions either.

I don't need to pick from your buffet of privately held purity test rhetoric, Rev. What I do need to do is put your rhetoric to open shame and hope that you will come to your senses.

When the choice is power mad lunatics who want to control every facet of your life by blindly recalling the despotism of the 20th century or a conservative I don't agree with on every issue it is going to be the conservative....every time.

Boggie if you can't honestly address my points but somehow want to try to put me "to open shame" . how can i take you seriously.
you ask me a to show you "A" republican why should i show you when you can't give me an honest reply Boogie?

But i'll give you 1 anyway
Mitt Romney

what was conservative about him?
, other than his personal life, what conservative principals THAT YOU SAY YOU BELIEVE IN did you expect him to fulfill.
i can't think of any . You assume that we all should be in agreement with him generally... because he's a republican.
but I can only think or 1 or 2 points that he'd sincerely agreed with me on. Everything else we'd disagree on.
same with Obama.

I won't give you a list because for some reason seeing a list of conservative values causes you discomfort.
but you tell me was Romney going fight the mad dog dems and restore the constitution Boggie?


P.S.
Is this what republicans have come to, that you can't even mention the broad range conservative values in list form
in hopes of getting republican candidates to stand by 3 or 4 of them?
sad.

[BoogyMan]

Boggie if you can't honestly address my points but somehow want to try to put me "to open shame" . how can i take you seriously.
you ask me a to show you "A" republican why should i show you when you can't give me an honest reply Boogie?

But i'll give you 1 anyway
Mitt Romney

what was conservative about him?
, other than his personal life, what conservative principals THAT YOU SAY YOU BELIEVE IN did you expect him to fulfill.
i can't think of any . You assume that we all agree with him generally.
but I can only think or 1 or 2 points that he'd sincerely agreed with me on. Everything else we'd disagree on.
same with Obama.

I won't give you a list because for some reason you don't like list.
but you tell me was Romney going fight the mad dog dems and restore the constitutions Boggie?

I have honestly addressed every purity test supporting "point" you have failed to make. :)

As long as the radical libertarians continue to refuse to support a viable conservative and vote for those they KNOW FOR CERTAIN are going to lose it is going to be very easy to put your views to open shame, Rev. It is a crying shame you cannot see that.

Mitt Romney vs Barack Obama, what more needs to be said? Is Romney perfect? No. Do I agree with him 100%? No. Would he have been a CiC 1000 times better for America than the absolute dirtbag we have in office now? YES!!

You claim not to support purity testing and then trash Mitt Romney in a direct comparison with the lying, wealth redistributing, liberty squashing communist in the White House and expect to hold on to any kind of credibility?

[revelarts]

I have honestly addressed every purity test supporting "point" you have failed to make. :)

As long as the radical libertarians continue to refuse to support a viable conservative and vote for those they KNOW FOR CERTAIN are going to lose it is going to be very easy to put your views to open shame, Rev. It is a crying shame you cannot see that.

Mitt Romney vs Barack Obama, what more needs to be said? Is Romney perfect? No. Do I agree with him 100%? No. Would he have been a CiC 1000 times better for America than the absolute dirtbag we have in office now? YES!!

You claim not to support purity testing and then trash Mitt Romney in a direct comparison with the lying, wealth redistributing, liberty squashing communist in the White House and expect to hold on to any kind of credibility?
So you do like list, your list, ...purity test... is just different than mine.
it has ... lying... wealth redistribution, and
"...liberty squashing communism..."

liberty squashing...
you don't say

Boogie this is the issue that Romney and Obama BOTH agree on. and the issue that concerned me most.
the bill of rights Means Nothing to either. Romney was not going to REPEAL ANY none ZERO of Obama's&Bush'sConstitution busting oversteps in this area Boggie.
And your LYING to yourself if you think it makes a bit of difference if it's a republican or dem that taking your rights.

but hey look we disagree. maybe it will get so bad that one of us will change.

[gabosaurus]

The GOP in power represents a CHANCE to having a livable place...

Not to mention a CHANCE for another enemy attack on American soil.
And a CHANCE for a police state that Putin would admire. Can't wait to see what Patriot Act, Part Two would include. :rolleyes:

[revelarts]

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/sZLqsRqKFyI?feature=player_detailpage" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[revelarts]

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/q7t9W_Nxc4E?feature=player_detailpage" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[BoogyMan]

So you do like list, your list, ...purity test... is just different than mine.
it has ... lying... wealth redistribution, and
"...liberty squashing communism..."

liberty squashing...
you don't say

Boogie this is the issue that Romney and Obama BOTH agree on. and the issue that concerned me most.
the bill of rights Means Nothing to either. Romney was not going to REPEAL ANY none ZERO of Obama's&Bush'sConstitution busting oversteps in this area Boggie.
And your LYING to yourself if you think it makes a bit of difference if it's a republican or dem that taking your rights.

but hey look we disagree. maybe it will get so bad that one of us will change.

Wow, the self delusion you project is staggeringly simplistic and yet it seems to have a great hold on you.

Mr. Romney planned to repeal ObamaCare which most communists consider Mr. Obama's biggest achievement. If you are going to make a claim, at least make one that cannot be so easily shown to be false. (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/28/romney-says-he-will-repeal-obamacare-if-elected/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0)

You simply cannot support your position, Rev. You want to claim conservatism but only if you can define it and demand 100% agreement from those who would also make the claim. It is a sad and delusional position that you have taken.

[revelarts]

<iframe src="//www.youtube.com/embed/RUcycIc7o_4?feature=player_detailpage" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="360" width="640"></iframe>

Newt Gingrich: President Obama, Mitt Romney the Same Person

[jimnyc]

Not to mention a CHANCE for another enemy attack on American soil.
And a CHANCE for a police state that Putin would admire. Can't wait to see what Patriot Act, Part Two would include. :rolleyes:

Do you mean like Obama voting for the Patriot act - TWICE - and then signing it into law again in 2011?

[jimnyc]

When frustrated, we'll now be hit with the Youtube onslaught!

http://i.imgur.com/za933pB.gif

[revelarts]

When frustrated, we'll now be hit with the Youtube onslaught!

3 youtubes is an "onslaught!"?
a list of 19 conservative values and asking for 4 points of agreement is a "purity test"?

:rolleyes:

you folks are don't really expect to be challenged do you?

'noooo it's to much information proving your point...
it's an onslaught of info i can't take it ... let me post a gif making fun of you personally because i can't refute the onslaught of facts....
aaarrrgh...'

'ooo nooo you're asking R's to agree with you 100% by asking for any 4 of 19 conservatives points to be worked SERIOUSLY by Rs once elected!!!...
it's a "Purity Test" that you made up by your own made up version of conservationism which R's candidates only talk about every election cycle...
...it's not fair to think they'll actually do any of it... just vote for them anyway... and they will save us....'

i'm just trying to shame you all into changing your position

[jimnyc]

3 youtubes is an "onslaught!"?
a list of 19 conservative values and asking for 4 points of agreement is a "purity test"?

:rolleyes:

you folks are don't really expect to be challenged do you?

'noooo it's to much information proving your point...
it's an onslaught of info i can't take it ... let me post a gif making fun of you personally because i can't refute the onslaught of facts....
aaarrrgh...'

'ooo nooo you're asking R's to agree with you 100% by asking for any 4 of 19 conservatives points to be worked SERIOUSLY by Rs once elected!!!...
it's a "Purity Test" that you made up by your own made up version of conservationism which R's candidates only talk about every election cycle...
...it's not fair to think they'll actually do any of it... just vote for them anyway... and they will save us....'

i'm just trying to shame you all into changing your position

You write all that in reply to what I wrote? LOL like I said:

http://i.imgur.com/za933pB.gif

Btw, if you want to try and shame me into being a conspiracy nutter, ain't gonna happen. I'm content with my positions. I don't need Youtube to try and persuade me into the twilight zone.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

3 youtubes is an "onslaught!"?
a list of 19 conservative values and asking for 4 points of agreement is a "purity test"?

:rolleyes:

you folks are don't really expect to be challenged do you?

'noooo it's to much information proving your point...
it's an onslaught of info i can't take it ... let me post a gif making fun of you personally because i can't refute the onslaught of facts....
aaarrrgh...'

'ooo nooo you're asking R's to agree with you 100% by asking for any 4 of 19 conservatives points to be worked SERIOUSLY by Rs once elected!!!...
it's a "Purity Test" that you made up by your own made up version of conservationism which R's candidates only talk about every election cycle...
...it's not fair to think they'll actually do any of it... just vote for them anyway... and they will save us....'

i'm just trying to shame you all into changing your position

The Dem party has so corrupted the system as to make millions hate and not trust it.
Voting libertarian is same as voting dem.. It serves the same purpose... Reality is a bitch but there it is !! -Tyr

[revelarts]

The Dem party has so corrupted the system as to make millions hate and not trust it.
Voting libertarian is same as voting dem.. It serves the same purpose... Reality is a bitch but there it is !! -Tyr

Voting republican is the same as voting Dem light.
that Reality is a b*tch but there it is Tyr.

[Drummond]

Voting republican is the same as voting Dem light.
that Reality is a b*tch but there it is Tyr.

Heh heh. I KNEW that was your real message, Revelarts --

I am right You want to neutralise the anti-Dem vote by telling their opposition that it's all effectively meaningless. So that the Dems are re-elected by default ....

[revelarts]

You write all that in reply to what I wrote? LOL like I said:

lol,
sorry if there are too many words for you Jim.

i'll see if i can find a cartoon to reply next time
:poke:

[jimnyc]

The Dem party has so corrupted the system as to make millions hate and not trust it.
Voting libertarian is same as voting dem.. It serves the same purpose... Reality is a bitch but there it is !! -Tyr

Maybe next time you can be "honest" when you post, and then you'll get approval. :poke:

[jimnyc]

lol,
sorry if there are too many words for you Jim.

i'll see if i can find a cartoon to reply next time
:poke:

Just coherent would be good for starters, as well as complete sentences and paragraphs.

[revelarts]

Heh heh. I KNEW that was your real message, Revelarts --

I am right You want to neutralise the anti-Dem vote by telling their opposition that it's all effectively meaningless. So that the Dems are re-elected by default ....

you're really an interesting person drummond you can't seem to conceive of a person not bound to party.

no Drummond what i'd like to see ... as i've said a few times i think..
is Republican candidates who actually work for 3 or 4 conservative positions once they get into office.
I'm tired of all of the wonderful conservative "talk" but dem light actions.

and i don't think they deserve my vote anymore if they lie to me for 30 years about smaller gov't, family values and adherence to the constitution etc.
. that might seem crazy to many here, whatever.
look, do what you want to do.
rah rah for the sweet lies, vote for them and then "hold their feet to the fire" and watch them do nothing for the rest of your lives if you want to.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Maybe next time you can be "honest" when you post, and then you'll get approval. :poke:
First, I get exactly what you are saying Jim , nothing personal in the following statement directed at you at all...
the following reply is to clarify my stand, how I've lived my life and how I intend to live it until I die.

Sorry my friend. That kind of honesty is repugnant to me. I prefer the good old fashioned kind. The kind that drives the dem/lib/socialist, muslim appeasers bonkers. The kind that brings pure unadulterated hatred down upon me! For when the bastards loose their calm they expose who and what they truly are for others (the many blinded) to finally SEE!
Turn the light on what is the first thing the roaches do?? They run to hide....
Those I named are even lower than roaches in this man's book. And yes, they do quite well to fear me!!
I have the brain power and the physical power/abilities to back up my every word.
In other words, I am the patriot the traitor obama fears.... thus his minions, bots, leeches, co conspirators fear me and all like me.
A fact.. Any moral man they hate and fear...
My stand is this--FFK ALL OF THEM, NO EXCEPTIONS.. I don't play when it comes to certain things.. -Tyr

[jimnyc]

First, I get exactly what you are saying Jim , nothing personal in the following statement directed at you at all...
the following reply is to clarify my stand, how I've lived my life and how I intend to live it until I die.

Sorry my friend. That kind of honesty is repugnant to me. I prefer the good old fashioned kind. The kind that drives the dem/lib/socialist, muslim appeasers bonkers. The kind that brings pure unadulterated hatred down upon me! For when the bastards loose their calm they expose who and what they truly are for others (the many blinded) to finally SEE!
Turn the light on what is the first thing the roaches do?? They run to hide....
Those I named are even lower than roaches in this man's book. And yes, they do quite well to fear me!!
I have the brain power and the physical power/abilities to back up my every word.
In other words, I am the patriot the traitor obama fears.... thus his minions, bots, leeches, co conspirators fear me and all like me.
A fact.. Any moral man they hate and fear...
My stand is this--FFK ALL OF THEM, NO EXCEPTIONS.. I don't play when it comes to certain things.. -Tyr

While "I" think your post is about as honest as they come, it might not be considered honest unless you write something that someone else agrees with. :coffee:

[Drummond]

you're really an interesting person drummond you can't seem to conceive of a person not bound to party.

Sure I can. What I can't conceive of is someone CLAIMING not to have such an allegiance, then going on to prove loyalty to positions which prove advantageous for one Party, and wholly disadvantageous to another. Such 'coincidences' could not KEEP on happening ...


no Drummond what i'd like to see ... as i've said a few times i think..
is Republican candidates who actually work for 3 or 4 conservative positions once they get into office.
I'm tired of all of the wonderful conservative "talk" but dem light actions.

and i don't think they deserve my vote anymore if they lie to me for 30 years about smaller gov't, family values and adherence to the constitution etc.
. that might seem crazy to many here, whatever.
look, do what you want to do.
rah rah for the sweet lies, vote for them and then "hold their feet to the fire" and watch them do nothing for the rest of your lives if you want to.

.... and there y'go ... I rest my case !!

[DLT]

Ann Coulter: 'Idiots' Who Vote Libertarian Will Cost GOP The Senate


http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/ann-coulter-gop-senate-worried?utm_content=buffer38572&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

OK lets look at this in general.

When Obama ran the 1st time he promised "change"
but even many on the left admit now they've gotten more of the same. just bush 2.0
the only thing that's changed towards his left positions is Obamacare.
Other than that he's TALKED in support of abortion, homosexual marriage and fiddled with loosing immigration.

but some of what hasn't changed as he promised are :
•Gitmo's not closed
•still in and now BACK in Iraq.
•he promised more Afghanistan anyway
•NONE of the constitutional civil liberties promises have been kept, but in fact made worse.
•transparency is worse.
•More drone killings
•outright killing of Americans without due process added
•Embraced all Bush's assumed war powers
•Added assumed war powers to attack Libya
•He hasn't really helped minorities, which minorities hoped and some non-minorities feared.
•Hasn't reigned in the budget or dealt with the bail outs or debt.
•Hasn't gone after wall street or corporate crooks
•He has lobbiest on the executive payroll.

My question to the left is this.
Do you expect MORE change like above from another Dem in the WH or more in congress?

My question to the right is this.
Do you Expect a new Republican president of Senate to do anything DIFFERENT than what you see above?

will they balance the budget?
will they end Obama care?
will they restore civil liberties to constitutional levels?
will they stop or slow abortion?
stop or slow Homosexual marriage?
Fight a more effective war on terror? (they have no plans of ENDING any wars)
CiC Divest himself of the non-constitutional war powers?
kick out lobbiest?
better race relations?
reign in corporate crooks?
Do anything about immigration policy?
Do anything about the boarders?
be MORE transparent?
Not kill Americans without due process?
lower taxes on the middle class?


Please tell me what will really change with a new republican president and senate?
(or an new democrat president?)


Convince me of some significant CONSERVATIVE actions that will take place if we get republican President (senate or congress).
So that I might vote for a republican again.
Supreme court Judges and more conservative judges on federal the bench you say?
is that the best we can hope for out of an "electable" Republican president? really?

I don't buy the "it'd be worse with a democrat line".
From my POV i don't see much difference at all.

Please make it clear for me so that i can consider it.

Slowing the process of the destruction of America is probably the only thing that would be accomplished by voting Republicans into control of the Senate. With both houses under GOP rule, they might (and note that I said 'might') be able to curtail Obama's hellbent agenda. However.....that's probably another false hope, since the current GOP seems to be more into Obama-enabling vs. Obama-curtailing. They're too scared to do what needs to be done, which is blatant obstructionism, to save this nation from this ongoing leftist coup.

So even tho I will vote, as always, against the bigger evil (Democrats/commies).....I doubt that much will change. It's like riding on an out-of-control train....barreling down the tracks, while handcuffed and hog-tied, and while looking out of the window at the approaching chasm where the tracks end. You can see. You can speak. Scream, even. But nothing you do can or will change the fact that the train you're on IS going to crash into that chasm, no matter what. Your best hope is that something, anything, will slow the train down.

[DLT]

Libertarians were the Tea Party until the establishment Republicans basically pushed them out.
the very 1st Tea Party meetings were a Ron Paul fund raisers.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=6bNiDx7qTjA

But please tell me what's going to change if we get republicans in the Senate.

Uh...no. While Libertarians may have joined in the Tea Party movement, the vast majority of TPP's are just average, hard-working Americans who value the US Constitution (unlike Obama, Democrats/leftists), who want the laws already on the books followed vs. more laws are no laws, and who just want less government vs. no government at all. Most of the TP Patriots are conservatives, IOW.

[BoogyMan]

Newt Gingrich: President Obama, Mitt Romney the Same Person

Rev, I can post stuff from the net where people claim to have been abducted by aliens. Does that lend credibility to their claims?

[fj1200]

But please tell me what's going to change if we get republicans in the Senate.

Probably very little but do you acknowledge that Congress will automatically be "more right" than if they don't have control? And Congress is even "more right" than they were in 2010. It's a process and your list won't ever be more likely to occur if that process doesn't happen. Of course I would argue that some of what you wish will actually harm what you're looking for but that's another discussion. Also some of that list you'll have to acknowledge are States issues that have no business being on a national platform. So IMO it comes down to whether you want to begin to see a possibility of change are do you sacrifice the good for the perfect... 'cause you ain't gettin' the perfect.

[fj1200]

More importantly is we need to change the GOP and fill the congress with conservatives. Both houses. They can then reign in any president.

1994-2000 Republicans/conservatives or 2000-2006 Republicans/conservatives? Because those weren't the same thing.

[fj1200]

Sure I can. What I can't conceive of is someone CLAIMING not to have such an allegiance, then going on to prove loyalty to positions which prove advantageous for one Party, and wholly disadvantageous to another. Such 'coincidences' could not KEEP on happening ...

.... and there y'go ... I rest my case !!

:facepalm99: Rev, if he has any faults, is completely committed to conservative positions and not beholden to a party that he thinks has betrayed its mission. That is undeniable.

[Gunny]

The Dem party has so corrupted the system as to make millions hate and not trust it.
Voting libertarian is same as voting dem.. It serves the same purpose... Reality is a bitch but there it is !! -Tyr

The GOP has corrupted the system every bit as much. At the end of the day, same coin, different sides.

[Gunny]

1994-2000 Republicans/conservatives or 2000-2006 Republicans/conservatives? Because those weren't the same thing.

2006 - 2014 Republicans look more like Democrats to me.

[Drummond]

:facepalm99: Rev, if he has any faults, is completely committed to conservative positions and not beholden to a party that he thinks has betrayed its mission. That is undeniable.:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

Oh, this is great stuff ! Many thanks, FJ, you made my day ...

I'm sure there are many ways I could counter you on this. But for now, I'll limit myself to just referring you to Revelarts' OWN WORDS ...

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?46654-Should-we-Attack-Saudi-Arabia&p=705197#post705197


Drummond look, i have no loyalties to the left or right. I know thats hard for you to accept but it's true.

I'm sure I can give you other examples, should you require them. Let me know if you do.

[Gunny]

Rev, I can post stuff from the net where people claim to have been abducted by aliens. Does that lend credibility to their claims?

Bet they're drunk rednecks.:laugh:

[BoogyMan]

Bet they're drunk rednecks.:laugh:

LOL, I bet you are right! :laugh:

[hjmick]

I vote my conscience. Always have. Always will.



Fuck her.

[revelarts]

:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

Oh, this is great stuff ! Many thanks, FJ, you made my day ...

I'm sure there are many ways I could counter you on this. But for now, I'll limit myself to just referring you to Revelarts' OWN WORDS ...

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?46654-Should-we-Attack-Saudi-Arabia&p=705197#post705197

I'm sure I can give you other examples, should you require them. Let me know if you do.

Drummond probably the place where we differ most is on WAR and the connected civil liberties.
When i was young Conservatives talked about the constitution and founding fathers the bill of rights and the need to adhere to those principals. As ORIGINALLY defined.
Frankly there was also some blind patriotism and chest thumpin' militarism too.

