Republicans & Conservatives: Archives

This is just a standard distraction tactic. Keep the focus on nonsense and not on the real issues. If the GOP did not do this, people just might notice THIS:

The Bush Policy of Deception continues…

GOODBY PATTERNS OF GLOBAL TERRORISM?
by Larry C. Johnson

Just when you thought the Department of State could not top last year’s debacle in failing accurately to count the number of international terrorist incidents, it appears that the State Department is going one step better—they reportedly have decided to not issue a report to the public. This move has been prompted by the Department’s discovery that the new methodology used by the recently formed National Counter Terrorism Center has produced statistics that shows an enormous jump in the number of international terrorist attacks.

[…….]

For Secretary of State Rice these numbers are a disaster. It is tough to argue we are winning the war on terrorism when the numbers in the official Government report will show the largest number of incidents ever recorded since the State Department started reporting on terrorist incidents. …

Better keep the peons deluded. After all, 45% of Americans STILL believe Iraq did 9/11. Ignorance is bliss and Republicans like bliss.

I don’t think cowering from what Democrats may try to do with what Republicans do is the way to go. Our party has hidden from the left for way too long. Let Frist exercise his first amendment rights.

I think we need more of that. Let the left try to paint a picture that doesn’t exist. The last election should prove that, now more than ever, the left is irrelevant.

Bush policy of deception? Case in point.

Damned straight, Gary. In fact, let’s start rounding up the damned lefties and show them just how irrelevent thay really are. Wouldn’t it be delicious irony to start hunting them down with assault rifle?

To Aldous:
So what if 45% of Americans believe Iraq was responsible for 9/11. Bush NEVER said so. The 9/11 Commission even admitted that Iraq WAS guilty of supporting terrorists through funding, however. “Right-Wing Theorists” predicted that Iraq would be shown to have generated income to finance terrorisms through the Oil-For-Food program. Looks like they were prescient…Dems love to bash Bush - even if the alternative is to suck up to the Saddams of the world. Talk about sacrificing Truth and Integrity for an agenda! The Dems should be ashamed they are so willing to sell this country down the proverbial river if they can only make Bush look bad in the process.

The Republicans attack the Democrats, and then the Democrats attack the Republicans. So what else is new?
I would love to see a polical party thay doesn’t do this but then it most likey wouldn’t get elected to office.
Even though I’m conservitive and voted for Bush, I had a hard time telling where issues ended and where the politics started. And even more so with Kerry.

I agree Hal, Dems should be ashamed if all they are trying to do is make Bush look worse.
However, not everybody who questions this administration does so for political reasons.
Which is more patriotic, making excuses because of who is in office or holding them all accountable, no matter which party they belong to? I choose to do the latter.
Don’t be like the Dems of the 90s. Don’t make excuses and keep an open mind. Most of all, question all and everything.

Good post Nathan. If elected officials keep acting as if everybody who voted Republican are conservatives, it could be a big miscalculation with drastic results. And we know the US isn’t meant to be or ready for what could happen.

Hal Heiberg

Although your post is laced with plausibility, you know in your heart that the “terrorists” supported by Saddam had nothing to do with the attacks on the US: they were supporting Palestinian terrorists, like most of our Arab allies in the Middle East. The pumping of this irrelevant information as somehow justifying the clear attempts of the Bush administration to connect Saddam to 9/11 is pathetic and typical of how supporters attempt to rationalize all the lying and deception. You should really be ashamed.

Reread your post and expunge it of the half-truths and innuendo and you’re left only with flames toward those who disagree with Bush. So sad.

Hal,

I would say that it’s worse that Bush decieved Americans than lied to them. At least when you lie there’s a possibility of innocence, but when you decieve an entire country you’re knowingly misleading the people while trying to hold the pretense that you’re “not lying.”

Aldous,

You seem to be almost overjoyed by the terrorism stats you quoted. Bush and all his team consistently say, we are winning the war on terrorism but its a long way from being over. If you were a terrorist would you rather be living in 1995 or 2005? Terrorists are running out of safe houses and supporters.