I haven't really moved from that position while the neo-cons and moderates now claim that the constitution is a suicide pack and we have to chuck it all in trash for faux security.
And if you repeat the line from Franklin "those that would give up liberty for security will have neither" these so-called conservatives will get mad at ya and say your "weak on terror".

My retort is your weak on the constitution and liberty and human rights and morals.
Plus as a Christian I don't get to leave my faith at the door when it comes to war and
"do everything the terrorist does because if you don't we're all gonna die."
to me that's BS thinking, fear mongering over some highly overrated thugs.


But i'm sure i qualify as conservative on
Abortion
Marriage
Smaller gov't ... military is part of the gov't btw, and as a matter a fact the founders were against standing armies. does that make them liberals?
Free Markets --but i'm anti monopoly---
free enterprise
gun rights
100% pro bill of rights
Constitution
low taxes across the board
others i've mentioned in other post here

But Drummond frankly you seem to define a good conservative as anyone who's gungho to kill terrorist by any means necessary. All other issues, laws, treaties, morals be hanged.

And liberals as anyone who's not on board with that program, and they are therefore closet communist and trick'sy appeasers trying to weaken the conservative vote to our ultimate caliphate doom.

Is my assessment of your view very far off?

[revelarts]

Newt Gingrich: President Obama, Mitt Romney the Same Person
Rev, I can post stuff from the net where people claim to have been abducted by aliens. Does that lend credibility to their claims?
lol...
seriously?
Newt Gingrich has the credibility of an alien abductee to you? lol. that's pretty funny.
But you still would have voted for him if he'd won the nomination, because any ol republican will do.

[Drummond]

Drummond probably the place where we differ most is on WAR and the connected civil liberties.

That may be a fair assessment. Yes.


When i was young Conservatives talked about the constitution and founding fathers the bill of rights and the need to adhere to those principals. As ORIGINALLY defined.
Frankly there was also some blind patriotism and chest thumpin' militarism too.

Naughty .. eh, Revelarts ?

I know from my neck of the woods that Lefties hate overt displays of patriotism. Militarism, even more. 'Jingoism' is what it's thought of as being.


I haven't really moved from that position

Here's where you're beginning to contradict yourself. If you ever did occupy that position .... by being against the Iraq War, you DID move from that position, and you've been light years from it ever since !


while the neo-cons and moderates now claim that the constitution is a suicide pack and we have to chuck it all in trash for faux security.
And if you repeat the line from Franklin "those that would give up liberty for security will have neither" these so-called conservatives will get mad at ya and say your "weak on terror".

... which seems reasonable to me. I say: WHY GIVE TERRORISTS EVEN THE SLIGHTEST ADVANTAGE ?

If I infer correctly, from the above .. it seems to me that you WOULD. Which, Revelarts, is hardly consistent with Conservative thinking.


My retort is your weak on the constitution and liberty and human rights and morals.

Weak on the US Constitution ? Guilty as charged ! Where I am, we have no equivalent of it, so it's hardly surprising, is it ? BUT .. as for weak on liberty, human rights, morals ... OK, ask yourself this. Give terrorists ANY advantage, even only a small one, and that may translate into needless deaths. I ask: WHAT HAPPENS TO THE LIBERTY ENJOYED BY THE DEAD ??

Human rights. Does being weak on terrorists do anything other than work AGAINST the human rights of their victims ? I would not argue for anything that eroded such human rights. But soft-pedalling on terrorists, even if indirectly, does just such a thing.

Oh, and if you want to start arguing about the human rights OF TERRORISTS, then I suggest you will have further outed yourself as a Left-winger, maybe of the Jimmy Carter type ....


Plus as a Christian I don't get to leave my faith at the door when it comes to war

Do you know, Revelarts, that we have Christians over here (I've seen them peddle their arguments on BBC discussion programmes) who argue that to ever pick up a gun with the intent to harm is OF ITSELF an anti-Christian act !

Do you agree with them ?

Because, if all Christians did, then they might as well just surrender to Islamic terrorists and be done with it.


and "do everything the terrorist does because if you don't we're all gonna die."
to me that's BS thinking, fear mongering over some highly overrated thugs.

The Left must be delighted with you, Revelarts.

This is bog standard 'Let's forget about threats and just stick our heads in the sand' stuff.

While you're busily hand-wringing in the face of national security concerns, your 'overrated thugs' may well be working to get, and deploy, their first WMD's. Tell me, BY WHAT RIGHT DO YOU PLAY RUSSIAN ROULETTE WITH PEOPLES' WELLBEING, AND JUST ARBITRARILY DECIDE TO DISCOUNT THE LIKELIHOOD OF FUTURE DANGER ?


But i'm sure i qualify as conservative on
Abortion
Marriage
Smaller gov't ... military is part of the gov't btw, and as a matter a fact the founders were against standing armies. does that make them liberals?
Free Markets --but i'm anti monopoly---
free enterprise
gun rights
100% pro bill of rights
Constitution
low taxes across the board
others i've mentioned in other post here

Then, if true, there is some hope for you. Well done !


But Drummond frankly you seem to define a good conservative as anyone who gungho to kill terrorist by any means necessary. All other issues, laws, treaties, morals be hanged.

Said like a good Leftie ! Really, Revelarts, if you're not one, you must be auditioning for an acting role as one.

Revelarts ... there are various aspects to being a good Conservative. But if you let the basics 'go hang', then what use is the rest of it ?

Try debating the ills of abortion, Revelarts, with a radioactive crater --where a city full of people, yes, unborn babies too, used to live. USED TO, because - just maybe - terrorists were sufficiently empowered to make use of Leftie-led complacency, to succeed in being the threat YOU refuse to accept them to be !!


And liberals as anyone who's not on board with that program, and they are therefore closet communist and trick'sy appeasers trying to weaken the conservative vote to our ultimate caliphate doom.

Is my assessment of your view very far off?

Well, the Left DO have quite a track record of being soft on trash !! Carter wanted to consider terrorists' 'human rights' ... on behalf of beings devoid of humanity !! Obama wanted to close GITMO !! And do you recall the marches across the world, where great numbers of Lefties marched to try and stop the likelihood of an Iraq invasion ?

Considering your own thoughts on Iraq, did YOU go on any of those marches ?? To help protect the tyrant Saddam from harm ?

If not, why not ?

I believe that the one seen in London had an especially strong representation from the Socialist Workers' Party (Marxists) .....

[BoogyMan]

lol...
seriously?
Newt Gingrich has the credibility of an alien abductee to you? lol. that's pretty funny.
But you still would have voted for him if he'd won the nomination, because any ol republican will do.

Anyone that keeps a communist out of office is better than letting one in. Sad you can't seem to figure that one out. Your ilk's purity testing will ensure that electoral losses continue ad-infinitum.

The point of the comparison is you can find anyone who will say anything on the net.

[revelarts]

Anyone that keeps a communist out of office is better than letting one in. Sad you can't seem to figure that one out.

And if they do the same things as communist but say they are freedom lovin' captiplist.
Are we suppose to just swallow that or ignore it?

that's what i don't get.
from 1982 to 2004 i voted republican faithfully and watched them turn farther and farther away from the principals they claimed. And put people of principal in the GOP at the kiddie table. you can stick with them if you want to and imagine they are actually stopping communism rather than working towards it just at 3/4 speed..
Ds and Rs, 6 or half a dozen.
left boots kicking your rights away or right boots kicking your rights away
makes little difference in the end you still end up a slave either way.

[aboutime]

And if they do the same things as communist but say they are freedom lovin' captiplist.
Are we suppose to just swallow that or ignore it?

that's what i don't get.
from 1982 to 2004 i voted republican faithfully and watched them turn farther and farther away from the principals they claimed. And put people of principal in the GOP at the kiddie table. you can stick with them if you want to and imagine they are actually stopping communism rather than working towards it just at 3/4 speed..
Ds and Rs, 6 or half a dozen.
left boots kicking your rights away or right boots kicking your rights away
makes little difference in the end you still end up a slave either way.


No rev. Those who claim to believe they will end up as slaves...need to be perpetual victims in order to have others feel sorry for them.
You and others NEED to use the SLAVERY threats to get the approval of others who also need to find excuses for FAILURE.
(a quote from aboutime)

[BoogyMan]

And if they do the same things as communist but say they are freedom lovin' captiplist.
Are we suppose to just swallow that or ignore it?

that's what i don't get.
from 1982 to 2004 i voted republican faithfully and watched them turn farther and farther away from the principals they claimed. And put people of principal in the GOP at the kiddie table. you can stick with them if you want to and imagine they are actually stopping communism rather than working towards it just at 3/4 speed..
Ds and Rs, 6 or half a dozen.
left boots kicking your rights away or right boots kicking your rights away
makes little difference in the end you still end up a slave either way.

And yet since you ham handedly continue to try and make sure there is no opportunity for a conservative candidate to prove you wrong. You sit back and happily toss away your vote thinking yourself superior while make sure you don't participate one whit in any kind of effort to push for smaller government, liberty, and our constitution inside a framework where such things could actually come about.

Supporting conservatives at least there is a chance to make things better. Your way there is guaranteed failure, less freedom, and more of our constitution mangled.

The indication of cuckoo-pants crazy is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.....

Just sayin.

[fj1200]

2006 - 2014 Republicans look more like Democrats to me.

Well, on a left to right scale I'd put...

2000-2006 R Congress - 2006-2014 R Congress - 1994-2000 R Congress

All things being relative.

[jimnyc]

Well, on a left to right scale I'd put...

2000-2006 R Congress - 2006-2014 R Congress - 1994-2000 R Congress

All things being relative.


** Damn, hate to go off topic...

Where the F you been since last week, ya filthy heaven?

[fj1200]

Oh, this is great stuff ! Many thanks, FJ, you made my day ...

I'm sure there are many ways I could counter you on this. But for now, I'll limit myself to just referring you to Revelarts' OWN WORDS ...

I'm sure I can give you other examples, should you require them. Let me know if you do.

I'm sure you can provide me with plenty of words that you can take out of context but it comes down to it the positions he has, and espouses, are conservative principals and he is consistent. You are unable to find him posting any "leftie" position (see below)... and no, his war stance is not a leftie position; it may be counter to the current Republican stance but those are two different things.

But I will say this, in the world of internet posters you and he are very much the same. You are both doggedly committed but he to positions tied to conservative ideology whereas you to a party. I'd rather count on ideology, I know what to expect.


But i'm sure i qualify as conservative on
Abortion
Marriage
Smaller gov't ... military is part of the gov't btw, and as a matter a fact the founders were against standing armies. does that make them liberals?
Free Markets --but i'm anti monopoly---
free enterprise
gun rights
100% pro bill of rights
Constitution
low taxes across the board
others i've mentioned in other post here

But Drummond frankly you seem to define a good conservative as anyone who's gungho to kill terrorist by any means necessary. All other issues, laws, treaties, morals be hanged.

And liberals as anyone who's not on board with that program, and they are therefore closet communist and trick'sy appeasers trying to weaken the conservative vote to our ultimate caliphate doom.

Is my assessment of your view very far off?

Pretty dead on IMHO. Nothing "leftie" there. ;)

[fj1200]

** Damn, hate to go off topic...

Where the F you been since last week, ya filthy heaven?

Filthy heaven? I'll take that. :poke:

I was enjoying the sites in our nation's capitol. But I was not jumping the fence at the White House and you can't prove otherwise.

[revelarts]

And yet since you ham handedly continue to try and make sure there is no opportunity for a conservative candidate to prove you wrong. You sit back and happily toss away your vote thinking yourself superior while make sure you don't participate one whit in any kind of effort to push for smaller government, liberty, and our constitution inside a framework where such things could actually come about.

Supporting conservatives at least there is a chance to make things better. Your way there is guaranteed failure, less freedom, and more of our constitution mangled.

The indication of cuckoo-pants crazy is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.....

Just sayin.

Boogy, it looks like we disagree.

[revelarts]

...
Here's where you're beginning to contradict yourself. If you ever did occupy that position .... by being against the Iraq War, you DID move from that position, and you've been light years from it ever since !

... which seems reasonable to me. I say: WHY GIVE TERRORISTS EVEN THE SLIGHTEST ADVANTAGE ?

If I infer correctly, from the above .. it seems to me that you WOULD. Which, Revelarts, is hardly consistent with Conservative thinking.

Weak on the US Constitution ? Guilty as charged ! Where I am, we have no equivalent of it, so it's hardly surprising, is it ? BUT .. as for weak on liberty, human rights, morals ... OK, ask yourself this. Give terrorists ANY advantage, even only a small one, and that may translate into needless deaths. I ask: WHAT HAPPENS TO THE LIBERTY ENJOYED BY THE DEAD ??

Human rights. Does being weak on terrorists do anything other than work AGAINST the human rights of their victims ? I would not argue for anything that eroded such human rights. But soft-pedalling on terrorists, even if indirectly, does just such a thing.

Oh, and if you want to start arguing about the human rights OF TERRORISTS, then I suggest you will have further outed yourself as a Left-winger, maybe of the Jimmy Carter type ....

Do you know, Revelarts, that we have Christians over here (I've seen them peddle their arguments on BBC discussion programmes) who argue that to ever pick up a gun with the intent to harm is OF ITSELF an anti-Christian act !

Do you agree with them ?

Because, if all Christians did, then they might as well just surrender to Islamic terrorists and be done with it.

The Left must be delighted with you, Revelarts.

This is bog standard 'Let's forget about threats and just stick our heads in the sand' stuff.

While you're busily hand-wringing in the face of national security concerns, your 'overrated thugs' may well be working to get, and deploy, their first WMD's. Tell me, BY WHAT RIGHT DO YOU PLAY RUSSIAN ROULETTE WITH PEOPLES' WELLBEING, AND JUST ARBITRARILY DECIDE TO DISCOUNT THE LIKELIHOOD OF FUTURE DANGER ?

Then, if true, there is some hope for you. Well done !

Said like a good Leftie ! Really, Revelarts, if you're not one, you must be auditioning for an acting role as one.

Revelarts ... there are various aspects to being a good Conservative. But if you let the basics 'go hang', then what use is the rest of it ?

Try debating the ills of abortion, Revelarts, with a radioactive crater --where a city full of people, yes, unborn babies too, used to live. USED TO, because - just maybe - terrorists were sufficiently empowered to make use of Leftie-led complacency, to succeed in being the threat YOU refuse to accept them to be !!

Well, the Left DO have quite a track record of being soft on trash !! Carter wanted to consider terrorists' 'human rights' ... on behalf of beings devoid of humanity !! Obama wanted to close GITMO !! And do you recall the marches across the world, where great numbers of Lefties marched to try and stop the likelihood of an Iraq invasion ?

Considering your own thoughts on Iraq, did YOU go on any of those marches ?? To help protect the tyrant Saddam from harm ?

If not, why not ?

I believe that the one seen in London had an especially strong representation from the Socialist Workers' Party (Marxists) .....

Concerning my joining Anti Iraq war marches to...
protect our non aggressor stance in the world,
to protect us from getting into a quagmire as Cheney said,
to protect us from wasting billions in the Iraq,
to focus on AQ terrorist,
to protect us from killing U.S troops and Iraqis needlessly,
to align with the even then known intel of no WMD threat,
no I didn't go on the marches, it never fit my schedule.
i just called my congressmen and the white house for all the good that did.


But to your general reply it seems As i said Drummond
".. frankly you seem to define a good conservative as anyone who's gungho to kill terrorist by any means necessary. All other issues, laws, treaties, morals be hanged.

And liberals as anyone who's not on board with that program, and they are therefore closet communist and trick'sy appeasers trying to weaken the conservative vote to our ultimate caliphate doom!!"

[Drummond]

I'm sure you can provide me with plenty of words that you can take out of context but it comes down to it the positions he has, and espouses, are conservative principals and he is consistent. You are unable to find him posting any "leftie" position (see below)... and no, his war stance is not a leftie position; it may be counter to the current Republican stance but those are two different things.

I enjoy seeing you try to argue your corner, by first doing a bit of goalpost-shifting. It means, of course, that you already know your argument is a weak one.

You have asserted, have you not, that Revelarts consistently sticks to Conservative positions ? Well, regardless of what you claim, Revelarts' 'war stance' VERY FIRMLY puts him on the side of the Left ... this blowing your claim for him completely out of the water !

Let me show you (.. as if you really need me to do so !!!) just how provably pro-Left this is .. how totally associated with Leftie thinking this is ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_the_War_Coalition

The 'Stop the War Coalition' was an organiser of the London anti-2003 Iraq invasion march, a short time before it actually happened. Now, as you'll see from the link, 'Stop the War' are dominated by the Left .. indeed, its main people are prominent British Leftie figures (... except for one, because he's dead ..).


The Stop the War Coalition (StWC; informally just Stop the War) is a United Kingdom group established on 21 September 2001 to campaign against what it believes are unjust wars.

The coalition has opposed the wars that are part of the so-called "War on Terror" of the Western nations. It has campaigned against the war in Afghanistan and the Iraq War. The demonstration against the latter on 15 February 2003, which it organised in association with Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND) and the Muslim Association of Britain (MAB), is claimed to be the largest public demonstration in British history.

The impetus to form the Stop the War Coalition came following the 11 September 2001 attacks in the United States. The Coalition was launched at a public meeting of over 2,000 people at Friends House in London, which was chaired by Lindsey German, then active in the Socialist Workers Party. German argued that the action in Afghanistan, then threatened unless the Taliban government extradited Osama bin Laden, would lead to that country's "destruction", and "possibly a wider conflagration in the Indian subcontinent, Iran and the Middle East." Other speakers at the meeting included Jeremy Corbyn (Labour Member of Parliament (MP) for Islington North), and Bruce Kent (of CND).


German became Convenor of the Coalition and a meeting on 28 October settled the Coalition's official aims. This meeting also elected a Steering Committee which consisted of a spectrum of left-wingers including representatives of Labour Left Briefingand the Communist Party of Britain.The Communist Party of Great Britain (Provisional Central Committee) and Alliance for Workers' Liberty failed to get elected, although both became members of the Coalition and participated in its activities.


So there you have it. Such activities, sympathies, viewpoints, come FROM THE LEFT and are led BY THE LEFT. By adopting his 'war stance', FJ, Revelarts is very provably siding with all manner of LEFT wing opinion .. even that of Communists ...

By the way, take a look at the link in detail. On the page, on its right hand side, you'll see a handful of people named as 'Key People'. Let me list them ..

ANDREW MURRAY: Journalist for the Morning Star newspaper, Britain's one COMMUNIST newspaper. Also once worked for the Soviet 'Novosti' news agency.

LINDSEY GERMAN: Former Central Committee member of the Socialist Workers Party (Marxist). Left-wing candidate, standing twice for election, to the Mayor for London position. Once a member of the International Socialists Movement.

TONY BENN: Now dead. Formerly on the Left wing of the British Labour Party, and once a Cabinet Minister during the Wilson and Callaghan Governments.

GEORGE GALLOWAY: Also from the Left wing of the Labour Party .. he quit the Party because he regarded it as too Right wing ! Now prominent in the further-Left 'Respect Party'. Known for his meetings with Saddam Hussein and a cringeworthy fawning speech delivered directly to Saddam, one singing his praises.

Recently declared Bradford, in Yorkshire, England, to be an 'Israel Free Zone' .. this causing him to be interviewed by police as a possible candidate for prosecution because of 'hatespeech'.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2724181/George-Galloway-investigated-police-declares-Bradford-constituency-Israel-free-zone.html

.. so, FJ. Would you like to accuse ALL of these Lefties, as well as the Stop the War Coalition, of somehow adopting RIGHT WING THINKING, BY MISTAKE ??

Because if Revelarts is being true to so-called Right wing thinking by taking his 'war stance', then HE must be right, and ALL of these people must be WRONG !!

So, OK. Now blithely refute all of this as relevant !! It'll make not the slightest sense for you to do so. But I'm sure you'll want to try ... overwhelming evidence, or otherwise !

You have a comrade to support, after all.

... Eh, FJ .. ??

[Drummond]

Concerning my joining Anti Iraq war marches to...
protect our non aggressor stance in the world,
to protect us from getting into a quagmire as Cheney said,
to protect us from wasting billions in the Iraq,
to focus on AQ terrorist,
to protect us from killing U.S troops and Iraqis needlessly,
to align with the even then known intel of no WMD threat,
no I didn't go on the marches, it never fit my schedule.
i just called my congressmen and the white house for all the good that did.


But to your general reply it seems As i said Drummond
".. frankly you seem to define a good conservative as anyone who's gungho to kill terrorist by any means necessary. All other issues, laws, treaties, morals be hanged.

And liberals as anyone who's not on board with that program, and they are therefore closet communist and trick'sy appeasers trying to weaken the conservative vote to our ultimate caliphate doom!!"