In the long run it seems like the only realistic solution to terrorism is freedom and democracy. The more the people have a say in their government, the more they focus their government on things like food, education, healthcare and jobs. Who’s the last politician to win office on a pro-terrorism platform? Even in Palestine the voters gravitated toward a relative moderate.

In the long run it seems like the only realistic solution to terrorism is freedom and democracy

This meme is spread so frequently that I really need to ask a simple question.

IF it is true, if freedom and democracy stop terrorism by nature, please explain the Oklahoma city bombing and other acts of domestic terrorism here in what is supposed to be the most free and democratic nation in the world.

Jarin,

“IF it is true, if freedom and democracy stop terrorism by nature, please explain the Oklahoma city bombing and other acts of domestic terrorism here in what is supposed to be the most free and democratic nation in the world.”

Who told you that!? That never happened! Your mad! No one pay attention to mad Jarin!

A badly needed post from the Red Column Nathan, you’ve certainly earned my respect for such honesty and clarity.

Unfortunately, there are too many of those on your side like Hal, who start from the premise that your party’s leaders are infallible and only believe news and information that is filtered, from pre-vetted sources.

There are a lot of things to be worried about with Bill Frist right now, and this isn’t one of them.

We need to be worried about his stance on activist judges, his attempt to change Senate rules in order to block filibusters and his stance on securing the border.

If Frist puts through the measure to change Senate rules to allow 55 votes to block a filibuster, that is an example of how the Republicans are stooping down to the Democrats level to push through their own agenda. That will backfire on Frist and hurt the party’s image. We need to be poised so we can gain the five seats we need to cover the defecit. There is no use giving the liberals any fuel for their fire. This is an issue that could come back to haunt us if the Democrats gain control of the Senate. We made the same mistake by imposing term limits for presidents after FDR, which came back to bite us with Eisenhower and Reagan.

The most outrageous item coming from Frist lately is when he spoke against a bill that would ban illegal immigrants from obtaining a drivers license. Republicans who do not take a firm stance on securing out borders now will pay in the next primary election.

The current GOP tactics of slash and burn to win at any cost are reminiscent of the Soviet retreat policies of WWII. Leave nothing behind of value to the enemy.
Unfortunately, the Republican party is moving forward and leaving destruction in its wake. To quote John Kiesling:
“Our fervent pursuit of war with Iraq is driving us to squander the international legitimacy that has been America’s most potent weapon of both offense and defense since the days of Woodrow Wilson.
We have begun to dismantle the largest and most effective web of international relationships the world has ever known. Our current course will bring instability and danger, not security…
The September 11 tragedy left us stronger than before, rallying around us a vast international coalition to cooperate for the first time in a systematic way against the threat of terrorism. But rather than take credit for those successes and build on them, this Administration has chosen to make terrorism a domestic political tool…
oderint dum metuant”
Add perversion of our internal political processes for short term gain (Terri Schiavo, fillibusters, ethics rule changes, … ad nauseum), when the public tires of the message of hate and division what will be left for the rest of us?

Why don’t all libs just move to france. Then when france starts to get invaded again we just allow it. That way we get rid of to birds with one stone.

Bill, after reading “most” of the post above yours is about the only one that makes any sense!These people are NOT Republicans! Democrats love to say they can stoop to any level but you guys remember it’s not nice for you to fight back! We as Republicans need to understand these people (Dem-o-carps) are the enemy not the loyal opposition. I have a bumper sticker that goes like this “I don’t brake for Democrats and God Bless GW! (not sure he would like that however)

Rodney. Quite glib. You’re the kind of person who makes me glad that I am still a Registered Republican voter, but it will be a cold day in Hell before I will vote for a Party with the likes of Delay and Santorum and Frist and Lott and even Bush and Cheney. Some of you butt kissers will obviously say that I was never a Republican but you’ll be just as wrong about that as all the other dumb things you’re spouting now.
Good Day, you nitwits.

“Move to France” and “Dem-o-carps are the enemy”?
I came here to get away from the Yahoo message board rhetoric of hate and division.
Ray, please remember to critique the message, not the messenger. I know…it’s hard sometimes.