Thanks for this .. although I've actually no need to answer you in detail, as it turns out. Observe the reply I've posted to your comrade FJ, and the mountain of evidence I've provided proving your 'war stance' is one which is identified with prominent LEFT wingers (.. indeed, it'd be difficult to find a bunch of Lefties who've been active in public life who are any further to the Left than this lot are !!).

I look forward to your telling me that your stance is definitely Right wing, and that a substantial percentage of the LEFT wing, here in the UK, have, ahem, 'all got that wrong'.

You're right. They are wrong .. every last one of them. Correct ??

[Gunny]

Filthy heaven? I'll take that. :poke:

I was enjoying the sites in our nation's capitol. But I was not jumping the fence at the White House and you can't prove otherwise.

So THAT's what you look like, huh? If you'd slim down some sport you could've gotten past the door. :laugh:

[Drummond]

So THAT's what you look like, huh? If you'd slim down some sport you could've gotten past the door. :laugh:

... and been given a warm welcome .. ?:eek:

[revelarts]

Thanks for this .. although I've actually no need to answer you in detail, as it turns out. Observe the reply I've posted to your comrade FJ, and the mountain of evidence I've provided proving your 'war stance' is one which is identified with prominent LEFT wingers (.. indeed, it'd be difficult to find a bunch of Lefties who've been active in public life who are any further to the Left than this lot are !!).

I look forward to your telling me that your stance is definitely Right wing, and that a substantial percentage of the LEFT wing, here in the UK, have, ahem, 'all got that wrong'.

You're right. They are wrong .. every last one of them. Correct ??

So as I said,
you believe that if someone is NOT fully onboard for war (not only on the bs war on terror but WAR in general) that they are hopelessly LEFT wing.
in your mind that's the FINAL and conclusive test.

'well the radical left LEAD the war protest, THEREFORE ANYONE who agrees with them on that issue is ALL IN with all of the lefts evil agendas and is, in all PROBABILITY, a rabid COMMUNIST. It's perfectly obvious to any thinking persons.'

I'd love to hear you say that with an English accent.

Drummond in 2002 i thought the Afghanistan war made sense.
Taliban were harboring the 9-11 terrorist is what i was told. OK yes go get them.
Iraq was a different story. It never made sense to me still doesn't. the more i looked the more it stank. i've called it an American invasion from day one.
But my "leftie" views on war and the military come these old time commie socialist Leftist that i've read and read about.


"It is a universal truth that the loss of liberty at home is to be charged to the provisions against danger, real or pretended, from abroad."
-James Madison

“Our government has kept us in a perpetual state of fear-kept us in a continuous stampede of patriotic fervor-with the cry of grave national emergency. Always there has been some terrible evil at home or some monstrous foreign power that was going to gobble us up if we did not blindly rally behind it ...”
― General Douglas MacArthur 1957

"Observe good faith and justice toward all nations. Cultivate peace and harmony with all."
-George Washington

"Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war."
-John Adams

"The defense policy of the United States is based on a simple premise: The United States does not start fights. We will never be an aggressor."
-Ronald Reagan

"We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security."
-Dwight D. Eisenhower

"Preventive war was an invention of Hitler. Frankly, I would not even listen to anyone seriously that came and talked about such a thing."
-Dwight D. Eisenhower

"No protracted war can fail to endanger the freedom of a democratic country."
-Alexis de Tocqueville

"Economically considered, war and revolution are always bad business."
-Ludwig von Mises

"If we don’t stop extending our troops all around the world in nation-building missions, we’re going to have a serious problem coming down the road."
-George W. Bush, 2000 before becoming president

I voted for that George W. Bush. One reason he got my vote is because he said that.
i came to find that he didn't really mean it.

[Drummond]

So as I said,
you believe that if someone is NOT fully onboard for war (not only on the bs war on terror but WAR in general) that they are hopelessly LEFT wing.
in your mind that's the FINAL and conclusive test.

'well the radical left LEAD the war protest, THEREFORE ANYONE who agrees with them on that issue is ALL IN with all of the lefts evil agendas and is, in all PROBABILITY, a rabid COMMUNIST. It's perfectly obvious to any thinking persons.'

I'd love to hear you say that with an English accent.

Drummond in 2002 i thought the Afghanistan war made sense.
Taliban were harboring the 9-11 terrorist is what i was told. OK yes go get them.
Iraq was a different story. It never made sense to me still doesn't. the more i looked the more it stank. i've called it an American invasion from day one.
But my "leftie" views on war and the military come these old time commie socialist Leftist that i've read and read about.


"It is a universal truth that the loss of liberty at home is to be charged to the provisions against danger, real or pretended, from abroad."
-James Madison

“Our government has kept us in a perpetual state of fear-kept us in a continuous stampede of patriotic fervor-with the cry of grave national emergency. Always there has been some terrible evil at home or some monstrous foreign power that was going to gobble us up if we did not blindly rally behind it ...”
― General Douglas MacArthur 1957

"Observe good faith and justice toward all nations. Cultivate peace and harmony with all."
-George Washington

"Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war."
-John Adams

"The defense policy of the United States is based on a simple premise: The United States does not start fights. We will never be an aggressor."
-Ronald Reagan

"We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security."
-Dwight D. Eisenhower

"Preventive war was an invention of Hitler. Frankly, I would not even listen to anyone seriously that came and talked about such a thing."
-Dwight D. Eisenhower

"No protracted war can fail to endanger the freedom of a democratic country."
-Alexis de Tocqueville

"Economically considered, war and revolution are always bad business."
-Ludwig von Mises

"If we don’t stop extending our troops all around the world in nation-building missions, we’re going to have a serious problem coming down the road."
-George W. Bush, 2000 before becoming president

I voted for that George W. Bush. One reason he got my vote is because he said that.
i came to find that he didn't really mean it.

... OK .. I've questions for you.

From all of the quotes you've just supplied, tell me this: how many of them pre-date 9/11 ?

Just how many of your offerings come from people whose mindsets had ANY familiarity AT ALL with the terrorism responsible for 9/11, and all that the world has seen since ??

Think about that.

By comparison - consider that the 'Stop the War' Coalition, in protesting as it has about Afghanistan and Iraq, took its protest actions .. has offered its staunch LEFT WING opposition .. IN FULL KNOWLEDGE OF CURRENT TERRORISM CAPABILITIES.

.. AS, IN FACT ... DID YOU.

Still, well done on not fully subscribing to Leftie thinking about Afghanistan. I will acknowledge that. Which tells me, of course, that your thought processes aren't quite as rabidly Left wing as those of the 'Stop the War' clowns.

Congratulations.

Nonetheless, your thoughts on Iraq ARE fully in line with theirs. Which only begs the question: just how un-Conservative IS it, to place world security needlessly at risk, to willingly support the survival of a known maverick, warmongering, terrorist-supporting dictatorship, as was true of Saddam's regime ??

Or, if I use your supposed yardstick, Revelarts, should I equate all that with supposed CONSERVATIVE thinking ??

... REALLY ??

Do you see how thoroughly absurd your argument is, Revelarts ?

I cannot conceive of any Conservative who'd willingly, knowingly, take a chance with such things. What you don't do, as a worthwhile Conservative, is to soft-pedal on terrorist scum, their supporters, or ANY increased likelihood of permitting terrorist atrocities in the world, when you can avoid it. Giving Saddam wholly unsupportable favouritism, allowing his disgusting regime to survive, is just NOT compatible with Conservative decency !!

And if you truly were a Conservative, Revelarts .... I'd never have EVER needed to tell you that !

[revelarts]

9-11 was one attack Drummond.
Horrible tragic devastating evil.

But terrorism is not new. it's been around for centuries, successful and not.
In England in the 1500s there was the Gunpowder Plot. Attempted terrorism which would have blow up all of Parliament. It was done by people in the UK. Did it mean all of England had to give up all their freedoms, burn the Magna Charta and fight wars around the world forever "so it'd never happen again!!"

911 does not negate any of the wisdom of of the previous generations.
And in fact you can see the out workings of their predictions.
The citizens loss of liberties, the political power being pooled in the executive and federal gov't because of the continued war footing. We also see the drain on the economy that comes with war.

the 911 Thugs didn't change the principals of human nature, or of good government, or of the economy or of successful warfare against a guerrilla or pirate styles enemies.

this the 2nd time today where someone has tried to tell me that Scale is the same as Substance.

an attack from a pirate is still an attack from a pirate
an attack from a nation is an attack from a nation.
the size of the attack does not change the context or substance of the attack.
And the response may need to be larger or smaller but the substance of the response if fitted to the type of aggressor not just the scale of the attack.

I'm sure you violently disagree.

But in my mind Freedom and liberty are the more important virtues in American gov't.
Those are what the gov't is there to primarily protect.
not faux "security".

Patrick Henry ,another founding father, famously said
"Give me liberty or give me death",
not 'Give me security or give me death'.

and as Eisenhower said looking into the face of a then VERY REAL threat of COMPLETE MUTUAL nuclear destruction.
"We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security."
-Dwight D. Eisenhower

911 and even the threat of another 911 does not compare to the past threat of WORLD WIDE M.A.D..

you and other seem to marvel that i'm not in abject fear or loaded for bear against terrorist. But why should anyone who's lived through the fear mongering (maybe justified) of the 50s 60s an70s over COMPLETE world wide destruction be afraid of a 100 or 1000 M.E. terrorist in caves and hopping over poles in the desert.
We didn't burn all of morals, the constitution, bill of rights, and bankrupt ourselves in the face of M.A.D.. We certainly shouldn't do it now.

"but but they are religious muzzies they are CRAAAAZYY."
yeah yeah Ok and Stalin wasn't crazy, Mao wasn't crazy, Pol Pot wasn't crazy, Hitler wasn't crazy? Nearly all of them had legions of men at arms, huge war machines and tonnes of nukes to back them up.

Drummond, I'm Sorry but by comparison the AQ terrorist threats don't rise to the level of an insurmountable problem that we have to abandon our civilization, all our young men, treasure and liberties to deal with in my mind.

I think many of the people of the past generations would be ashamed at the way the fear mongering has characterize this gang of thugs as giants from hell itself that will destroy us any day now.

ALL of their words still stand in the face of 911 and more.
If not then we're not America any more. at least not the America I've been proud of.
We don't abandon our core principals in the face of emergency if we do we've already lost.

[Drummond]

9-11 was one attack Drummond.
Horrible tragic devastating evil.

But terrorism is not new. it's been around for centuries, successful and not.

Yes. It has. But not in the same form as is true these days.


In England in the 1500s there was the Gunpowder Plot. Attempted terrorism which would have blow up all of Parliament. It was done by people in the UK. Did it mean all of England had to give up all their freedoms, burn the Magna Charta and fight wars around the world forever "so it'd never happen again!!"

Thank you - I do know of the Gunpowder Plot - no Brit could fail to, especially considering our Fireworks night, happening on its anniversary, every 5th November !!

And of course, 'V for Vendetta', which I know you've viewed, featured it ...

But tell me. Did Guy Fawkes go in for international terrorism ? Did he capture people and behead them ? Did he fly jet aircraft into skyscrapers ?

Was he a Muslim Jihadist, by any chance ??

SO YOU SEE, REVELARTS, 'OLD-TIME' TERRORISM DOESN'T BEGIN TO COMPARE TO WHAT WE'VE KNOWN OF SINCE 9/11 .. ATTEMPTS AT COMPARISON, OR EQUIVALENCE, ARE USELESS !!!


911 does not negate any of the wisdom of of the previous generations.

I suggest to you that perceptions can become outdated, can be superseded with newer, different realities. And ARE.


And in fact you can see the out workings of their predictions.
The citizens loss of liberties, the political power being pooled in the executive and federal gov't because of the continued war footing. We also see the drain on the economy that come with war.

Ever heard of 'a state of emergency', or 'emergency powers', or just of being on a war footing ? Peacetime conditions can allow for the luxuries of such a time. Wartime conditions often do not.

For example, are matters pertaining to State security given the laxity in wartime that they are in peacetime ? NO .. of course not !!

And the War on Terror .. correct me if I'm wrong .. surely hasn't been announced as 'over' .. ?


the 911 Thugs didn't change the principals of human nature

You mean, the desire to protect oneself and loved ones from enemies ? From harm ? And to take preventative measures, as and when the need for them can be perceived ?

OR - and I hope you DON'T have this in mind, and if you do, it'll be further evidence of Leftieism, won't it ? - trying to equate 'human nature' with subhuman terrorists !!


an attack from a pirate is still an attack from a pirate

With, or without, a jet aircraft ? With, or without, WMD deployments ??


an attack from a nation is an attack from a nation.

And NOT from TERRORISTS.


the size of the attack does not change the context or substance of the attack.

Interesting. Are you now seeking to DEFEND the 2003 Iraq invasion ?

Well done, if so.


And the response may need to be larger or smaller but the substance of the response if fitted to the type of aggressor not just the scale of the attack.

It seems that you are. Excellent !

The type of aggressor, in Saddam, was one refusing to quantifiably and conclusively account for WMD stocks, or their dispositions. One refusing to stop bankrolling terrorists, or give them shelter (.. as was true with Zarqawi, Al Qaeda's chief operative in Iraq at that time). One giving no guarantees that he wasn't going to attack another nearby country. One not giving any assurance that his brutalisation of his OWN people wouild ever stop.

I ask you: who else but a Leftie would want to PROTECT such a monster from overdue retribution ????


But in my mind Freedom and liberty are the more important virtues in American gov't.
Those are what the gov't is there to primarily protect.
not faux "security".

Security doesn't matter ?!?

Bush Junior should've considered protecting America from future 9/11's of SECONDARY importance ???

REALLY ???

Besides, if you can't lead a secure life, free (or relatively so) from aggressions by savage scum ... where does 'freedom' and 'liberty' come in ?

The dead and disabled, Revelarts, do not enjoy high standards of freedom and liberty !!!!


Patrick Henry ,another founding father, famously said
"Give me liberty or give me death",
not 'Give me security or give me death'.

And of course, he was speaking AFTER 9/11 ? Or, a considerable time BEFORE it, at a time predating any familiarity with today's evils ?

Do tell ....


and as Eisenhower said looking into the face of a then VERY REAL threat of COMPLETE MUTUAL nuclear destruction

[B]"We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security."
-Dwight D. Eisenhower

Ditto, Revelarts. A different context applied.


911 and even the threat of another 911 does not compare to the past threat of WORLD WIDE M.A.D.

You sound like some of our Leftie CND people ...

And yes, there is no comparison. What you're talking about is not a scenario where subhuman maniacs, fanatical in the extreme, absolutely NOT bound by the laws of a country (or direction from a country's central Government), could deploy WMD's on a mere whim. It is NOT a scenario where said scum knowingly, deliberately, maintain a mindset where they claim they DON'T want to be bound by the laws of Man !!

I suggest to you that we have never lived in potentially more dangerous times.


you and other seem to marvel that i'm not in abject fear or loaded for bear against terrorist.

MARVEL ?? What are you talking about ? No ... I just think you're determined to adhere to the Left's cloud-cuckoo escapism. The type that says you can reasonably ignore chances to neutralise terrorism, and incur no consequences from it.


why should anyone who's lived through the fear mongereing of the 50s 60s an70s over COMPLETE destruction be afraid of M.E. terrorist in cave and hopping over poles in the desert.

Because they're more sophisticated than that !!

Typical Leftieism, this. Downplay, to levels of fantasy, the threat facing you. I suppose, in your worldview, no terrorist could ever be capable of the expertise necessary to deploy a WMD ?

I've news for you, Revelarts. Such 'knuckle-dragging primitives' DID manage to pilot modern aircraft into the Twin Towers ! Yes .. REALLY.


We didn't burn all of morals, the constitution, bill of rights, and bankrupt ourselves in the face of M.A.D.. We certainly shouldn't do it now.

You should evolve sufficiently to meet present-day threats. Not deny the nature of realities you face.


"but but they are religious muzzies they are CRAAAAZYY."
yeah yeah Ok and Stalin wasn't crazy, Mao wasn't crazy, Pol Pot wasn't crazy, Hitler wasn't crazy? each of the had legions of men at arms, huge war machines and tonnes of nukes to back them up.

Really ? Give me a count of the number of nukes Hitler possessed !!!

You need a better grasp of reality than this, Revelarts !! :laugh:

But I've made this point already, I think. Brutal as they were, those leaders still worked with the machinery of Government. Each made laws.

But Al Qaeda does not. ISIS does not. Arguably, OK, Hamas does ... but from a central, core 'principle' of requiring the destruction of Israel.


Drummond, I'm Sorry but by comparison, the AQ terrorist threats don't rise to the level of an insurmountable problem that we have to abandon our civilization, all our young men, treasure and liberties to deal with in my mind.

So, to be clear, you absolutely insist upon backpedalling on the effort required to defeat them ?

AND YOU'RE NOT A LEFTIE ??!!???


ALL of their words still stand in the face of 911 and more.
If not then we're not America any more. at least not the America I've been proud of.
We don't abandon our core principals in the face of emergency if we do we've already lost.

Not abandon. Shape to fit. ADAPT. Meet situations, threats, as they evolve, REALISTICALLY. Hold peacetime standards and conditions in abeyance, for a future time when those standards are better suited to it.

And NOT perpetually find excuses to give terrorist scum a needlessly easy time of it !!!

Still ... I know I'm wasting my time with you. You'll do the bog standard Leftie thing, won't you, of adhering to escapism, and the dissemination of your preferred propagandist teachings, than EVER consider doing what REALITY CALLS FOR.

It's the Leftie way. Isn't it, Revelarts ?

[fj1200]

I enjoy seeing you try to argue your corner, by first doing a bit of goalpost-shifting. It means, of course, that you already know your argument is a weak one.

You have asserted, have you not, that Revelarts consistently sticks to Conservative positions ? Well, regardless of what you claim, Revelarts' 'war stance' VERY FIRMLY puts him on the side of the Left ... this blowing your claim for him completely out of the water !

Let me show you (.. as if you really need me to do so !!!) just how provably pro-Left this is .. how totally associated with Leftie thinking this is ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_the_War_Coalition

The 'Stop the War Coalition' was an organiser of the London anti-2003 Iraq invasion march, a short time before it actually happened. Now, as you'll see from the link, 'Stop the War' are dominated by the Left .. indeed, its main people are prominent British Leftie figures (... except for one, because he's dead ..).

No goalpost shifting. Only attempting to get you to try and kick at the correct one; my confidence in you was misplaced. As I said you can't find him taking a "leftie" position, you are only going to be successful in showing that he shares a current position with some people on the left. But that particular position is not one of left and right.


... LEFT ... LEFT. ... LEFT ... Communists ...

That right there is a summary of the extent of your ability to think. The sooner you own up to the fact that you don't really know anything about conservatism is a day we shall all rejoice in.

BTW, I don't particularly care how many links you can show from your crop of British leftie whack-a-doodles. Myself, nor Rev I'm guessing, share any core principles with them.

[revelarts]

Drummond view Just puts anyone anti war ...after 911 (the worst attack in the history of the earth since creation) ... into the leftie commie camp. period end of story no more thinking necessary.

so that would include

George F. Will
Conservative columnist George F. Will was part of the roundtable on ABC's "This Week" back in April, and lamented the failure of the current strategy in Afghanistan, which he said was quite clearly "nation-building."
Will became the first major conservative columnist to call for a withdrawal when he wrote in September that it was "Time to Get Out of Afghanistan (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/31/AR2009083102912.html)".

Columnist Tony Blankley
Tony Blankley, a conservative columnist for the Washington Times, expressed skepticism about the way forward in Afghanistan during an interview with Russia Today before Obama's decision to increase the troop commitment last year. "Someone like me, who is normally a hawk on wars if I think it’s needed, I want to make sure that our troops are going to be used in a cause that the Commander in Chief is prepared to be committed to, not sort of just kind of half-used, lose men unnecessarily and then give up. That's the big question," Blankley said.
Later in the interview, Blankley gave a rather dire analysis of the current ground situation, saying that American progress and strategy in the country looks a lot like the Russian experience, which was a well-documented failure.

Ann Coulter
In the aftermath of Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele's Afghanistan outburst, conservative pundit Ann Coulter wrote a column (http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=176033) defending Steele's position that the war there was unwinnable. She also suggested that it was fellow conservative pundit Bill Kristol, who had earlier called for Steele's resignation, who should step down, not the RNC Chairman.
This isn't the first time that Coulter appeared to depart from her normally hawkish views on American military endeavors (she was a strong supporter of Iraq). At the 2009 CPAC conference, Coulter told a crowd (http://thinkprogress.org/2009/02/28/coulter-obama-afghanistan/) of conservative activists that Obama's consideration of escalating the nation's involvement in Afghanistan was "insane."
"So for politically correct reasons, we’re moving the focus of the war on terrorism to a very bad place for us," Coulter said. "The Russians couldn’t win there. Peter the Great couldn’t win there. Oh, but maybe the messiah can win there, OK."

Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.)
Sen. Bob Corker's frustrations over the current mission in Afghanistan seem to be mounting. The Tennessee Republican, who sits on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, spoke to the Los Angeles Times (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-afghan-war-support-20100721,0,7399924,print.story) about growing skepticism of the war even among his Republican colleagues.
"A lot of folks on both sides of the aisle think this effort is adrift," Corker said in an interview. "A lot of folks you'd consider the strongest hawks in the country are scratching their heads in concern."
He also expressed his concern at the July 14 Foreign Relations Committee hearing, when he told Special Envoy for Afghanistan and Pakistan Richard Holbrooke that he had "no earthly idea what our objectives are on the civilian front. So far, this has been an incredible waste of time."

Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.)
Rep. Dana Rohrabacher spoke on the House floor on July 1 about his support for two amendments to the supplemental war spending bill. One would have prohibited military funding except for troop protection and withdrawal, and the other would have required (http://downwithtyranny.blogspot.com/2010/07/any-hope-from-10-anti-war-republicans.html) Obama to "present Congress with 1) a new National Intelligence Estimate on Afghanistan by January 31, 2011 and 2) a plan by April 4, 2011 on the safe, orderly and expeditious redeployment of U.S. troops from Afghanistan, including a timeframe for the completion of the redeployment."
"If we continue our present strategy in Afghanistan we will not succeed and America will eventually be weakened by loss of lives and the expenditure of hundred of billions of dollars," Rohrabacher said. "What works in Afghanistan is what has worked in Afghanistan. Let the Afghans pay the price, let them do the fighting. Putting American boys in their place is contrary to our national interests and will not lead to success."


Rep. Tim Johnson (R-Ill.)
Rep. Tim Johnson spoke on the floor of the House on July 1 in support of all three anti-war amendments proposed for the emergency war supplemental.
"We cannot force a culture to accept our values, and we cannot impose Western democracy on a people who don't understand or accept it, and whose leadership is corrupt and anti-democratic beyond repair. And we cannot continue to spend the billions and arguably trillions dollars of hardworking men and women in this country in a venture that has no objective, no end-game and no proximate connection to the well-being of our nation," Johnson said.
In October, Johnson called (http://timjohnson.house.gov/index.cfm?sectionid=29&sectiontree=7,29&itemid=290) for a responsible withdrawal of U.S. Forces and a strategy of counter-terrorism as opposed to counter-insurgency.


Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah)
Freshman Rep. Jason Chaffetz turned his earlier criticism of Obama's decision to escalate troop levels in Afghanistan into action in July, when he voted for two of the amendments to the emergency war supplemental bill calling for a withdrawal plan.
He recently spoke (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/12/AR2010071205394.html) with the Washington Post about his decision, which he called "one of the toughest votes I've had in Congress," and said that he predicted to see some Republicans start shifting their hawkish views on the war in Afghanistan.
Late last year, Chaffetz published an open letter (http://chaffetz.house.gov/2009/11/afghanistan-mr-president-my-recommendations.shtml) to President Obama, calling on him “to bring our troops home.”


there are more on the list here.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/21/20-republicans-against-th_n_654435.html

Here's a website IRAQ VETERANS AGAINST THE WAR
http://www.ivaw.org/
of course all the members must be socialist.

But it's clear that all those listed the above are using LEFT WING TALKING POINTS against war!!!
THEREFORE IPSO FACTO PRESTO they are all LEFTIES?!!

I always knew Ann Coultur was a closet Left Wing Socialist. now she's PROVEN IT ...for the whole world to see at last.


a few more "lefties" against war
Anti-War Republicans Vote Against Tightening Sanctions on Iran (http://reason.com/blog/2013/08/01/anti-war-republicans-vote-against-tighte)

The 71 House Republicans Voting Against War in Syria (http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2014/09/the-71-house-republicans-voting-against.html)

Escaping the “Graveyard of Empires”: A Strategy to Exit Afghanistan (http://www.cato.org/publications/white-paper/escaping-graveyard-empires-strategy-exit-afghanistan) the CATO institute
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i4lXzptzWTg#t=28

[revelarts]

<article class="page-intro-text ui-block-1 dropcap-detail-text"> you may be familiar with the CATO institute
http://www.cato.org/about

"The Cato Institute is a public policy research organization — a think tank – dedicated to the principles of individual liberty, limited government, free markets and peace. Its scholars and analysts conduct independent, nonpartisan research on a wide range of policy issues.
Founded in 1977, Cato owes its name to Cato’s Letters, a series of essays published in 18th- century England that presented a vision of society free from excessive government power. Those essays inspired the architects of the American Revolution. And the simple, timeless principles of that revolution — individual liberty, limited government, and free markets – turn out to be even more powerful in today’s world of global markets and unprecedented access to information than Jefferson or Madison could have imagined. Social and economic freedom is not just the best policy for a free people, it is the indispensable framework for the future."

article
Terrorism Is Not an Existential Threat, But Fear Doesn’t Care About That (http://www.cato.org/blog/terrorism-not-existential-threat-fear-doesnt-care-about)

The group generally is not in agreement with the "kill kill kill or were all gonna die under a caliphate!!" mindset
here a book endorsed by them
Terrorizing Ourselves: Why U.S. Counterterrorism Policy is Failing and How to Fix It (http://www.amazon.com/Terrorizing-Ourselves-Counterterrorism-Policy-Failing/dp/1935308300/?tag=catoinstitute-20)


but obviously all the small gov't and Constitution talk is just a thin cover for this LEFTIE organization bent on aiding Muslim conquest of the earth.... and or Socialism!!</article>

[Drummond]

No goalpost shifting. Only attempting to get you to try and kick at the correct one; my confidence in you was misplaced. As I said you can't find him taking a "leftie" position, you are only going to be successful in showing that he shares a current position with some people on the left. But that particular position is not one of left and right.

Oh, you had 'confidence in me' .. ? That's a new one !!

Since Revelarts, as you admit yourself, 'shares a current position with some people on the left' ... then he cannot be consistently pro-Conservative in his views !! Unless, Lefties are now undertaking to represent Conservatism ??

Look, your position is patently absurd. I've posted you ample evidence of an entire organisation consisting of especially hardline Lefties, whose shared position, and their very reason for being (organisationally speaking) IS TO PROMOTE THE VERY POSITION THAT REVELARTS IS HIMSELF COMMITTED TO !!

To persist in claiming that this is LESS than a Left wing position is to suppose that the fact of 'Stop the War' being a Leftie dominated, Leftie led organisation, is just one almighty massive coincidence !!!!

That's like saying that the Democratic Party happens to have members in it exhibiting opposition to Conservatives, purely accidentally !! Or that the KKK just 'randomly' took on its own identity ....

No, FJ. Give it up .. you're reduced to total illogic if you persist with this. I'm telling you that Revelarts' 'war stance' (as you call it) is irrevocably identifiable as a Left wing position. I mean, when an ENTIRE ORGANISATION proves the point beyond any reasonable doubt ... !!! .....


That right there is a summary of the extent of your ability to think. The sooner you own up to the fact that you don't really know anything about conservatism is a day we shall all rejoice in.

.. and here comes some abuse, right on cue. As ever, it's evidence of your knowledge of how weak your position is.

But I knew that already.


BTW, I don't particularly care how many links you can show from your crop of British leftie whack-a-doodles. Myself, nor Rev I'm guessing, share any core principles with them.

????????????????????????????????????????

REALLY ?

So, Revelarts has now done an about-face and no longer opposes the Iraq War ??

Or, you, FJ, have given up your Carter-esque defence of terrorists as 'human beings' for whom 'human rights' can somehow (- mysteriously -) apply ?

FJ, I really wonder why you bother. Unless, of course, you just argue for the sake of it ?

[revelarts]

Concerning the Iraqwar, again I'll point out that, it violates a few principals voiced by a couple of Lefties i agree with.

"The defense policy of the United States is based on a simple premise: The United States does not start fights. We will never be an aggressor."
-Ronald Reagan

"Preventive war was an invention of Hitler. Frankly, I would not even listen to anyone seriously that came and talked about such a thing."
-Dwight D. Eisenhower

Notice that Reagan said "NEVER" not 'unless there's a 911'.
Eisenhower said 'Preventative War' is an invention of Hitler.
But now somehow it's called "the Bush Doctrine".

The so called right wing you speak of is NOT the classic right wing even where war policy is concerned.
and neither 911 or Lied about WMDs is a valid excuse to transform Hitler's policies into accepted American Policy.

[Drummond]

<article class="page-intro-text ui-block-1 dropcap-detail-text"> you may be familiar with the CATO institute
http://www.cato.org/about

No, I'm not. But .. I'm learning ...


"The Cato Institute is a public policy research organization — a think tank – dedicated to the principles of individual liberty, limited government, free markets and peace. Its scholars and analysts conduct independent, nonpartisan research on a wide range of policy issues.
Founded in 1977, Cato owes its name to Cato’s Letters, a series of essays published in 18th- century England that presented a vision of society free from excessive government power. Those essays inspired the architects of the American Revolution. And the simple, timeless principles of that revolution — individual liberty, limited government, and free markets – turn out to be even more powerful in today’s world of global markets and unprecedented access to information than Jefferson or Madison could have imagined. Social and economic freedom is not just the best policy for a free people, it is the indispensable framework for the future."

.. their own promotional blurb, I take it ?

What organisation, Revelarts, would ever choose to represent itself in less than self-serving terms ?


article
Terrorism Is Not an Existential Threat, But Fear Doesn’t Care About That (http://www.cato.org/blog/terrorism-not-existential-threat-fear-doesnt-care-about)

The group generally is not in agreement with the "kill kill kill or were all gonna die under a caliphate!!" mindset
here a book endorsed by them
Terrorizing Ourselves: Why U.S. Counterterrorism Policy is Failing and How to Fix It (http://www.amazon.com/Terrorizing-Ourselves-Counterterrorism-Policy-Failing/dp/1935308300/?tag=catoinstitute-20)


but obviously all the small gov't and Constitution talk is just a thin cover for this LEFTIE organization bent on aiding Muslim conquest of the earth.... and or Socialism!!</article>

Well, if you say so !!

From what you've posted, it seems highly evident that they're representative of a school of thought which amounts to ostrich-posturing ? Denying a threat that's in front of them, to see if only they'd choose to .. but worse, wishing to persuade people to share their myopic, delusionally chosen complacency ?

I suppose 9/11 was just a Quentin Tarantino production, then ? It never really happened ? The threat, made into reality, was only ever bogus ? Nobody died that day, eh ? Or, that the terrorists responsible just indulged in a bit of random savagery purely on a whim, minus any form of coherent motivation ??

On the Cato Institute .. I see THIS ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cato_Institute


The Cato Institute officially resists being labeled as part of the conservative movement because "'conservative' smacks of an unwillingness to change, of a desire to preserve the status quo".


Some Cato scholars disagree with conservatives on drug liberalization, liberal immigration policy, energy policy, and LGBT rights – including the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Former Cato President Ed Crane had a particular dislike for neoconservatism. In a 2003 article with Cato Chairman Emeritus William A. Niskanen, he called neoconservatism a "particular threat to liberty perhaps greater than the ideologically spent ideas of left-liberalism"

I freely admit to cherrypicking my quotes, to make a point of my choosing, Revelarts. Even so, it's clear from this that the Cato Institute defies standard Conservatism, in favour of - it seems - Libertarianism (?)

Well, I can tell you that on this side of the Pond, we regard Libertarianism, to the extent we give it any thought at all, as a form (though not a particularly orthodox one !!) of LEFTIEISM. It is too opposed to Conservative principle to be compatible with it in practical terms.

You might get FJ (.. IF he knows his subject, which I doubt !) to claim that Margaret Thatcher was Libertarian. Margaret wasn't a purely orthodox Conservative by any means, but at the end of the day, she took whatever actions it was REALISTIC to take, whether or not they were 'pleasant' or 'attractive' options.

And THIS is the mark of a true Conservative, Revelarts .. to meet reality head-on, and do what you must to act for the best.

So it was with the Iraq War. An action was mandated. It was undertaken, because, realistically, IT HAD TO BE.

No amount of self delusion, or clinging to a 'nicer preference', would wish the reality away. That's the nature of reality - just as it's the nature of Conservatism.

And it's why your clinging to your belief that the Iraq War was wrong, could NEVER BE A CONSERVATIVE POSITION.

Here's an attack-piece against Mrs Thatcher. Biased or not (and of course, it is), it exposes her failure to be a true Libertarian, but instead the Conservative that the Left loves to hate ....

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/was-margaret-thatcher-a-liberal-8573443.html


Margaret Thatcher: loved by libertarians, yet one of the most authoritarian prime ministers of the past century. How can this be so?Let’s start with policing because it’s the most authoritarian aspect of her premiership. Who can forget the images of “Maggie’s Boot Boys” deployed to crush strikers. Why do so many civil libertarians get all dewy eyed over her? One explanation might be the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) 1984, which marked the beginning of civil liberties legislation in policing. There were no regulations in law relating to, for instance, the right to enter a suspect’s premises, before PACE. Although Labour are often ‘blamed’ by Conservatives for the police’s (still rather limited) accountability over things like stop-and-search, these checks and balances actually began under Thatcher.

When it comes to social issues there‘s even less to recommend her as an icon of liberty. Thatcher was never going to win any medals for being the most progressive thinker on LGBT rights; as well as doing little to stem the vilification of gay men that came with increased panic about AIDs, her government was responsible for Section 28; perhaps one of the most spiteful pieces of legislation in modern times. So does she deserve any credit from social libertarians? Well, perhaps for two reasons in particular, she does. Thatcher was one of the first Conservatives to vote in favour of decriminalising homosexuality, at a time when it was still controversial at best. And, often forgotten by many social conservative Thatcherites, she voted yes to David Steele’s bill to legalise abortion, which became the 1967 Abortion Act. No, this doesn’t make her Simone de Beauvoir, but at a time when being pro-choice was not the popular consensus as it is now, and abortion was regarded as murder by a sizeable portion of voters, for a woman in parliament at a time when women in parliament were an anomaly, it was still a pretty brave thing to do.

Still, on the question of feminism, there should be no confusion. It’s true that Thatcher disproved no end of sexist myths about women – her leadership skills alone make Cameron look like a sixth former – yet it was always clear that, far from Thatcher’s success being some brow-furrowing point of contention amongst left-wing feminists, the left-wing feminists and Thatcher were in complete agreement: feminism is by its very nature collectivist. “I hate feminism,” Thatcher once said. “It is poison.”

The contradiction lies not with us, but with modern Tory feminists like Louise Mensch and Amber Rudd, who seem confident that feminism can be individualistic, after all, and celebrate Thatcher as a feminist icon, against what are seemingly her own wishes. Thatcher’s understanding of feminism seems more accurate than theirs: being a woman and supporting yourself is not the same as supporting women. If individual self-advancement is what you believe in, say so. The misappropriation of ‘feminism’ by modern Tories is just as problematic as Thatcher’s rejection of it; perhaps more so. Privileged women given speedy access to parliament through women’s shortlists, or parachuted on to party A-lists, often backing or even introducing anti-woman legislation when they get there, but serving to help the privileged men running the party look pro-women: that ‘s where their 'feminism' gets us.

Of course, it’s not just Tory women who use Thatcher to advance their own interests, even where it contradicts the realities of Thatcherism. Guido Fawkes, who closed down his blog on the day of Thatcher’s death as a mark of respect, is one of the loudest defenders of ‘press freedom.’ Yet Thatcher herself was often something of an antithesis to press freedom. In fact, she was described by investigative journalist Duncan Campbell as “utterly disdainful of press freedom and open government” in an article recorded here by the Index on Press Censorship. What would the likes of Guido make of that?

I'm sure your comrade FJ will find all this instructive, since he really, truly, fails to grasp the reality of Margaret Thatcher and all she stood for..

Margaret Thatcher was driven by her sense of practicality. Conservatives uniformly are, which is why we frequently fail to adhere to propagandist belief-systems for their own sake. In this, for this reason, your anti-Iraq War position does NOT qualify as any sort of Conservative position to adopt, because in adopting it, you completely defy the realities that were at work, at that time.

Little wonder, therefore, that LEFTIES took on that cause, as THEIRS to promote, and used an organisational structure of their creation, to facilitate it !!

No, Revelarts. If you want to be seen to be a Conservative thinker, identifiable as such, FJ's description of you just will not serve. You need to completely reverse your position on that issue.

So, what will you do ? Bend to Conservative realism, or, stick with Leftie self-inflicted myopia, preferring propagandist preference to realism ? Your choice.

[Drummond]

Concerning the Iraqwar, again I'll point out that, it violates a few principals voiced by a couple of Lefties i agree with.

"The defense policy of the United States is based on a simple premise: The United States does not start fights. We will never be an aggressor."
-Ronald Reagan

"Preventive war was an invention of Hitler. Frankly, I would not even listen to anyone seriously that came and talked about such a thing."
-Dwight D. Eisenhower

Notice that Reagan said "NEVER" not 'unless there's a 911'.
Eisenhower said 'Preventative War' is an invention of Hitler.
But now somehow it's called "the Bush Doctrine".

The so called right wing you speak of is NOT the classic right wing even where war policy is concerned.
and neither 911 or Lied about WMDs is a valid excuse to transform Hitler's policies into accepted American Policy.

Thanks for your admission of seeing eye-to-eye with your Leftie pals. I appreciate your candour.

Otherwise .. I have to say, in reply, that you've surely missed the point ? Willfully so ?

In taking on Saddam and his regime, America was NOT acting as an aggressor, so in fact none of that violates Reagan's pronouncement. Saddam was taken on because, over a period of years and through various displays of abusive intransigence, he utterly failed to act as a responsible world leader and comply with UN Resolutions on the issue of his WMD stocks, regarding which he absolutely refused to be satisfactorily accountable.

Given this, also his shady dealings with terrorists, and his maverick warmongering adventurism (to say nothing of the tyrannical brutality which characterised his regime intrernally, not forgetting THE DEPLOYMENT OF A WMD AGAINST THE KURDS) ... ACTION WAS MANDATED.

What you don't grasp -- apparently as an act of will ? - is that international security was being defended when Iraq was invaded. Iraq couldn't continue to be a rogue and dysfunctional Nation State, one defying international security concerns. So, invading Iraq was NO act of aggression. It was, in essence, a policing action.

As for 'preventative war' ... well, I can only say that to NOT prevent Iraq being a continuing danger to world security, would've been an act of irresponsibility. Besides, Saddam had not been PREVENTED from being dangerously maverick, as Kuwait, Iran and the Kurds (the surviving ones !) could readily prove !

No. As I say, the Iraq invasion of 2003 was a policing action, and a REaction to an already dangerous reality in play. Overdue, in my opinion. But highly necessary, and done to serve the greater good.

[revelarts]

Thanks for your admission of seeing eye-to-eye with your Leftie pals. I appreciate your candour.
Otherwise .. I have to say, in reply, that you've surely missed the point ? Willfully so ?
In taking on Saddam and his regime, America was NOT acting as an aggressor, so in fact none of that violates Reagan's pronouncement. Saddam was taken on because, over a period of years and through various displays of abusive intransigence, he utterly failed to act as a responsible world leader and comply with UN Resolutions on the issue of his WMD stocks, regarding which he absolutely refused to be satisfactorily accountable.
Given this, also his shady dealings with terrorists, and his maverick warmongering adventurism (to say nothing of the tyrannical brutality which characterised his regime intrernally, not forgetting THE DEPLOYMENT OF A WMD AGAINST THE KURDS) ... ACTION WAS MANDATED.
What you don't grasp -- apparently as an act of will ? - is that international security was being defended when Iraq was invaded. Iraq couldn't continue to be a rogue and dysfunctional Nation State, one defying international security concerns. So, invading Iraq was NO act of aggression. It was, in essence, a policing action.
As for 'preventative war' ... well, I can only say that to NOT prevent Iraq being a continuing danger to world security, would've been an act of irresponsibility. Besides, Saddam had not been PREVENTED from being dangerously maverick, as Kuwait, Iran and the Kurds (the surviving ones !) could readily prove !
No. As I say, the Iraq invasion of 2003 was a policing action, and a REaction to an already dangerous reality in play. Overdue, in my opinion. But highly necessary, and done to serve the greater good.

"America was NOT acting as an aggressor"?
So when did Iraq attack the U.S.?
the fact is that Iraq did not.

aggressor
a person, group, or nation that attacks first or initiates hostilities; an assailant or invader.

Do conservatives have to make up new definitions to justify our acts, aren't conservative honest anymore?

the Bush Doctrine
"..."The twist Bush put on it was embracing 'preventive' war: Taking action well before an attack was imminent -- invading a country that was simply perceived as threatening."...
http://usforeignpolicy.about.com/od/defense/a/The-Bush-Doctrine.htm

I'm not going buy the neo-con Orwellian lipstick you and others put on this pig.
Preventive War,is what it is, the U.S. INVADED a country to supposedly PREVENT imagined future attacks.