They are the enemy! What have they ever done for us? Besides attacking everything we do without justification. Just look at the baseless attacks made against Tom DeLay. The Democrats have no problem with launching ridiculous attacks of consipracy and ethics violations without even bringing up charges.

By the way, a bi-partisan committee has been formed to investigate Tom DeLay on ethics charges to end the gridlock in the House. The Democrats are furious because they actually have to put up or shut up. Tom DeLay welcomes the investigation, which is led by a panel 5 Republicans and 5 Democrats.

The liberal media reports that DeLay paid his wife and daughter $500,000. What they fail to mention is that is a cumalilative amount spread over four years. That averages out to around $65,000 a year average for the both of them. How is it so wrong to pay your family members as employees of your campaign? Especially when they did a darned good job and got him re-elected.

Ray, I will say that you were never a Republican. I challenge you to find any differences, in policy, between Bush and Reagan. GW is more like Reagan than his father was. Just because he doesn’t speak well and sometimes has a hard time conveying his message, people write him off as an idiot, but he is EXACTLY like Reagan. If you didn’t like Reagan then you definitely were never a Republican.

I kind of like the idea of sending the libs to France (or Canada for that matter). At least they won’t have to fight against the established system to promote their socialist agenda. Pigs

DeLay is corrupt and without excuse or morals. To defend him examples exactly what has become wrong with the present GOP. To quote another board member:
“I believe that it is the intense loyalty to ideology that (is hindering) conservatism from being a constructive force in our society. It’s too attentive to matters of dogma when matters of fact need attention … Real screwups have occured, and this President and this Congress do not want to be held responsible … Unfortunately, the Republican party has labelled any such requests for accountability or insistence on it as personal attacks of the candidates and officeholders. “

“United We Stand, Divided We Fall” has become
“Anyone who doesn’t agree with me is the enemy, send them to France.”
The dark side is winning, but there is still hope.

Getting back to Nathan’s original post: “Frist and Republicans Need to Chill Out,” I have to disagree. He says Republicans should take the high road and stick with the facts. The facts are that Dems DO ridicule and attack people of faith. During the last election, anyone could see that Dems and the Hollywood elite blatantly showed great disdain for anything or anyone of faith. So what’s wrong with calling a spade a spade? It’s not inflammatory to speak the truth. I’m a Christian and I’m not ashamed of it. With all the idiotic judicial rulings and with Dems treating us as idiots, we are becoming the most persecuted group in this country. Our rights are being trampled on. Picture this: If Dems treated African Americans or Gays the way they treat people of faith, the country would be in an uproar. But somehow it’s OK and the attacks go on, despite the fact that the majority of Americans do profess some kind of faith in God. It’s about time someone spoke out and I think Frist is showing a lot of courage.

Just because he doesn’t speak well and sometimes has a hard time conveying his message, people write him off as an idiot, but he is EXACTLY like Reagan.

Did you just call Reagan an idiot?

DeLay is a crazy person. Dems are trying to reinstate the old ethics rules before bringing DeLay before the committee, because under the new rules the case would be dismissed before it started. It’s just a trick to get DeLay off the hook.

Jan,

I am a conservative. I don’t believe in change without cause and I believe in personal accountability. But, as many would say, I am also a liberal. That’s because I will always accept a discussion challenging currently held “truths”. I don’t think that because something was “right†once, it is “right†now.

The problem I have with the religious conservatives is that fraction who want to insert a peculiar set of selected morals into the legal system without regards to the diversity of the nation, the foundation of its laws, or its history of personal freedoms. They want dogma to rule, not facts.

You claim you are ridiculed. If you don’t like how other people talk about you, is it OK to prohibit them from speaking? If I were to say: “Religions are a farce in that they are organized power structures intended to promulgate themselves, not God,†would that be ridicule? Do you consider someone not agreeing with you on faith to be ridicule? You mention Hollywood. Have you seen the religious propaganda being passed off as theater these days?

You claim your rights are being trampled. How so? Are you not allowed to worship in the way you see fit? Are you not allowed to speak openly about your faith? You compare minorities. People with black skin didn’t go around saying “You have to be black or else.” The civil rights movement was to get basic decency legislated to overturn centuries of ingrained prejudices. People who are gay don’t say “Straight is evil, heterosexuals are Satan’s spawn, they will all go to hell.†They’re movement is only starting.