George Bush said:
"...I will not stand by, as peril draws closer and closer. The United States of America will not permit the world's most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world's most destructive weapons...."
Which Iraq did NOT have.

I agree with the "lefties" below.
"The defense policy of the United States is based on a simple premise: The United States does not start fights. We will never be an aggressor."
-Ronald Reagan

"Preventive war was an invention of Hitler. Frankly, I would not even listen to anyone seriously that came and talked about such a thing."
-Dwight D. Eisenhower

[Drummond]

"America was NOT acting as an aggressor"?

Nope.

I've already explained this to you. America was involved in a much-needed policing action. Review what I've already posted to you today .. you'll find that I've given you a thorough refutation of that charge.


So when did Iraq attack the U.S.?

It didn't.

But, so what ? There are more passive forms of threat that nonetheless are deadly.

Saddam, had he been left alone, would've got the clear signal that he could do whatever the hell he liked, with impunity. Likewise, any and all other tinpot dictators caring to take notice, would conclude the same. After all, if Saddam could face everyone down, why not them ?

So today, we could've been facing a global tinderbox situation. Multiple rogue regimes existing, capable of WMD deployment just as they chose. OR ... terrorist friendly ones, either selling or giving some of their weaponry to terrorist enemies of the West.

Can you possibly tell me that any of that could've been avoided, had the public accountability visited upon Saddam and his regime never been militarily meted out ??

I am in no doubt at all. The Iraq invasion definitely made the world a safer place. The tragedy is that there's no conclusive way to prove it.


aggressor
a person, group, or nation that attacks first or initiates hostilities; an assailant or invader.

.. NONE OF WHICH APPLIES, for reasons already stated. Saddam even received warning of dire consequences if he continued to defy the UN. But he did so, regardless.

Saddam positively asked for action to be taken against him.

Police aren't 'aggressors'. And the Iraq invasion was a policing action.


Do conservatives have to make up new definitions to justify our acts, aren't conservative honest anymore?

I've already given you ample justification for acts committed. And I've done so honestly. Point to where my explanation contains dishonest, bogus or false statements !


the Bush Doctrine
"..."The twist Bush put on it was embracing 'preventive' war: Taking action well before an attack was imminent -- invading a country that was simply perceived as threatening."...
http://usforeignpolicy.about.com/od/defense/a/The-Bush-Doctrine.htm

Would you care to wait around, to give it the maximum chance to materially become the threat it would like to be ??

Think of North Korea. They've become armed with nukes, because they were given ample opportunities to manage it. Result ... a threat slowly growing, one nobody can tackle head-on, one where we already know of the belligerence of the dictator in charge (ditto his predecessor, of course).

Do you invite other rogue regimes to manage comparable capabilities ?? How many ? What ultimate latitude will you want to give them, to become a significant threat ?

Remember. EACH and EVERY such regime can supply terrorists with WMD's, should it ever choose to.


I'm not going buy the neo-con Orwellian lipstick you and others put on this pig.
Preventive War,is what it is, the U.S. INVADED a country to supposedly PREVENT imagined future attacks.

What a surprise.

Translation: you have your propagandist stance, you will not vary it, you will not depart from it, come-what-may.

How very Left wing of you, Revelarts. And .. we see the truth. You believe what you CHOOSE to, and countering arguments, and evidence, be damned !


George Bush said:
"...I will not stand by, as peril draws closer and closer. The United States of America will not permit the world's most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world's most destructive weapons...."
Which Iraq did NOT have.

Really ?

I've already posted, multiples of times on this forum, a link to a PDF document which shows evidence of in excess of FIVE HUNDRED of them, taken into American custody !! I'm growing tired of doing so, just to have this same Leftie lie of their 'non'existence regurgitated a couple of months further on !!

If I really must dig out that link, YET AGAIN, I'll do so. But you've probably seen it. I'm referring to a declassified portion of an American Intelligence document, released by Rick Santorum, at a Press conference in June 2006.

Ringing any bells with you, Revelarts ?

Even if I do post it AGAIN, will you believe what you see ? Or will you stick to your Leftie myopia and deny the evidence of your own eyes ?

I know that the Fox News site offers a link to it (or they did, as of 2 weeks ago, when I last looked. Since it's been available to view for several years, I'm sure it'll still be there). Check for yourself. Or, let me guess: are they too Right wing an outfit for you to want to visit ??


I agree with the "lefties" below.
"The defense policy of the United States is based on a simple premise: The United States does not start fights. We will never be an aggressor."
-Ronald Reagan

"Preventive war was an invention of Hitler. Frankly, I would not even listen to anyone seriously that came and talked about such a thing."
-Dwight D. Eisenhower

But I've ALREADY covered this !! See my previous post !! Are my answers to you a waste of time ? Are you determined, as any typical Leftie WOULD be, to just believe, and consider, only what your preferred beliefs dictate to you that which you WANT to believe ??

Sorry, but I'm a Conservative. I go where realism takes me. I am not wedded to a propagandist imperative I cannot possibly stray from.

[Drummond]

OK, Revelarts.

I'm posting this AGAIN.

It so happens that Fox News did, indeed, move their link recently. But I've found its new location. They've rejigged it so that you have to download the PDF rather than just view it from a link ... HOWEVER ... this page will give you a report on the story, and offer you that link enabling the PDF document download.

I challenge you, Revelarts - since you'll have no other option, other than sheer, willful myopia !! - to prove to me that the document offered is a forgery !!!

So, then ... open this link, for full document access:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/2006/06/22/report-hundreds-wmds-found-in-iraq/ (http://www.foxnews.com/story/2006/06/22/report-hundreds-wmds-found-in-iraq/)


WASHINGTON – The United States has found 500 chemical weapons in Iraq since 2003, and more weapons of mass destruction are likely to be uncovered, two Republican lawmakers said Wednesday.

"We have found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, chemical weapons," Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., said in a quickly called press conference late Wednesday afternoon.

Reading from a declassified portion of a report by the National Ground Intelligence Center, a Defense Department intelligence unit, Santorum said: "Since 2003, coalition forces have recovered approximately 500 weapons munitions which contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent. Despite many efforts to locate and destroy Iraq's pre-Gulf War chemical munitions, filled and unfilled pre-Gulf War chemical munitions are assessed to still exist."

• Click here to read the declassified portion of the NGIC report.

He added that the report warns about the hazards that the chemical weapons could still pose to coalition troops in Iraq.

"The purity of the agents inside the munitions depends on many factors, including the manufacturing process, potential additives and environmental storage conditions. While agents degrade over time, chemical warfare agents remain hazardous and potentially lethal," Santorum read from the document.

"This says weapons have been discovered, more weapons exist and they state that Iraq was not a WMD-free zone, that there are continuing threats from the materials that are or may still be in Iraq," said Rep. Pete Hoekstra, R-Mich., chairman of the House Intelligence Committee.

NOW try denying that any were found, Revelarts !!

[revelarts]

From 2003 to 2006 they found 500 munitions of "degraded mustard or sarin nerve"
And a R congressman insist there must be more.

Please tell me Drummond, in perfect candor.
Is this the amount and type of threat that deserves invasion from the most powerful country in the world? Is it what you expected?

Saddam Hussin with 500 old degraded munitions = "...world's most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world's most destructive weapons..."?

Drummond were we told to fear 500 old unaccounted for munitions and a few old bunkers?
No, we were told to FEAR:
"TONS of VX"
"Large Stock PILES Chem and BIO"
"CHEMICAL WARHEADS"
"26000 Liters of ANTHRAX"
"Large Amounts of UNACCOUNTED FOR SAREN GAS"
"Capability to rapidly Create More Bio Weapon QUICKLY"
"Hidden in Large Groves of Palm Trees"
"aluminum tubes"
"mobile weapons labs"
"Uranium from Africa"
"imminent Threat to safety"
"Hidden Weapons of MASS Destruction"
"imminent threat of nukes in 5-7 years or less"
"Our 1st warning might be a MUSHROOM CLOUD!!!"
Here's Rumsfled caught lying about NOT saying Saddam was an "IMMINENT Threat to the U.S. and the WORLD". (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZcSmsPvdFs)

Drummond, sorry no ,you don't get to pass off that hand full a old junk as what they were talking about.

Look, Bush, Powell, Rumsfeld, and sometimes even Chenney now all admit there was NOT the WMD threat they had declared there was . Blair Admits it, the UN inspectors as well and they WARNED them of as much in march and earlier before the invasion.
Only true believers like yourself and few others here cling to any piss poor lick of evidence to make Bush n Blairs BS stories stick to the wall somehow.
It's been 10 years and they STILL don't have anything worth going to war over.

video of Bush JOKING "No WMDs over here... none over here either," (criminal) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_tFKa2_YBQ)

Video of Blair admiting they didn't find what they claimed and would have had to use other BS excuses to attack Saddam "if he had known better about WMDs" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8-Mewrnwio)

I don't get you guys INSISTING on keeping that line about Wmds in the face of the OFFICIAL and multiple PUBLIC admissions from it's main promoters that there were none.

[revelarts]

Drummond your other arguments have no weight.
the U.S. has not been appointed the "world police". There is no such thing in international law anywhere. There are only NATIONS and when one nation invades another it's called aggression and invasion Drummond. Nuremberg trials defined it as such and it hasn't changed because of 911.
Your convoluted ad hoc redefinition of phantom rules of international engagement have as gaseous a foundation as Bush's excuses did. But didn't use your excuses Drummond, Bush stated clearly and everyone ----friend and foe-- understood EXACTLY that what he was doing was NEW and they even named it after him "the BUSH DOCTRINE of preventative war"
Not 'int'l police work blah blah blah' as you tried to describe it.
And no matter how much you break my logically linked and connected statements into broken bits it does not change the clear conclusions.

[Drummond]

Drummond your other arguments have no weight.
the U.S. has not been appointed the "world police". There is no such thing in international law anywhere. There are only NATIONS and when one nation invades another it's called aggression and invasion Drummond. Nuremberg trials defined it as such and it hasn't changed because of 911.
Your convoluted ad hoc redefinition of phantom rules of international engagement have as gaseous a foundation as Bush's excuses did. But didn't use your excuses Drummond, Bush stated clearly and everyone ----friend and foe-- understood EXACTLY that what he was doing was NEW and they even named it after him "the BUSH DOCTRINE of preventative war"
Not 'int'l police work blah blah blah' as you tried to describe it.
And no matter how much you break my logically linked and connected statements into broken bits it does not change the clear conclusions.

It's an interesting argument, I'll give you that.

Still .. if America doesn't adopt a policing role that can be made to stick .. who else would you nominate for the role ??

The UN .. ? They're toothless when and where it counts. Everyone knows this.

Russia .. ? The mind boggles ! China, ditto.

Who ELSE ?

But I've two other objections to offer to what you've said.

One ... that if all the terrorist 'events' we've seen since approximately the start of this century prove ANYTHING, it's the absolute need there is for such policing to happen !! You can't seriously argue otherwise, in the face of all that.

... or, do you think, for example, that ISIS should get away with all they're doing, and all they intend doing ?? That terrorists build their capabilities, totally unchecked ?? That they go ahead with their power-mad expansions and everyone just suffers ?

Perhaps you're just insisting on a bunker mentality, requiring permanent perfection in the application of your defences to even WORK ... REGARDLESS of what you face, which you opt out of controlling or influencing .. this just on a whim ???

Which leads me to ...

Two. You aren't even being consistent. I'm sure you said before that you had support for the initial Afghanistan action. YET, it qualifies as action which you NOW say it's wrong to undertake !!

Sorry you don't like my 'splitting' of your comments .. but for the life of me, I fail to see anything wrong with this. Do the same with mine if you feel so inclined. If that style and extent of scrutiny makes your ability to defend your views that much more difficult .. then it does ....

[revelarts]

It's an interesting argument, I'll give you that.
Still .. if America doesn't adopt a policing role that can be made to stick .. who else would you nominate for the role ??
The UN .. ? They're toothless when and where it counts. Everyone knows this.
Russia .. ? The mind boggles ! China, ditto.
Who ELSE ?
But I've two other objections to offer to what you've said.
One ... that if all the terrorist 'events' we've seen since approximately the start of this century prove ANYTHING, it's the absolute need there is for such policing to happen !! You can't seriously argue otherwise, in the face of all that.
... or, do you think, for example, that ISIS should get away with all they're doing, and all they intend doing ?? That terrorists build their capabilities, totally unchecked ?? That they go ahead with their power-mad expansions and everyone just suffers ?

Perhaps you're just insisting on a bunker mentality, requiring permanent perfection in the application of your defences to even WORK ... REGARDLESS of what you face, which you opt out of controlling or influencing .. this just on a whim ???

Ok, well i think a that a World Police is a bad idea and illegal under international law. As far as alternatives ,in other threads i've mentioned a few ..in novel form.. but IMO terrorism is not a problem one nation's military can stamp out alone. And in some cases it's even counter productive. It's going to take more moving parts, in international politics, economics of terror funding, intelligence work and IMO missionary religious engagement. the military is just ONE tool not the only tool. and it must be used by OUR standards not become a monster to destroy another. it's not necessary.
as i mentioned before terrorism is not new to the 21st century. Ireland dealt with it for decades, other countries as well. It's not an easy problem but it's not at tacit that can actually take down a nation unless it allows the "TERROR" to work. Attrition is on our side if we remain firm in our principals in the face of the "terror". those that beat against a wall can eventually break themselves on it.
there more i could say but no novels today

you seem to think that the military must fly in and kill everything that smells of terror or were doomed. I don't discount the terrorist problem but i see them as roaches and your military only solution as using a sledge hammer and blow torches in the house to kill them. and then running to neighbors houses with the same "solution".



Which leads me to ...
Two. You aren't even being consistent. I'm sure you said before that you had support for the initial Afghanistan action. YET, it qualifies as action which you NOW say it's wrong to undertake !!
in 2001 we we're told that the attackers of the U.S. on 911 were in Afghanistan and the Taliban were protecting/allied with them. So, we were responding too a direct attack on the U.S., not being an aggressor.
I now believe that our continued anti terror work is not best served by our continued military presence in Afghanistan.




Sorry you don't like my 'splitting' of your comments .. but for the life of me, I fail to see anything wrong with this. Do the same with mine if you feel so inclined. If that style and extent of scrutiny makes your ability to defend your views that much more difficult .. then it does ....
AH, well it's not the splitting in general, it just seemed you'd break up sentences or thoughts that were clearly ONE piece from time to time.

we all have different styles though.

[Drummond]

From 2003 to 2006 they found 500 munitions of "degraded mustard or sarin nerve"
And a R congressman insist there must be more.

Please tell me Drummond, in perfect candor.
Is this the amount and type of threat that deserves invasion from the most powerful country in the world? Is it what you expected?

An easy answer .... YES. It DID deserve invasion - in fact, I'm surprised that there can be any doubt of it.

I'm well aware that the WMD's found were degraded. But, UN Resolution 1441 did not insist that only pristine ones were accountable to it. Their condition wasn't addressed as any precondition for Saddam's compliance. So ... their very existence mandated action, on the basis of Resolution violation.

From a practical viewpoint, and as the Report made clear, even degraded weaponry could be used, to great effect, by terrorists. Partly because they ARE still deadly if used (only just not quite so much so !). Partly also because just knowledge of 'ownership' means that every threat made, even an empty one, has to be treated as though it were real.

Consider the 7/7 attack in London, in 2005. Bombs detonated on the London Underground (and a bus) were ONLY bombs, not any form of WMD, much less chemical weapons ! The death toll was sizeable (56, I think, or thereabouts) the disruption massive (.. I will never forget that day... it was utter chaos !!).

Now imagine the same done, but with WMD's, even old ones ... the effect is almost guaranteed to be WORSE. And with 500 of them available .... we're talking a minimum ONE THOUSAND such attacks, for broadly comparable effects, aren't we ???

So YOU tell ME. Was all of that worth acting to prevent, or not ? If an Afghanistan invasion is defendable in response to a death toll of 3,000 people ... is an Iraq invasion NOT worth preventing MULTIPLES of that death toll ???

So you have your answer, Revelarts. The 2003 action HAD TO HAPPEN .. PROVABLY SO.


Drummond were we told to fear 500 old unaccounted for munitions and a few old bunkers?
No, we were told to FEAR:
"TONS of VX"
"Large Stock PILES Chem and BIO"
"CHEMICAL WARHEADS"
"26000 Liters of ANTHRAX"
"Large Amounts of UNACCOUNTED FOR SAREN GAS"
"Capability to rapidly Create More Bio Weapon QUICKLY"
"Hidden in Large Groves of Palm Trees"
"aluminum tubes"
"mobile weapons labs"
"Uranium from Africa"
"imminent Threat to safety"
"Hidden Weapons of MASS Destruction"
"imminent threat of nukes in 5-7 years or less"
"Our 1st warning might be a MUSHROOM CLOUD!!!"
Here's Rumsfled caught lying about NOT saying Saddam was an "IMMINENT Threat to the U.S. and the WORLD". (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZcSmsPvdFs)

Drummond, sorry no, you don't get to pass off that hand full a old junk as what they were talking about.

I think I've answered you. OK, so THIS lot wasn't found. Even so, that doesn't guarantee its nonexistence, now does it ?

If you lose a pen down the back of a sofa, and it stays lost, does the pen cease to exist ?? All you know is that you don't know where it is. Ditto - very possibly .. with the more 'pristine' stuff originally believed to exist.

.... Besides - WHAT DID SADDAM USE ON THE KURDS ??

What you call 'junk' STILL violated UN RES 1441. It can still be used by terrorists. And to terrible effect.

Case made, I think, Revelarts ....


Look, Bush, Powell, Rumsfeld, and sometimes even Chenney now all admit there was NOT the WMD threat they had declared there was . Blair Admits it, the UN inspectors as well and they WARNED them of as much in march and earlier before the invasion.
Only true believers like yourself and few others here cling to any piss poor lick of evidence to make Bush n Blairs BS stories stick to the wall somehow.
It's been 10 years and they STILL don't have anything worth going to war over.

video of Bush JOKING "No WMDs over here... none over here either," (criminal) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_tFKa2_YBQ)

Video of Blair admiting they didn't find what they claimed and would have had to use other BS excuses to attack Saddam "if he had known better about WMDs" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8-Mewrnwio)

I don't get you guys INSISTING on keeping that line about Wmds in the face of the OFFICIAL and multiple PUBLIC admissions from it's main promoters that there were none.

For reasons I've given, I don't find your argument to be compelling. And consider .... nobody truly KNOWS that the 'expected' WMD's don't exist.

And if they DO .. then this should be a provable fact.

So, OK. PRESENT THAT PROOF ....

Except, though, THAT YOU CANNOT DO SO !!

[aboutime]

An easy answer .... YES. It DID deserve invasion - in fact, I'm surprised that there can be any doubt of it.

I'm well aware that the WMD's found were degraded. But, UN Resolution 1441 did not insist that only pristine ones were accountable to it. Their condition wasn't addressed as any precondition for Saddam's compliance. So ... their very existence mandated action, on the basis of Resolution violation.

From a practical viewpoint, and as the Report made clear, even degraded weaponry could be used, to great effect, by terrorists. Partly because they ARE still deadly if used (only just not quite so much so !). Partly also because just knowledge of 'ownership' means that every threat made, even an empty one, has to be treated as though it were real.

Consider the 7/7 attack in London, in 2005. Bombs detonated on the London Underground (and a bus) were ONLY bombs, not any form of WMD, much less chemical weapons ! The death toll was sizeable (56, I think, or thereabouts) the disruption massive (.. I will never forget that day... it was utter chaos !!).

Now imagine the same done, but with WMD's, even old ones ... the effect is almost guaranteed to be WORSE. And with 500 of them available .... we're talking a minimum ONE THOUSAND such attacks, for broadly comparable effects, aren't we ???

So YOU tell ME. Was all of that worth acting to prevent, or not ? If an Afghanistan invasion is defendable in response to a death toll of 3,000 people ... is an Iraq invasion NOT worth preventing MULTIPLES of that death toll ???

So you have your answer, Revelarts. The 2003 action HAD TO HAPPEN .. PROVABLY SO.



I think I've answered you. OK, so THIS lot wasn't found. Even so, that doesn't guarantee its nonexistence, now does it ?

If you lose a pen down the back of a sofa, and it stays lost, does the pen cease to exist ?? All you know is that you don't know where it is. Ditto - very possibly .. with the more 'pristine' stuff originally believed to exist.

.... Besides - WHAT DID SADDAM USE ON THE KURDS ??

What you call 'junk' STILL violated UN RES 1441. It can still be used by terrorists. And to terrible effect.

Case made, I think, Revelarts ....



For reasons I've given, I don't find your argument to be compelling. And consider .... nobody truly KNOWS that the 'expected' WMD's don't exist.

And if they DO .. then this should be a provable fact.

So, OK. PRESENT THAT PROOF ....

Except, though, THAT YOU CANNOT DO SO !!


Sir Drummond. Just more of the same stuff from the Denial bunch in America, and around the World.

Obviously rev has no idea how only ONE TEST TUBE of either of those substances, released in the right place, and atmosphere, can do quite a devastating job...almost to the extent of a HIROSHIMA type of Nuclear weapon.
But...as we have been seeing. Rhetoric, and Semantics....giving the ABILITY TO DIE different levels of DEAD...based on HOW YOU SAY IT...is what rev, and the other BLAMERS need to say to convince themselves..HOW RIGHT THEY ALWAYS ARE.

[fj1200]

Oh, you had 'confidence in me' .. ? That's a new one !!

Since Revelarts, as you admit yourself, 'shares a current position with some people on the left' ... then he cannot be consistently pro-Conservative in his views !! Unless, Lefties are now undertaking to represent Conservatism ??

Look, your position is patently absurd. I've posted you ample evidence of an entire organisation consisting of especially hardline Lefties, whose shared position, and their very reason for being (organisationally speaking) IS TO PROMOTE THE VERY POSITION THAT REVELARTS IS HIMSELF COMMITTED TO !!

To persist in claiming that this is LESS than a Left wing position is to suppose that the fact of 'Stop the War' being a Leftie dominated, Leftie led organisation, is just one almighty massive coincidence !!!!

That's like saying that the Democratic Party happens to have members in it exhibiting opposition to Conservatives, purely accidentally !! Or that the KKK just 'randomly' took on its own identity ....

No, FJ. Give it up .. you're reduced to total illogic if you persist with this. I'm telling you that Revelarts' 'war stance' (as you call it) is irrevocably identifiable as a Left wing position. I mean, when an ENTIRE ORGANISATION proves the point beyond any reasonable doubt ... !!! .....

You're right, I didn't have confidence in you. But I say something nice and you still whine like an idiot. Nevertheless your position, as usual, is intellectually weak. I only need to show you a listing of conservatives against (http://www.antiwar.com/orig/duncan1.html) say, the Iraq War and a listing of liberals for (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_hawk) say, the Iraq War, and the basis for your argument falls apart. In your mind of course those conservatives are really lefties waging a nefarious agenda and the liberals are obviously not conservatives so are immediately discounted, probably just plants by the Progressive cabal right??? :winkwink: So in short, you are intellectually incapable of acknowledging that this sort of thing shouldn't be a left/right issue just as you are intellectually incapable of admitting that even though someone's positions don't specifically match your jackbooted position might still share conservative views. But you're not really a conservative anyway. ;)

I also have a new picture of you in my head when I see your posts come up.

http://www.debatepolicy.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=6363&stc=1

Of course you're saying, "Leftie, leftie, leftie."


.. and here comes some abuse, right on cue. As ever, it's evidence of your knowledge of how weak your position is.

But I knew that already.

You deserve abuse because you're that ignorant.


????????????????????????????????????????

REALLY ?

So, Revelarts has now done an about-face and no longer opposes the Iraq War ??

Or, you, FJ, have given up your Carter-esque defence of terrorists as 'human beings' for whom 'human rights' can somehow (- mysteriously -) apply ?

FJ, I really wonder why you bother. Unless, of course, you just argue for the sake of it ?

I argue to make you look the fool. It's quite an easy task. And no, no "Carter-esque" defense here; only a Thatcher-esque one. ;)


But more importantly, she instinctively knew that complicity with torture was an affront to everything that Britain stands for – above all, our respect for tolerance, decency and the rule of law.

psst, they were talking about Mags there.

[Drummond]

You're right, I didn't have confidence in you. But I say something nice and you still whine like an idiot.

Meaning: in your terms, YOU LIED .. and you think the response I should've given was appreciation of a lie ??

Ahem. You're still claiming you're NOT a Leftie, FJ .. ?!?

Tut tut.:buttkick:


Nevertheless your position, as usual, is intellectually weak. I only need to show you a listing of conservatives against (http://www.antiwar.com/orig/duncan1.html) say, the Iraq War and a listing of liberals for (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_hawk) say, the Iraq War, and the basis for your argument falls apart.

I don't believe so. For starters, your ''Conservatives against' link leads to a piece written before the 2003 invasion had even happened (just before). No consideration, at that time, could've been given to how relatively easy it was to defeat Saddam, nor the fact that Iraq was to be given a democratic future. Nor, for that matter, could it have been known that anti-American terrorism would be so very pronounced in that territory, this itself absolutely proving the necessity of taking, and continuing to take, strong military actions there.

Ask yourself how many terrorists were killed because of it - terrorists which, had they lived, might've been a future threat to you.

But I will add this: I admit to a confusion as to how any Conservative worthy of the name could ever want to turn his back on the WMD issue, as it was known in early March, 2003 !! Even the apparent absence of WMD stocks couldn't have been known at the time that character drafted his 'anti' article on the subject !!!

Coming from any Conservative, this dereliction of patriotic duty seems incredible. FJ, I shall thank you for bringing it to my attention, because had I not seen such evidence, I'd have never believed in it. Conservatives are meant to be BETTER than that !!

More usually, such moral bankruptcy falls within the purview of Leftie vandalism.


In your mind of course those conservatives are really lefties waging a nefarious agenda

Highly assumptive ! I can think of other possibilities. To name but one .. how about insanity ?


and the liberals are obviously not conservatives so are immediately discounted, probably just plants by the Progressive cabal right??? :winkwink: So in short, you are intellectually incapable of acknowledging that this sort of thing shouldn't be a left/right issue just as you are intellectually incapable of admitting that even though someone's positions don't specifically match your jackbooted position might still share conservative views. But you're not really a conservative anyway. ;)

All a load of rot, especially that last accusation. Besides, I've already proved that a rabidly Left wing organisation, run by Lefties, led by Lefties, totally dominated by Lefties, has cornered for itself provable identification with preventions of wars associated with the War on Terror. 'Stop the War' would NOT be an organisation so exclusively Leftie run, FJ, if there was any room for Conservatives and THEIR opinions within it !

How do you explain that ?

Answer: you CANNOT, and WELL YOU KNOW IT. Such exclusivity is unexplainable in your supposed terms. Therefore, you have to be wrong. Provably so.


I also have a new picture of you in my head when I see your posts come up.
http://www.debatepolicy.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=6363&stc=1

Of course you're saying, "Leftie, leftie, leftie."

You deserve abuse because you're that ignorant.

Nope. You resort to abuse, FJ, to cover for weakness in your arguments. I've said so before, maybe I'll say it again. Had you confidence in your viewpoint, you'd let the strength of it do its own work to defeat me. BUT OF COURSE, YOU KNOW THAT YOU CANNOT WIN THROUGH SUCH FAIR AND STRAIGHTFORWARD MEANS.

Oh, one other point in passing. See ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Duncan_(U.S._politician)


Duncan and Ron Paul were the only two Republicans to vote against funding for the Iraq War on May 24, 2007. Duncan voted, along with three other Republicans, to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq by April 2008 on July 12, 2007

By 2007, FJ, the realities of Iraq and what the US was dealing with there was, of course, thoroughly understood. This, of course, would explain how it was that so very few Republicans failed to be behind practical support for the continuation of Iraq military action, and troop presence there.

Your 'Duncan' personage continued to be one of those very few, by then, nearly isolated amongst his fellow Republicans. But, then ... I also see that Duncan wasn't totally orthodox a Conservative figure in any case, given his Libertarianism !!

It's funny how you failed to mention that .. eh, FJ ? Cue some more diversionary abuse in response ?

[fj1200]

Meaning: in your terms, YOU LIED .. and you think the response I should've given was appreciation of a lie ??

Ahem. You're still claiming you're NOT a Leftie, FJ .. ?!?

Tut tut.:buttkick:

I'm at heart a conservative and I like to think positive things about people. But then I come across someone so utterly blinkered that rational discussion is impossible. The fact that you can't point out my leftie positions must be quite galling to you. Your failure is legendary.


I don't believe so. For starters, your ''Conservatives against' link leads to a piece written before the 2003 invasion had even happened (just before). No consideration, at that time, could've been given to how relatively easy it was to defeat Saddam, nor the fact that Iraq was to be given a democratic future. Nor, for that matter, could it have been known that anti-American terrorism would be so very pronounced in that territory, this itself absolutely proving the necessity of taking, and continuing to take, strong military actions there.

Ask yourself how many terrorists were killed because of it - terrorists which, had they lived, might've been a future threat to you.

But I will add this: I admit to a confusion as to how any Conservative worthy of the name could ever want to turn his back on the WMD issue, as it was known in early March, 2003 !! Even the apparent absence of WMD stocks couldn't have been known at the time that character drafted his 'anti' article on the subject !!!

Coming from any Conservative, this dereliction of patriotic duty seems incredible. FJ, I shall thank you for bringing it to my attention, because had I not seen such evidence, I'd have never believed in it. Conservatives are meant to be BETTER than that !!

More usually, such moral bankruptcy falls within the purview of Leftie vandalism.

It was written so long ago that it doesn't matter. :laugh: The point is that your argument is in tatters and you don't know where to turn except to blather on about the same ol' same ol'. "Aack, terrorists!!!"


Highly assumptive ! I can think of other possibilities. To name but one .. how about insanity ?

Some would call it the ability to think rationally about a subject but you're to far gone for that.


All a load of rot, especially that last accusation. Besides, I've already proved that a rabidly Left wing organisation, run by Lefties, led by Lefties, totally dominated by Lefties, has cornered for itself provable identification with preventions of wars associated with the War on Terror. 'Stop the War' would NOT be an organisation so exclusively Leftie run, FJ, if there was any room for Conservatives and THEIR opinions within it !

How do you explain that ?

Answer: you CANNOT, and WELL YOU KNOW IT. Such exclusivity is unexplainable in your supposed terms. Therefore, you have to be wrong. Provably so.

Man you dumb. Everywhere I turn in a thread where you prattle on you're demanding some sort of government action on your behalf to do what you demand that they do. It's in your blood.

You've proven that lefties are against war? :laugh: An idiot could prove that which of course explains why you were able to do it. That you are stuck in your little world is such a sad thing; sadder yet is those who are stuck in it with you.


Nope. You resort to abuse, FJ, to cover for weakness in your arguments. I've said so before, maybe I'll say it again. Had you confidence in your viewpoint, you'd let the strength of it do its own work to defeat me. BUT OF COURSE, YOU KNOW THAT YOU CANNOT WIN THROUGH SUCH FAIR AND STRAIGHTFORWARD MEANS.

Oh, one other point in passing. See ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Duncan_(U.S._politician)

I "resort to abuse" :laugh: because of your immense stupidity. I've tried multiple times to engage in a completely rational discussion and it usually takes you about 1.5 posts for your imagination to escape the tatters of your mind and bleat out "leftie" like the sheep that you are.


By 2007, FJ, the realities of Iraq and what the US was dealing with there was, of course, thoroughly understood. This, of course, would explain how it was that so very few Republicans failed to be behind practical support for the continuation of Iraq military action, and troop presence there.

Your 'Duncan' personage continued to be one of those very few, by then, nearly isolated amongst his fellow Republicans. But, then ... I also see that Duncan wasn't totally orthodox a Conservative figure in any case, given his Libertarianism !!

It's funny how you failed to mention that .. eh, FJ ? Cue some more diversionary abuse in response ?

I'm not sure why you're blathering on about the Iraq War as I'm not debating it only that the bloc is not as you insist. But I do understand why you hate Libertarians so; they believe in crazy stuff like low taxes and the rule of law. ;)

[Drummond]

I'm at heart a conservative and I like to think positive things about people. But then I come across someone so utterly blinkered that rational discussion is impossible. The fact that you can't point out my leftie positions must be quite galling to you. Your failure is legendary.



It was written so long ago that it doesn't matter. :laugh: The point is that your argument is in tatters and you don't know where to turn except to blather on about the same ol' same ol'. "Aack, terrorists!!!"



Some would call it the ability to think rationally about a subject but you're to far gone for that.



Man you dumb. Everywhere I turn in a thread where you prattle on you're demanding some sort of government action on your behalf to do what you demand that they do. It's in your blood.

You've proven that lefties are against war? :laugh: An idiot could prove that which of course explains why you were able to do it. That you are stuck in your little world is such a sad thing; sadder yet is those who are stuck in it with you.



I "resort to abuse" :laugh: because of your immense stupidity. I've tried multiple times to engage in a completely rational discussion and it usually takes you about 1.5 posts for your imagination to escape the tatters of your mind and bleat out "leftie" like the sheep that you are.



I'm not sure why you're blathering on about the Iraq War as I'm not debating it only that the bloc is not as you insist. But I do understand why you hate Libertarians so; they believe in crazy stuff like low taxes and the rule of law. ;)

Oh, excellent FJ ...

In my many exchanges with you on this forum, I've learned to gauge my extent of success against you by the percentage - or sheer vitriolic content, if not both - of your increasing abuse content, per post. So it is that I now observe that the post I'm replying to is nearly all abuse, of one form or another.

I have therefore won my debate, as of course I always do with you.

I did dismiss you, fairly recently, as 'just' a troll. I still think you are one .... though in your case, that isn't the end of the story. I think you actually, genuinely, believe that abuse can substitute for rational debate, as a justifiable tactic.

Perhaps they teach you that at Leftie Central ? I wouldn't know.

Anyway, these exchanges have, as is typical of you, moved from rationality to farce. I 'need' not proceed further with them.

Have a nice day ---

[fj1200]

Oh, excellent FJ ...

In my many exchanges with you on this forum, I've learned...

:blah:

See, this is why you're not smart and unable to self reflect. What you should have learned is that once you know that you're unable to shout down the opposition you must resort to whining and your paranoid delusions about lefties crawling out of the interwebs to come and impose their nefarious agenda on weak minded conservatives (I can think of a couple ;) ) who can't argue their way out of a wet paper bag.

Nevertheless, this is what I know; I know that I can have a rational debate without resorting to "abusing" your tender feelings :laugh: far longer than you can post without blathering on about lefties, :eek: progressives, double :eek: and resorting to creating positions based on your imagination. - FACT.

[BoogyMan]

...and in the meantime the Libertarians still plan to do everything possible to make sure that VIABLE conservative candidates have no chance of winning.

[fj1200]

...and in the meantime the Libertarians still plan to do everything possible to make sure that VIABLE conservative candidates have no chance of winning.

I don't think that's true. They are mostly a non-issue when it comes down to it.

[BoogyMan]

I don't think that's true. They are mostly a non-issue when it comes down to it.

Prove your assertion!

I have support for mine here (http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/libertarian-vote-cost-gop-nine-congressional-races/) and here (http://reason.com/blog/2012/11/12/libertarian-spoiler-alert-seven-democrat). They are doing damage and happily handing elections to the communists in the DNC.

[revelarts]

...and in the meantime the Libertarians still plan to do everything possible to make sure that VIABLE conservative candidates have no chance of winning.

really? there are some conservative candidates on the ticket?
or are they just republican big gov't socialist, pro-choice, police state, war mongering, debt increasing, bail out kings?

[BoogyMan]

really? there are some conservative candidates on the ticket?
or are they just republican big gov't socialist, pro-choice, police state, war mongering, debt increasing, bail out kings?

We will never know since the pro-failure libertarians are determined to gleefully throw away their vote with full knowledge that in doing so they ensure a communist party win.

I am tired of playing nice with radical libertarians. From this point I will call it as I see it.

[Drummond]

See, this is why you're not smart and unable to self reflect. What you should have learned is that once you know that you're unable to shout down the opposition you must resort to whining and your paranoid delusions about lefties crawling out of the interwebs to come and impose their nefarious agenda on weak minded conservatives (I can think of a couple ;) ) who can't argue their way out of a wet paper bag.

Nevertheless, this is what I know; I know that I can have a rational debate without resorting to "abusing" your tender feelings :laugh: far longer than you can post without blathering on about lefties, :eek: progressives, double :eek: and resorting to creating positions based on your imagination. - FACT.

Oh, this is good ! YOU, lecturing ME, on conduct ?!?

I've always acknowledged that you have a sense of humour .. when you're not busily rewriting others' posts for them, for abusive effect, that is ..

... and tell me, how do you 'shout down' an opposition, when the medium of communication is TEXT based, anyway ??

As I 'said' before, you've now reached the level of farce which makes discussion with you pointless.

We tried having a debate, did we not, which was abuse-free. But your behaviour, which WAS reasonable for a very short while, didn't last. Back came the abuse after only a couple of exchanges. Presumably because you were in need of an edge which your weaker arguments weren't providing you with ?

And/or ... maybe you just like trolling, anyway ?

Anyway, thanks for the blathering smokescreen you've just provided. 'Thanks' for yet more abuse. And for forcing yet one more debate into total personalised, dysfunctional farce.

I look forward to your future pro-Leftie arguments, which of course you'll simultaneously supply, AND deny the nature of !! And ... if you, as a self-professed 'conservative', can somehow manage to GET ALONG with the Conservatives here, it'll help your somewhat weak attempts to try and be 'convincing' as one !!

Happy trolling, my son .....

[revelarts]

We will never know since the pro-failure libertarians are determined to gleefully throw away their vote with full knowledge that in doing so they ensure a communist party win.

I am tired of playing nice with radical libertarians. From this point I will call it as I see it.

Shouldn't we be able to tell from their voting records if they are incumbents in congress. And if they are new they should have some state records or something that gives a voter confidence that what they are voting FOR is as advertised.
Like you, I am tired of playing nice... with RINO republicans, I will call it as I see it... as usual.

[BoogyMan]

Shouldn't we be able to tell from their voting records if they are incumbents in congress. And if they are new they should have some state records or something that gives a voter confidence that what they are voting FOR is as advertised.
Like you, I am tired of playing nice... with RINO republicans, I will call it as I see it... as usual.

and then you will gleefully and in self congratulatory fashion vote against any kind of possibility for conservative change.

[fj1200]

Prove your assertion!

I have support for mine here (http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/libertarian-vote-cost-gop-nine-congressional-races/) and here (http://reason.com/blog/2012/11/12/libertarian-spoiler-alert-seven-democrat). They are doing damage and happily handing elections to the communists in the DNC.


...and in the meantime the Libertarians still plan to do everything possible to make sure that VIABLE conservative candidates have no chance of winning.

You can't reference the same support twice. :poke: Nevertheless, I think my assertion is easier to prove than your's (bold above). I said they are "mostly a non-issue" shown by them affecting only 1.3% of the House races though the percentage is certainly higher for the Senate. I could make a case that the Tea Party screwed the GOP out of winning the IN Senate more than the Libertarians not to mention what Mourdock did to himself.


10/30/2012 -- Richard Mourdock's comments suggesting that a child conceived in rape was part of God's plan have shaken up what was already an uncomfortably close Senate race. This state still has a Republican lean, and Donnelly would have to win over a large number of crossover voters to pull off the win. But this is now a pure tossup.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/senate/in/indiana_senate_mourdock_vs_donnelly-3166.html

And that doesn't even address the underlying assumption that you're making.

Your link:

Of course, in order for this hypothesis to be true, one would have to assume that all, or at least a significant number, of the people that voted for the Libertarian Party candidate in these races would have voted for the Republican candidate otherwise. I suspect that may be true in certain cases, such as Andrew Horning, who was the LP candidate for Senate in Indiana. In that case, it’s possible that some not insignificant number of otherwise Republican voters, including quite possibly people who likely would have voted for Richard Lugar had he been the nominee, decided to protest what they considered a bad candidate by voting for a third party. More generally, though, I’m not sure it’s accurate to say that Libertarian votes automatically hurt a Republican candidate more than a Democratic candidate. There were several pre-election polls in states like Colorado, Oregon and New Mexico, for example, that seemed to show Gary Johnson drawing votes away nearly equally from both Mitt Romney and Barack Obama.

And of course in those races neither candidate received 50% of the vote which I think should only result in a runoff and not decide the winner. Voting shouldn't be an exercise in compromise (any more than it is) so people should get a chance to recast their vote should a majority not be reached. See my Amendment to repeal the 17th. ;)

[fj1200]

:blah:

I look forward to your future pro-Leftie arguments, which of course you'll simultaneously supply, AND deny the nature of !! And ... if you, as a self-professed 'conservative', can somehow manage to GET ALONG with the Conservatives here, it'll help your somewhat weak attempts to try and be 'convincing' as one !!

Happy trolling,

Your hypocrisy is laughable. Please point out my "pro-leftie" arguments; I expect that you'll either fail miserably as before or you'll whimper away from this thread as you usually do. Either way you're eminently predictable.