The current thrust of the religious right is to take away the rights of others because a particular sect says so. To break the barrier between state and religion is the ultimate in short sighted stupidity and Frist, et. al. are willing to do it. Where will it end? Who will guarantee that the laws chosen won’t be Sharia?

Dave,
You prove my point eloquently. Nobody’s forcing you to believe anything, unlike the gay faction who want to totally redefine the ancient and commonly accepted concept called “marriage.” Just when have Christians prohibited anyone from speaking their mind? But Christians are prohibited constantly. Freedom & liberty are for everyone EXCEPT Christians, or so it would seem, especially by ill-informed people like you. Where do you pick up your “facts”? You just mouth the usual prejudices thrown around by ignorant people who don’t bother to check out the reality of what they’re spewing. Yes, prejudice. You wouldn’t do that to any other group, now would you? Of course not! But Christians in particular are fair game. You “free” thinkers ought to do some serious research and see whence society’s morals spring. You are revisionists who would like to change the history of how our country emerged. Come on, the documents are all there. Do the research. All kinds of documents mention a foundational faith in God but liberals want the very word stricken from every person, place, and thing. You can’t sing that song! You can’t have the 10 Commandments in a court room! You can’t, you can’t, you can’t!! And you call that religious freedom? And yes, Christians are being stopped from saying what they believe. But no one is forcing you to believe. Why can’t you accept those who do without villifying them? What do you base social morals on, pray tell? The convenience of the moment? Not on majority beliefs, that’s for sure. The loudest and newest guestimates? Speaking of Hollywood, have you seen the utter filth that’s being passed off as entertainment these days??? One movie about faith for every 10,000+ about drival. Oh, I can see why you’re so upset!!
Admit it. You don’t even know what the majority of Christians believe. You’d prefer to focus on a handful of extremists and represent them as the very picture of Christians. And you think you’re open minded.
Your comments are inaccurate, prejudicial, and ignorant. And now I know they aren’t just the domain of Democrats. Get a grip!

Jan,

You stated everything I believe the opposite of. I’m ill informed? Sorry, you need the grip. It is your prejudices that are being revealed. I’d be happy to admit, and work on, mine if you could point them out.
My protest is against people who claim “family values” yet are unwilling to accept people based on what type of family they want. Remember that the basis for your protest, no matter what rhetoric you employ, is derived from one chapter of one sects religious book. (I’m assuming that you’re not Muslim)
My protest is against strict religious adherents feeling “disenfranchised” when their version of a “moral reality” isn’t accepted as the common standard. You are not in the majority, as much as you would like to believe otherwise. In the case of Gay marriage, I’m in the minority. But, did you know that the vast majority of Americans on the 50’s and before thought it should be illegal for people of different races to marry? That was the contemporary religious teaching as well.
My protest is against being told by some sycophant that by not believing what they do, I am denying their right to believe as they do.
My protest is against people like you complaining of “Hollywood filth” yet watching Desperate Housewives. By the way, are you saying that every movie not about “faith” is filth?

Come on Jan, why are you so threatened by people who don’t believe in your God?

Dave,
You haven’t even touched the issues I brought up. You have such a knee jerk reaction that you can’t logically consider both sides of an argument. You prefer your prejudices. Nuff said.

Jan,

“Knee jerk reaction”? Look in the mirror.

Since you can’t extrapolate my post into your rhetorical outlines, here’s the point-by-point:

J: “Nobody’s forcing you to believe anything”.
D: Correct, however, the religious conservative movement wants to force me to act in a way consistent with their beliefs.

J: You don’t even know what the majority of Christians believe.
D: And you do? I know plenty of Christians and have an idea of what they believe. I wouldn’t presume to know the personal beliefs of anyone else.

J: “Just when have Christians prohibited anyone from speaking their mind? “
D: They can’t prohibit speech yet in this country. They’re certainly trying to. DeLay and Frist are attempting to stop judges from following the law by trying to change the law so Congress can remove said Judges from office. These acts can effectively be used as censorship (Do as we say or be fired). What about the so called “exersize of free speech” by protesting controversial religious themed movies. The protestors typically threaten violence and boycotts, etc… Is that free speech? I see it as attempted suppression thereof.

J: “Freedom & liberty are for everyone EXCEPT Christians, or so it would seem, “
D: Perhaps you are referring to many peoples disbelief in the circular logic of vacuous arguments used by religious fanatics. To repeat above: “strict religious adherents feeling “disenfranchised” when their version of a “moral reality” isn’t accepted as the common standard” isn’t being deprived of freedom and liberty.

J: “just mouth the usual prejudices thrown around by ignorant people”
D: That’s unsubstantiated garbage, as well as insulting.

J: “You are revisionists who would like to change the history of how our country emerged. Come on, the documents are all there. Do the research. All kinds of documents mention a foundational faith in God but liberals want the very word stricken from every person, place, and thing. “
D: This country was founded by believers in God. The founders also had the relatively recent experience of religious wars like the Crusades, the 100 years War, the War of the Roses, etc… They wanted no part of a theocracy. Period. Therefore the so-called “seperation of church and state.” How is supporting the Constitution revisionist?

J: “You can’t sing that song! You can’t have the 10 Commandments in a court room! You can’t, you can’t, you can’t!! And you call that religious freedom? And yes, Christians are being stopped from saying what they believe.”
D: Can’t sing what song? The ten commandments are from the old testament, a specific religion. Religion is not God, it’s a belief in a version of a God. And, I will obstruct your attempts to inject that into the practices of the government. You can practice it on your individual basis and you can believe how you want. But, basically, what I hear is that you want the laws of this country to reflect an interpretation of a religion made by some leader of that religion. That is not acceptable.

J:”can’t logically consider both sides of an argument”
D: You have no logic in your post, just statements. Actually, unsubstantiated statements based on lies and half truths spouted by religious conservative pundits aimed at susceptable audiences who prefer to hear only what they want. Audiences who need to be unchallenged from their “information” sources because, otherwise, they will have “doubt.”

To repeat: “My protest is against being told by some sycophant that by not believing what they do, I am denying their right to believe as they do.” Basically, believe what you want but stay out of my life. You are not morally superior. You have no direct access to God. You are a person, you are fallable. Make your own mistakes, I’ll make mine.

‘“My protest is against being told by some sycophant that by not believing what they do, I am denying their right to believe as they do.” Basically, believe what you want but stay out of my life. You are not morally superior. You have no direct access to God. You are a person, you are fallable. Make your own mistakes, I’ll make mine.’ Oh, Davey…your blood pressure is rising!

Again I will repeat, you are NOT being told what to believe. That is not the issue. The issue is the very real persecution of people of faith by people like you who defend everyone else’s freedom of speech but not if it has to do with faith. I am NOT in your life. That’s what you want, isn’t it? Christians are supposed to stay out of American life! Blatant discrimination. Everyone has rights EXCEPT us. The fact that we have beliefs deeply offends you. Why are you so threatened by others’ beliefs? So much so that you imagine you are being forced to believe the same way. That’s called paranoid. And yes, I DO have direct access to God, it’s called prayer. More importantly, God has access to me. And before you stroke out, let me clarify that by saying that, I don’t mean that I speak for God. He is quite capable of doing that himself. God is a gentleman who will open himself up to anyone who will allow him in. He doesn’t discriminate. That is what Christians believe. And as a Christian I am quite capable of saying what Christians believe. You don’t have to believe that way—you have free choice. But your rantings do seem to be clueless, emotional outbursts based on media-driven, liberal propaganda. You’ve made your mind up…I won’t try to confuse you with facts. Now try to relax. Goodbye.

Jan,

You didn’t answer any of the arguments, so I’ll stick to just one:
The religious conservative movement is not speaking out to believe the way you want to, it’s acting up in a way to impose their religous beliefs into the law of the country. That is not the same as “Christians are supposed to stay out of American life”. I never said forced to believe the way you do, I said forced to act the way you do.

Answer that.