BTW, have you noticed all the conservatives I get along with here? The one's with a modicum of intelligence that is. ;)

[BoogyMan]

You can't reference the same support twice. :poke: Nevertheless, I think my assertion is easier to prove than your's (bold above). I said they are "mostly a non-issue" shown by them affecting only 1.3% of the House races though the percentage is certainly higher for the Senate. I could make a case that the Tea Party screwed the GOP out of winning the IN Senate more than the Libertarians not to mention what Mourdock did to himself.


http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/senate/in/indiana_senate_mourdock_vs_donnelly-3166.html

And that doesn't even address the underlying assumption that you're making.

Your link:


And of course in those races neither candidate received 50% of the vote which I think should only result in a runoff and not decide the winner. Voting shouldn't be an exercise in compromise (any more than it is) so people should get a chance to recast their vote should a majority not be reached. See my Amendment to repeal the 17th. ;)

It fully and wholly supports everything I stated. Libertarians cost us elections. Period.

Finessing a point like you seem desperate to do is indicative of the need to cover something. :)

[fj1200]

It fully and wholly supports everything I stated. Libertarians cost us elections. Period.

Finessing a point like you seem desperate to do is indicative of the need to cover something. :)

I didn't say it didn't cost elections. And it doesn't support your assertion of intent.

Without looking to closely I'd argue that some poorly vetted Tea Party candidates cost us more Senate seats since 2010 than Libertarians. And no, I don't recall voting Libertarian in a quixotic attempt to cost the GOP an election.

[Drummond]

Your hypocrisy is laughable. Please point out my "pro-leftie" arguments; I expect that you'll either fail miserably as before or you'll whimper away from this thread as you usually do. Either way you're eminently predictable.

BTW, have you noticed all the conservatives I get along with here? The one's with a modicum of intelligence that is. ;)

Care to name those Conservatives, here, who you get along with ? And .. even accept you to 'be' one ?

Your pro-Leftie arguments / positions. Limited to just this thread, or beyond ?

Just considering this thread ... you've come to the defence of a Left wing comrade. You've tried to sell the line that said Leftie is 'consistently Conservative', when we see plenty of evidence to the contrary. You reject obvious evidence of Lefties forming an anti-war organisation which had neither room for, nor consideration of, Conservatives getting involved with it (inexplicable, IF being anti-war could've reasonably been a Conservative position to take).

And that's just in this one thread !

FJ, you waste my time. AGAIN.

I look forward to your next example of opposition to Conservatives who want strong action against Obama. Or, your finding another way to side with the British SOCIALISTS in THEIR approach to the UK economy, in total opposition to our Conservatives' own policies, which you've stridently opposed at considerable length ...

This lot is all just from memory, without bothering to do research on other threads ....

[fj1200]

Care to name those Conservatives, here, who you get along with ? And .. even accept you to 'be' one ?

Your pro-Leftie arguments / positions. Limited to just this thread, or beyond ?

:blah:

You're saying I should name almost everyone on the board minus the knuckleheads? Seems like a waste of time. :)

And I asked for a list of my leftie positions, not a listing of what you imagine.

[Drummond]

Ok, well i think a that a World Police is a bad idea and illegal under international law.

It would be nice if it weren't necessary, sure. But we see a massive catalogue of reports - this forum has DOZENS of pages of posts, reporting on them !!! - showing what happens when such a policing presence isn't evident, or possible Fact is, Revelarts, that Islamic savagery is so persistent that no other solution suffices.

Such savages have to be curbed or totally stopped. Any laxity - ANY - translates into death toils, horrific mutilations, or both.


.. but IMO terrorism is not a problem one nation's military can stamp out alone. And in some cases it's even counter productive. It's going to take more moving parts, in international politics, economics of terror funding, intelligence work and IMO missionary religious engagement. the military is just ONE tool not the only tool. and it must be used by OUR standards not become a monster to destroy another. it's not necessary.

How on earth is a force (of whatever precise type) any form of 'monster' ?? I'm not following that at all. I agree with you in principle; an international effort is preferable. Trouble is, Bush Junior tried that approach as his first choice, in starting the fightback following 9/11. I'm being charitable in calling the response 'lukewarm'.

I suggest, by the way, your mention of 'missionary religious engagement' suggests dialogue which your opposition would never be interested in. Terrorists don't 'engage', they only want to prevail !! I respectfully submit that the idea hints at a naivety which has no place in reality.


as i mentioned before terrorism is not new to the 21st century. Ireland dealt with it for decades, other countries as well. It's not an easy problem but it's not at tacit that can actually take down a nation unless it allows the "TERROR" to work. Attrition is on our side if we remain firm in our principals in the face of the "terror". those that beat against a wall can eventually break themselves on it.

You're clinging on to the notion that the nature of terrorism has remained constant. The IRA never dreamed of getting WMDs, nor did they insist on shoving a savage religious creed down everyone's throat. 'or else'. Current savageries have a newer and far more deadly aspect to them than before, this making policing far more necessary.


you seem to think that the military must fly in and kill everything that smells of terror or were doomed.

I wouldn't put it like that. But I WOULD say that we badly need to get rid of instincts and approaches that backpedal on very strong actions ! Top of my list would be to make sure everyone faces the fact of the total subhumanity of the enemy, so that the required resolve to stamp its savagery out isn't backpedalled on.


I don't discount the terrorist problem but i see them as roaches and your military only solution as using a sledge hammer and blow torches in the house to kill them. and then running to neighbors houses with the same "solution".

How many Left wingers take this approach .... WHY can't the REALITY of the savage perniciousness of the scum we oppose, be fully accepted for what it is ?!? Being soft on them AT ALL, thinking 'kindly' about them, or how to deal with them, AT ALL, only translates into exploitable weakness in their minds.


in 2001 we we're told that the attackers of the U.S. on 911 were in Afghanistan and the Taliban were protecting/allied with them. So, we were responding too a direct attack on the U.S., not being an aggressor.

I now believe that our continued anti terror work is not best served by our continued military presence in Afghanistan.

I agree with the first part of your statement.

But terrorists STILL exist in Afghanistan. There's no excuse to be soft on them. NONE. Why are your thoughts directed towards wanting to be ?? Every SINGLE surviving terrorist is one that may just, one day, help in a future 9/11 attack.

Recognise the scum for WHAT IT IS. And resolve to respond to it accordingly -

[Drummond]

You're saying I should name almost everyone on the board minus the knuckleheads? Seems like a waste of time. :)

And I asked for a list of my leftie positions, not a listing of what you imagine.

Not recognising as true anything you'd prefer not to? How very Leftie of you.

You've copped out of the suggestion of a list. But of course. And I stated only truth. You HAVE given support to a Leftie on this forum. And you hijacked a thread, as I recall, to post PAGE after PAGE attacking the Conservatives' austerity measures here in the UK !!! You EVEN actually INSISTED, in defiance of TRUTH, that our economy could not / would not achieve the fiscal progress that we in fact HAVE.

We're doing better, now, than ever. According to you, we'd go down the pan. What a great joke, THAT effort of yours to fight our Conservatives on a point of practical principle, and its successful application, turned out to be !!

[revelarts]

...
I suggest, by the way, your mention of 'missionary religious engagement' suggests dialogue which your opposition would never be interested in. Terrorists don't 'engage', they only want to prevail !! I respectfully submit that the idea hints at a naivety which has no place in reality.
...

i'll only reply to this bit, the other we've covered.

2 points,
my missory comment is intened to touch the region. Those Muslims NOT commited to terror and the twisted brands of Islam. Coversion dries up the field for new recruits and gives us allies on the ground that are NOT helping the killers. So Muslims converting to Christian means less Muslims converted into Muslim terrorist.
It's long view drummond

2ndly there are many accounts of former terrorist. Being a terrorist/extremist is not like becoming a vampire. Some do get older and wiser even in a secular context. the U.S. has gained a lot of information from former AQ and other terrorist.
Your jingoistic characterizations of terrorist don't really help form good policy.
as i mentioned before, yelling Dirty 'Kraut' and dirty 'Jap' etc is great in the foxhole i guess and on the war campaign trail but the concept is really BS and not a foundation to build an effective defense.

[fj1200]

Not recognising as true anything you'd prefer not to? How very Leftie of you.

You've copped out of the suggestion of a list. :blah:

Um, your imagination isn't truth. - FACT.

You're the one of the mind who thinks that there is this great opposition around here. If you're not intelligent enough to see the love fest then that's more your fault than mine. Who are these conservatives that I oppose/oppose me? :dunno:


We tried having a debate, did we not, which was abuse-free. But your behaviour, which WAS reasonable for a very short while, didn't last. Back came the abuse after only a couple of exchanges.

Do tell when this was. All of my discussions start out reasonable, it's when you start in with your imaginatory musings and bleats of "leftie" that you lose any deserving of respect. Are you sure you're British? I thought they were of a hardier stock than to complain about something happening on a mean old computer.

[tailfins]

It fully and wholly supports everything I stated. Libertarians cost us elections. Period.

Finessing a point like you seem desperate to do is indicative of the need to cover something. :)

I have no problem with Libertarians as long as they do their work WITHIN the Republican Party. I applaud Ron Paul for NOT running as a third party candidate.

[Drummond]

i'll only reply to this bit, the other we've covered.

2 points,
my missory comment is intened to touch the region. Those Muslims NOT commited to terror and the twisted brands of Islam. Coversion dries up the field for new recruits and gives us allies on the ground that are NOT helping the killers. So Muslims converting to Christian means less Muslims converted into Muslim terrorist.
It's long view drummond

2ndly there are many accounts of former terrorist. Being a terrorist/extremist is not like becoming a vampire. Some do get older and wiser even in a secular context. the U.S. has gained a lot of information from former AQ and other terrorist.
Your jingoistic characterizations of terrorist don't really help form good policy.
as i mentioned before, yelling Dirty 'Kraut' and dirty 'Jap' etc is great in the foxhole i guess and on the war campaign trail but the concept is really BS and not a foundation to build an effective defense.

Running through your reply is an obvious presumption about Islam which in fact all terrorists on its side, and all so-called 'hardliners', defy.

Are you not aware that Islam REQUIRES people to convert to it ? Caliphates are systems whereby Islam rules with an iron fist. Under it, those believers of other religions are shown intolerance taken to severe persecution or death. Consider the West's willingness to accept Islam, and how many parts of the Middle East do NOT reciprocate with comparable tolerance to non-Islamism.

And you call my 'characterisations of terrorist', 'jingoistic'. Nope .. I'm being realistic. If you could only separate your thinking from the obviously Leftie mindset which absolutely insists on seeing Islam and terrorism through rose-coloured glasses, you'd see I was right.

Read the Hamas Charter.

Read the very large thread on this very forum, detailing a very great many disgusting terrorist outrages. Check out the death tolls ! These aren't fiction, the death tolls and accounts of barbarities reflect REAL LIFE (or death !) events.

Consider that these barbaric excesses are carried out ON A DAILY BASIS.

No, Revelarts. You need to stop being brainwashed by Leftie-driven propaganda, and see what's really occurring.

You might begin by trying to imagine Al Qaeda, or ISIS, seeking out negotiated settlements to disputes. Tell me, have you EVER, ONCE, heard of either of these doing anything at all which suggests there are any peacemakers among them ?

No, OF COURSE you've not. Terrorism TERRORISES. It doesn't NEGOTIATE, it doesn't ever FIND COMMON GROUND !!! The entire point of terrorism is to dictate to others through the medium of sheer brutality.

See through cloud-cuckooland delusion, Revelarts, the likes of which has no basis for support. If you insist upon seeing terrorists as 'kindlier' than they are, then you're only proving, how exploitable your perceived weakness (in their eyes) really is.

[Drummond]

Um, your imagination isn't truth. - FACT.

You're the one of the mind who thinks that there is this great opposition around here. If you're not intelligent enough to see the love fest then that's more your fault than mine. Who are these conservatives that I oppose/oppose me? :dunno:

THE LOVE FEST ????????

Good grief. I said you had a sense of humour. I freely admit, I forgot about your sense of the absurd .. !!

Suddenly, you're 'blind' to the Conservative opposition you get ??? So, you and I have never disagreed, I suppose ?

Let me jog your memory. Word association. The word 'knuckleheads'. YOUR word, FJ, meant to describe ... 'non' Conservatives (in your own judgment) .. ??

I am one Conservative who sees through you. You are well aware that there are others in the same position. Don't waste our time by trying to pretend otherwise.


Do tell when this was. All of my discussions start out reasonable, it's when you start in with your imaginatory musings and bleats of "leftie" that you lose any deserving of respect. Are you sure you're British? I thought they were of a hardier stock than to complain about something happening on a mean old computer.

Translation: you hate accurate summaries of your mindset and overall agenda. Well, that's not my problem.

Yes, I'm British. Check with the Administrators here, who must be able to track my IP address to my approximate location. Or, check out the thread here which features screenshots of desktop displays. I posted mine recently .. you'll see programs represented by icons which only someone using a computer from my side of the Pond could possibly have any use for (e.g the BBC iPlayer, which is neither downloadable, nor viewable, in US territory. Or, BT links .. these relating to British Telecom services).

FJ ... trying to tar me with what's true of YOU, won't wash. Just because you do your damndest to sell yourself as something you're not, doesn't mean that others stoop to that themselves.

[aboutime]

THE LOVE FEST ????????

Good grief. I said you had a sense of humour. I freely admit, I forgot about your sense of the absurd .. !!

Suddenly, you're 'blind' to the Conservative opposition you get ??? So, you and I have never disagreed, I suppose ?

Let me jog your memory. Word association. The word 'knuckleheads'. YOUR word, FJ, meant to describe ... 'non' Conservatives (in your own judgment) .. ??

I am one Conservative who sees through you. You are well aware that there are others in the same position. Don't waste our time by trying to pretend otherwise.



Translation: you hate accurate summaries of your mindset and overall agenda. Well, that's not my problem.

Yes, I'm British. Check with the Administrators here, who must be able to track my IP address to my approximate location. Or, check out the thread here which features screenshots of desktop displays. I posted mine recently .. you'll see programs represented by icons which only someone using a computer from my side of the Pond could possibly have any use for (e.g the BBC iPlayer, which is neither downloadable, nor viewable, in US territory. Or, BT links .. these relating to British Telecom services).

FJ ... trying to tar me with what's true of YOU, won't wash. Just because you do your damndest to sell yourself as something you're not, doesn't mean that others stoop to that themselves.



Sir Drummond. It's just not worth all of the wasted effort with this guy. It's like trying to flush a toilet with NO WATER.

[Drummond]

Sir Drummond. It's just not worth all of the wasted effort with this guy. It's like trying to flush a toilet with NO WATER.

So very, very true, Aboutime.

Even posting a summary of FJ's many faults, delusions, trolling tactics, deceptions, etc ... much less trying to 'reason' with such a character, or even trying to maintain a level of civility on both sides that lasts in excess of two or three consecutive posts .. is as futile an exercise as can be imagined.

It has its funny side, though. FJ's 'love fest' delusion (!!) ... hilarious.:laugh::laugh::cuckoo::tinfoil:

What a weirdo ... :trolls:

[tailfins]

Sir Drummond. It's just not worth all of the wasted effort with this guy. It's like trying to flush a toilet with NO WATER.

They've got those at Home Depot. Why don't you try it? You could even make a day of it. Report back to us if you succeed.

[fj1200]

:blah:

It's just that my British friend described the British as pretty thick skinned folk and you constantly whine like you lost your puppy. I tend to believe him because I can vouch for his accent ;) while you have icons. :eek: But I do see that you're still living in a delusion, you're not a conservative as you have way to many big government positions for it to be true. Your only saving grace from being called a RINO around here is your extreme level of hatred of all things "muzzy." Accuracy and you are not too well acquainted. I'm also starting to question your "Thatcherite" credentials.

Oh, and knuckleheads does not describe non-conservatives. It describes morons who live in their imagination and are unable to debate with any intelligent thought. :)

[revelarts]

http://i1297.photobucket.com/albums/ag26/IHeartBeaver/vtyyu_zps8a2fb2b3.jpg

[BoogyMan]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=6387&stc=1

[aboutime]

They've got those at Home Depot. Why don't you try it? You could even make a day of it. Report back to us if you succeed.


So, you are telling us YOU will, and can be flushed WITHOUT water?

[tailfins]

So, you are telling us YOU will, and can be flushed WITHOUT water?

Let's see: I posted the idea this morning and you are responding in the evening. We all know where you spent the day! So how did repeatedly flushing those display toilets work out for ya'? :lmao:

[aboutime]

Let's see: I posted the idea this morning and you are responding in the evening. We all know where you spent the day! So how did repeatedly flushing those display toilets work out for ya'? :lmao:


Worked fine but YOU keep spinning in the bowl and refuse to go down.

[tailfins]

Worked fine but YOU keep spinning in the bowl and refuse to go down.

If you want me to be your imaginary friend that you repeated pretend to flush down the toilet, I'm OK with that. You may have heard of people obsessed with Star Trek called Trekkies. It seems you are obsessed with the movie Flushed Away. Are you all called Flushies? I'm just wondering.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDGscyj85Ag

[Drummond]

It's just that my British friend described the British as pretty thick skinned folk and you constantly whine like you lost your puppy. I tend to believe him because I can vouch for his accent ;) while you have icons. :eek: But I do see that you're still living in a delusion, you're not a conservative as you have way to many big government positions for it to be true. Your only saving grace from being called a RINO around here is your extreme level of hatred of all things "muzzy." Accuracy and you are not too well acquainted. I'm also starting to question your "Thatcherite" credentials.

Oh, and knuckleheads does not describe non-conservatives. It describes morons who live in their imagination and are unable to debate with any intelligent thought. :):believecrap:

-- Totally delusional (and characteristically abusive, as befits a TROLL), from beginning to end. And since when did I have to 'prove' myself to you ??

You already have your proof of the truth, as everyone has seen for themselves. My knowledge of Lady Thatcher far surpasses yours (I've challenged you twice to come up with the smallest familiarity of the Thatcher Foundation, and you failed each time !). I do indeed have icons proving my nationality - since, for example, the BBC iPlayer cannot be loaded, or used, outside British territory (prove otherwise if you can). And as I said before, check with the Administrators to see if my IP address confirms the locality I report as true.

Or would you rather not, because, LEFTIE that you are, having THEIR mindset, you prefer chosen delusion, to truth ?

Anyway, the truth here is that all you're really doing is trolling. We both know it. In all probability, the board as a whole understands that. So why are you wasting everyone's time with this rot ?


:trolls::trolls::trolls::trolls:

[Drummond]

http://i1297.photobucket.com/albums/ag26/IHeartBeaver/vtyyu_zps8a2fb2b3.jpg

Suggest you take that one up with Obama. He was the one promising change - twice over, for two terms ? - but from what I saw in our own press, he could never quite DEFINE it, in his speeches, could he ?

Perhaps proof that he saw his biggest voting base as coming from the relatively brain-dead ?

[aboutime]

If you want me to be your imaginary friend that you repeated pretend to flush down the toilet, I'm OK with that. You may have heard of people obsessed with Star Trek called Trekkies. It seems you are obsessed with the movie Flushed Away. Are you all called Flushies? I'm just wondering.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDGscyj85Ag


You would never qualify as either an Imaginary, or Actual friend. But I will happily allow you to demonstrate the definition of being a Fool, as much, and, as long as you like. Defending your actual self by trying to twist my words about your BOWL experiences just won't work. No matter how hard you try. Finally. I am obsessed with searching out, and finding liars. If that is how you see it. Fine with me.

[tailfins]

You would never qualify as either an Imaginary, or Actual friend. But I will happily allow you to demonstrate the definition of being a Fool, as much, and, as long as you like. Defending your actual self by trying to twist my words about your BOWL experiences just won't work. No matter how hard you try. Finally. I am obsessed with searching out, and finding liars. If that is how you see it. Fine with me.

So THAT'S how you justify all those hours at the tavern when you're not at Home Depot flushing the display toilets. I hear the lies get bigger with each shot of whiskey. Since the bars are closed on Sunday, do you plan on going out tomorrow night "searching for liars"? :laugh:

[DLT]

That's kind of what I said. BUT, it isn't just the voters in the "purity test fetish". The GOP itself is. Any Republicans that had balls, the left made bullshit accusations and the GOP kicked them out. Trent Lott. Henry Bonilla. The left doesn't have to do anything but leak an accusation to the media and the GOP will do their dirty work for them.

You mean....like the bimbo eruption that the left brought out to effectively eliminate Herman Cain as an opponent to Barack Obama? And then, once the deed was done and accomplished, the lying skanks slimed back under their rocks.

Unless or until the Reps stop the softballin game and fight dirty like the Rats do, they will never win again. But I think most of the establishment GOP are now RINOs and therefore, are complicit in the leftist takeover of America. As long as they keep getting their cushy salaries, fat perks, pensions and golden retirement & healthcare, they'll keep looking out for their #1. Themselves (vs. the good of America and the Americans whose sweat and labor pay their salaries).

We need a fundamental CHANGE in US politics. Accountability (gasp!) and term limits (bigger gasp!!!) is a good start. If you, as a campaigning politician, promise one thing and once elected deliver quite the opposite, you're friggin OUT. No pension. No retirement. You leave DC and the career of politics in disgrace. Question is....when, if ever, are We, the People going to get up off our asses and demand those changes? (not holding MY breath)

We have come so far from the days of George Washington, who ran on truth-telling and honesty, that it's a travesty. Ironic, to say the least.

[aboutime]

So THAT'S how you justify all those hours at the tavern when you're not at Home Depot flushing the display toilets. I hear the lies get bigger with each shot of whiskey. Since the bars are closed on Sunday, do you plan on going out tomorrow night "searching for liars"? :laugh:


Whatever you insist, as long as it makes your damaged brain happy,

[Born2DecadesLate]

Ann Coulter: 'Idiots' Who Vote Libertarian Will Cost GOP The Senate


http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/ann-coulter-gop-senate-worried?utm_content=buffer38572&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

OK lets look at this in general.

When Obama ran the 1st time he promised "change"
but even many on the left admit now they've gotten more of the same. just bush 2.0
the only thing that's changed towards his left positions is Obamacare.
Other than that he's TALKED in support of abortion, homosexual marriage and fiddled with loosing immigration.

but some of what hasn't changed as he promised are :
•Gitmo's not closed
•still in and now BACK in Iraq.
•he promised more Afghanistan anyway
•NONE of the constitutional civil liberties promises have been kept, but in fact made worse.
•transparency is worse.
•More drone killings
•outright killing of Americans without due process added
•Embraced all Bush's assumed war powers
•Added assumed war powers to attack Libya
•He hasn't really helped minorities, which minorities hoped and some non-minorities feared.
•Hasn't reigned in the budget or dealt with the bail outs or debt.
•Hasn't gone after wall street or corporate crooks
•He has lobbiest on the executive payroll.

My question to the left is this.
Do you expect MORE change like above from another Dem in the WH or more in congress?

My question to the right is this.
Do you Expect a new Republican president of Senate to do anything DIFFERENT than what you see above?

will they balance the budget?
will they end Obama care?
will they restore civil liberties to constitutional levels?
will they stop or slow abortion?
stop or slow Homosexual marriage?
Fight a more effective war on terror? (they have no plans of ENDING any wars)
CiC Divest himself of the non-constitutional war powers?
kick out lobbiest?
better race relations?
reign in corporate crooks?
Do anything about immigration policy?
Do anything about the boarders?
be MORE transparent?
Not kill Americans without due process?
lower taxes on the middle class?


Please tell me what will really change with a new republican president and senate?
(or an new democrat president?)


Convince me of some significant CONSERVATIVE actions that will take place if we get republican President (senate or congress).
So that I might vote for a republican again.
Supreme court Judges and more conservative judges on federal the bench you say?
is that the best we can hope for out of an "electable" Republican president? really?

I don't buy the "it'd be worse with a democrat line".
From my POV i don't see much difference at all.

Please make it clear for me so that i can consider it.



There is of course absolutely NO difference. BOTH parties are power mongering crooks.

And a third party is a non starter.

So rally waht we need to do is simply make sure that each and every election cycle we force the two parties to share power. If you want a Dem President, fine, vote for Republican Congress critters and same if you want a Republican President.

I don't know why stupid people are too stupid to see this. It's DANGEROUS to give all the power to either party.

[red state]

In the 80's every movie and TV show portrayed republicans and conservatives as evil war mongers. Rev took it all to heart and still see it the same way. Rev when you post this stuff I get flashbacks of the 80's TV.

Clinton was elected in 92 because Perio drew off 10% of the conservative vote. The Tea Party formed to change the GOP from within instead of wasting time on third party candidates that couldn't win and would give the victory to the dems over and over again. Voting libertarian is insanity defined.

More importantly is we need to change the GOP and fill the congress with conservatives. Both houses. They can then reign in any president.

That is so true! I could side with Rev just a bit (BUT) I have sworn to NEVER again vote "Perot". I liked the guy and liked BUSH I but I was young and Perot seemed to energize the public while Bush was tiresome. I didn't like Bush going in Iraq and then getting out and I didn't care for the Kuwaiti's dancing it up while our boys were fighting. STILL, after 9/11, it would have been better to have positioned troops on our border before we WENT to fight anywhere and I don't see an R or a D do anything about our border.

It will definitely take a MAJOR event and not whom we cast a vote for to do something about that border. One would think that TEXAS would tell the FEDS (screw you) but they still allow that mess. Perhaps they have the same do nothing politicians their as most everyone else does. I do like Cruz tho and would probably vote for him and/or WEST on whatever ticket they ran on. If they keep giving us a Mittens or McShame, we may have to vote for FORMER R politicians. Would anyone have a problem with that scenario?

Bush/Obama....pretty close to the same in what they've done BUT I'll take a VERY slow death from a 1,000 Bush slices before an all out beheading of our Nation from the traitor, B.O., who salutes so disrespectfully. Shame on ANYONE who voted for this scum! For that reason alone, I'll vote R regardless.....until a Washington appears.

[fj1200]

And since when did I have to 'prove' myself to you ??

... LEFTIE that you are...

:laugh:

Oh don't worry, you prove yourself to me every time you post. You just keep proving that hypocrisy and ignorance pervades your existence. FWIW, I didn't content that you weren't currently residing in the UK, I contend that you're not really British given your tendency to whine like a punk; do you disagree with my British friend that the Brits are normally of hardy/non-whiny stock? Besides, you should just give up your "Thatcherite" meme right now given your tendency to cherry pick what you like. Besides, if you could prove my leftie positions you would have done so long ago. All you have the ability to do is talk about other threads that you're not even brave enough to post in.

[revelarts]

There is of course absolutely NO difference. BOTH parties are power mongering crooks.

And a third party is a non starter.

So rally waht we need to do is simply make sure that each and every election cycle we force the two parties to share power. If you want a Dem President, fine, vote for Republican Congress critters and same if you want a Republican President.

I don't know why stupid people are too stupid to see this. It's DANGEROUS to give all the power to either party.


That is so true! I could side with Rev just a bit (BUT) I have sworn to NEVER again vote "Perot". I liked the guy and liked BUSH I but I was young and Perot seemed to energize the public while Bush was tiresome. I didn't like Bush going in Iraq and then getting out and I didn't care for the Kuwaiti's dancing it up while our boys were fighting. STILL, after 9/11, it would have been better to have positioned troops on our border before we WENT to fight anywhere and I don't see an R or a D do anything about our border.

It will definitely take a MAJOR event and not whom we cast a vote for to do something about that border. One would think that TEXAS would tell the FEDS (screw you) but they still allow that mess. Perhaps they have the same do nothing politicians their as most everyone else does. I do like Cruz tho and would probably vote for him and/or WEST on whatever ticket they ran on. If they keep giving us a Mittens or McShame, we may have to vote for FORMER R politicians. Would anyone have a problem with that scenario?

Bush/Obama....pretty close to the same in what they've done BUT I'll take a VERY slow death from a 1,000 Bush slices before an all out beheading of our Nation from the traitor, B.O., who salutes so disrespectfully. Shame on ANYONE who voted for this scum! For that reason alone, I'll vote R regardless.....until a Washington appears.

looks like there's not enough people ready for a peaceful revolution.
not enough people willing to even challenge the system.
congress would be the place to lay in real teaparty or libertarians 1st.
how about at the state or local levels?

I just don't get feeding the monsters until one day maybe it will get better.
Seems to me we could enact small changes and set a fire under the beast feet.

why are we waiting for a Washington when it's "we the people" that still have some say if we could shake ourselves of the FALSE belief that no candidate is "viable" unless it's a R or a D.

"...well we tried ONCE that and it didn't work..."
so, we tried it once? once in our lifetime?
but we're going to keep voting lame-o Rs in and see if that helps.

It seems to me that the plan should be, OK we tried it once and got 11% if we try it again we may get 19% and again we might get 28%, then maybe 35% and at 37% in 3 way race it's a WIN!

I don't get the defeatism from people. Voting the status quo is taking us down down down every year.
It's not getting better, it's not maintaining it's getting worse.
every vote R or D means gov't is getting worse by lil or a lot.

What if Washington never shows up?

[tailfins]

looks like there's not enough ready people for a peaceful revolution.
not enough people willing to even challenge the system.
congress would be the place to lay in real teaparty or libertarians 1st.
how about at the state or local levels?

I just don't get feeding the monsters until one day maybe it will get better.
Seems to me we could enact small changes and set a fire under the beast feet.

why are we waiting for a Washington when it's "we the people" that still have some say if we could shake ourselves of the FALSE belief that no candidate is "viable" unless it's a R or a D.

"...well we tried ONCE that and it didn't work..."
so, we tried it once? once in our lifetime?
but we're going to keep voting lame-o Rs in and see if that helps.

It seems to me that the plan should be, OK we tried it once and got 11% if we try it again we may get 19% and again we might get 28%, then maybe 35% and at 37% in 3 way race it's a WIN!

I don't get the defeatism from people. Voting the status quo is taking us down down down every year.
It's not getting better, it's not maintaining it's getting worse.
every vote R or D means gov't is getting worse by lil or a lot.

What if Washington never shows up?

What if you start by attempting to gain a Libertarian majority in city councils in places like DC, Chicago, St. Louis, Philly and NYC?

[Drummond]

Yet more of your trolling rot, I see ...


:laugh:

Oh don't worry, you prove yourself to me every time you post. You just keep proving that hypocrisy and ignorance pervades your existence. FWIW, I didn't content that you weren't currently residing in the UK, I contend that you're not really British given your tendency to whine like a punk; do you disagree with my British friend that the Brits are normally of hardy/non-whiny stock? Besides, you should just give up your "Thatcherite" meme right now given your tendency to cherry pick what you like. Besides, if you could prove my leftie positions you would have done so long ago. All you have the ability to do is talk about other threads that you're not even brave enough to post in.

I just don't get this. Why on earth do you think troll pieces like this serve your interests ?? This sort of vitriol is a dime-a-dozen from LEFTIE trolls .. so unless you're trying even harder to prove your Leftie credentials, you're just indulging in a self-defeating exercise.

You don't want to believe I'm British, eh ? Feel free. That Lefties prefer delusion to reality is a well known and characteristic fact about Left-winger types - and I couldn't care less how deluded you get.

I've given your Leftie positions a brief mention already, have I not ? And your current behaviour speaks volumes, of course.

As for 'Thatcherism' ... here's a little reminder of how out of touch YOU have been about her, and how well versed in her beliefs I am ....

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?45282-Conservatism-What-it-is-and-Why-it-s-Bad&p=688648#post688648

You asked:


Why should government preference traditional marriage?

... and I set you straight concerning Margaret Thatcher's approach to it. Read it again, FJ, and learn anew how inadequately you, as the 'Ultimate Thatcherite', know your subject !

Your ignorance was amusing .. as is your current Leftie trolling .....

:trolls::trolls::trolls::trolls:

[fj1200]

:blah:

Point of order, responding to your drivel is not trolling, it is merely response to your drivel. And FWIW, I'm pretty sure you're British, every country has their share of whiners who are incapable of intelligent debate; your knucklehead pals here prove the US rule unfortunately.

And yes I understand that you are so incapable of discussing conservatism that you have no other choice than to copy and paste the words of others. Mags was eminently capable of discussion and advancing her cause; you are able to parrot.

[Drummond]

Point of order, responding to your drivel is not trolling, it is merely response to your drivel. And FWIW, I'm pretty sure you're British, every country has their share of whiners who are incapable of intelligent debate; your knucklehead pals here prove the US rule unfortunately.

And yes I understand that you are so incapable of discussing conservatism that you have no other choice than to copy and paste the words of others. Mags was eminently capable of discussion and advancing her cause; you are able to parrot.

How transparently ridiculous you are. You claim to 'not' be trolling, having just supposedly 'quoted' me ... using the 'Blah' smiley to substitute for my real text.

.. NOT trolling ?? Blatant nonsense ... for anyone to see. Except Lefties, of course (such as yourself), since they only see what they want to.

... Don't you, FJ ? For example, the logic of these sentences will completely escape you ... come on, prove me right ...

You criticise my capacity for discussion, when YOU substitute discussion for troll posts and assorted insults ?!? Don't forget to NOT see the truth of that, too, Mr Leftie ...

As for Mrs Thatcher .. yes, I'm able to 'parrot' her. I do so proudly. Why ever not ? Why would I try to 'better' anything that she had to say ? Or is it that Mrs Thatcher's words and opinions defied YOUR ideas about her (.. because you're ignorant about her as the Conservative she was !), and you hate my proving the point ?

Oh dear ... :rolleyes::lol:

:trolls::trolls::trolls::trolls::trolls:

[aboutime]

How transparently ridiculous you are. You claim to 'not' be trolling, having just supposedly 'quoted' me ... using the 'Blah' smiley to substitute for my real text.

.. NOT trolling ?? Blatant nonsense ... for anyone to see. Except Lefties, of course (such as yourself), since they only see what they want to.

... Don't you, FJ ? For example, the logic of these sentences will completely escape you ... come on, prove me right ...

You criticise my capacity for discussion, when YOU substitute discussion for troll posts and assorted insults ?!? Don't forget to NOT see the truth of that, too, Mr Leftie ...

As for Mrs Thatcher .. yes, I'm able to 'parrot' her. I do so proudly. Why ever not ? Why would I try to 'better' anything that she had to say ? Or is it that Mrs Thatcher's words and opinions defied YOUR ideas about her (.. because you're ignorant about her as the Conservative she was !), and you hate my proving the point ?

Oh dear ... :rolleyes::lol:

:trolls::trolls::trolls::trolls::trolls:



Sir Drummond. Not such a good idea to feed the fj troll during Menopause, where brain cells depart, and never return.:laugh:

[Drummond]

Sir Drummond. Not such a good idea to feed the fj troll during Menopause, where brain cells depart, and never return.:laugh::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:


For my money, it's better likened to clay pigeon shooting (?) ... a 'fun' sport that I need to give up. Along comes some ego-driven little FJ troll-piece, so the natural inclination is to ready yourself, take aim ........ :boom2:

[Born2DecadesLate]

who gives a shit about Margaret Thatcher?

[DragonStryk72]

Rev I see the frustration in your comments and I, to a point, can see where you are coming from.

What I am struggling with is the abject denial that my very respected libertarian friends evidence when they openly contribute to the problem by refusing to join with those who wish to bring about a more conservative government. You claim that there is little difference between Mr. Obama and Mr. Bush. I disagree vehemently with this appraisal and if you speak to any service member out there you will likely find quite animated disagreement.

Mr. Obama is actually quite different in that Mr. Bush actually knew some limits (some I say because I too believe he stepped outside his constitutionally granted powers) wheras Mr. Obama seems to believe himself to be the equivalent of a King with his take on "executive power."

What makes sure that conservatism is pushed aside is the blasted purity tests that men are held to that fractures the voter base and gives great joy to the Democrats who are arguably the modern equivalent of the communist party.

Except the republicans haven't really done much of anything conservative in 14 years. You say we should join in with you, but join in on what? They've yelled a bunch about conservative stuff, but have they actually done anything conservative? I'm sorry, but 14 years of watching this states that my vote is an absolute waste of my time for a republican candidate, because in the end, they're just a dem with a red tie.

What republicans need to do is join us in voting in libertarian and other 3rd party candidates who can change the game in washington.

All I'm really seeing here are posits and maybes, but no actual proof of anything conservatives that the republicans have actually been doing.

[DragonStryk72]

Wow, the self delusion you project is staggeringly simplistic and yet it seems to have a great hold on you.

Mr. Romney planned to repeal ObamaCare which most communists consider Mr. Obama's biggest achievement. If you are going to make a claim, at least make one that cannot be so easily shown to be false. (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/28/romney-says-he-will-repeal-obamacare-if-elected/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0)

You simply cannot support your position, Rev. You want to claim conservatism but only if you can define it and demand 100% agreement from those who would also make the claim. It is a sad and delusional position that you have taken.

So then, he's been tirelessly rallying people around getting Obamacare repealed? So much so that we are just about sick to death of seeing him everywhere?..... Oh wait, no, he hasn't done shit since he lost. So clearly it couldn't have been that important to him.

[NightTrain]

So then, he's been tirelessly rallying people around getting Obamacare repealed? So much so that we are just about sick to death of seeing him everywhere?..... Oh wait, no, he hasn't done shit since he lost. So clearly it couldn't have been that important to him.


Or it is, but no camera crews are on him.

[fj1200]

... I'm able to 'parrot' her.

Parrots don't understand what you're saying. Which means yes, you are able to parrot.


Words of a hypocrite.

If you hated trolling you would call out all of those who troll.


who gives a shit about Margaret Thatcher?

There's giving a S* and there's revolving an entire life around something they don't really understand.

[Drummond]

Parrots don't understand what you're saying. Which means yes, you are able to parrot.



If you hated trolling you would call out all of those who troll.



There's giving a S* and there's revolving an entire life around something they don't really understand.:trolls::trolls::trolls::trolls::trolls :

[Drummond]

who gives a shit about Margaret Thatcher?

Since you ask, I'm happy to answer ...

Answer: a remarkably large number of people.

Margaret Thatcher ceased to hold a position of power way in 1990. Even so ... such was her impact not only domestically but on the world stage, that when she died, two DECADES later, she was given a State funeral as a mark of her great importance.

To this day, discussion about her can be newsworthy. Certainly, reaction to her death was considerable, and dominated news broadcasts for several days.

Lefties still delight in vitriol against her, despite her irrelevance in active politics for two decades.

Such is the mark made by a truly great world leader. Margaret, along with Ronald Reagan, were a legendary transatlantic team of kindred spirits .. I wonder if we'll ever see their like again.

[fj1200]

:blah:

Even parrots run out of material.

[Ascastlat]

Most of the self-described Libertarians I talk to seem to be liberals in disguise.
And the one running for the Senate in Kansas is definitely a liberal. He voted for Barack Obama in 2008, for heaven sakes. No real Libertarian I know would have voted for a Community Organizer like Obama. IF he gets in....he will Caucus with the Democrats; no doubt. I hope the people of Kansas aren't really stupid enough to fall for this liberal ploy.

[DragonStryk72]

Or it is, but no camera crews are on him.

Not even Repbulicans cameras? Now, fine, I get MSNBC is never gonna back him up, but Fox News? Where have they been on that front?

[DragonStryk72]

Most of the self-described Libertarians I talk to seem to be liberals in disguise.
And the one running for the Senate in Kansas is definitely a liberal. He voted for Barack Obama in 2008, for heaven sakes. No real Libertarian I know would have voted for a Community Organizer like Obama. IF he gets in....he will Caucus with the Democrats; no doubt. I hope the people of Kansas aren't really stupid enough to fall for this liberal ploy.

Yeah, and he's had 6 years now to realize the mistake. You have to remember, Obama promised everything in 08, including that he would work with Republicans. I can see where he could have made that choice.

And truthfully, Romney shot himself in the foot during that race. Instead of sticking to his issues, and tearing Obama down, he tried to play to every Republican group, and reversed pretty much every stance he'd held for years. Not that Obama was a whole lot better, he just had the sense to wait until after Romney to switch directions.

[revelarts]

So then, he's been tirelessly rallying people around getting Obamacare repealed? So much so that we are just about sick to death of seeing him everywhere?..... Oh wait, no, he hasn't done shit since he lost. So clearly it couldn't have been that important to him.


Or it is, but no camera crews are on him.

Al Gore didn't have camera crews on him when he was out of office... oh wait... he did, he made a movie that lied to people about global warming,
maybe dead wrong but at least he was serious about making it known.

Romney could have all the attention he wanted,
Sarah Palin never won anything but's been running around the country stirring up the faithful.

Romney, Bush, Rice, Cheney, have said ne'er word about repealing Obamacare, you'd think there'd be a hard plank against it in the upper echelons of the party, especially after the backlash at townhall meetings. And the Dr's groups that lobbied against it.
But no , all i here R candidates say is that "it needs to be fixed" or "Ill vote for a different plan..." while they don't specify or propose said plan. "BUT IF one comes down the pipe I'm for it, yes sir!".

rank and file R's are just being pacified on this issue until the cement hardens on the new system.
Nothing of substance is in the works that i know of.
But we'll "hold their feet to the fire" on this as we vote for them again and they go back to congress to listen to us.

[fj1200]

This thread has me conflicted. On the one hand those dastardly Libertarians are costing the GOP the Senate but on the other we've got to kick out those RINOs.










And yes, it's a necro-post. :poke: