You liberals that think you understand us conservatives, read this article by Rush Limbaugh, published in the WALL STREET JOURNAL. If you don't get it, you'll never understand. This is one of the best articles I've ever read that explains Conservatism and what we stand for.

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM

Holding Court
There's a crackdown over Miers, not a "crackup."

BY RUSH LIMBAUGH
Monday, October 17, 2005 12:01 a.m. EDT

I love being a conservative. We conservatives are proud of our philosophy. Unlike our liberal friends, who are constantly looking for new words to conceal their true beliefs and are in a perpetual state of reinvention, we conservatives are unapologetic about our ideals. We are confident in our principles and energetic about openly advancing them. We believe in individual liberty, limited government, capitalism, the rule of law, faith, a color-blind society and national security. We support school choice, enterprise zones, tax cuts, welfare reform, faith-based initiatives, political speech, homeowner rights and the war on terrorism. And at our core we embrace and celebrate the most magnificent governing document ever ratified by any nation--the U.S. Constitution. Along with the Declaration of Independence, which recognizes our God-given natural right to be free, it is the foundation on which our government is built and has enabled us to flourish as a people.

We conservatives are never stronger than when we are advancing our principles. And that's the nature of our current debate over the nomination of Harriet Miers. Will she respect the Constitution? Will she be an originalist who will accept the limited role of the judiciary to interpret and uphold it, and leave the elected branches--we, the people--to set public policy? Given the extraordinary power the Supreme Court has seized from the representative parts of our government, this is no small matter. Roe v. Wade is a primary example of judicial activism. Regardless of one's position on abortion, seven unelected and unaccountable justices simply did not have the constitutional authority to impose their pro-abortion views on the nation. The Constitution empowers the people, through their elected representatives in Congress or the state legislatures, to make this decision.

Abortion is only one of countless areas in which a mere nine lawyers in robes have imposed their personal policy preferences on the rest of us. The court has conferred due process rights on terrorists detained at Guantanamo Bay and benefits on illegal immigrants. It has ruled that animated cyberspace child pornography is protected speech, but certain broadcast ads aired before elections are illegal; it has held that the Ten Commandments can't be displayed in a public building, but they can be displayed outside a public building; and the court has invented rationales to skirt the Constitution, such as using foreign law to strike down juvenile death penalty statutes in over a dozen states.

For decades conservatives have considered judicial abuse a direct threat to our Constitution and our form of government. The framers didn't create a judicial oligarchy. They created a representative republic. Our opposition to judicial activism runs deep. We've witnessed too many occasions where Republican presidents have nominated the wrong candidates to the court, and we want more assurances this time--some proof. The left, on the other hand, sees the courts as the only way to advance their big-government agenda. They can't win national elections if they're open about their agenda. So, they seek to impose their policies by judicial fiat. It's time to call them on it. And that's what many of us had hoped and expected when the president made his nomination.

Some liberal commentators mistakenly view the passionate debate among conservatives over the Miers nomination as a "crackup" on the right. They are giddy about "splits" in the conservative base of the GOP. They are predicting doom for the rest of the president's term and gloom for Republican electoral chances in 2006. As usual, liberals don't understand conservatives and never will.

The Miers nomination shows the strength of the conservative movement. This is no "crackup." It's a crackdown. We conservatives are unified in our objectives. And we are organized to advance them. The purpose of the Miers debate is to ensure that we are doing the very best we can to move the nation in the right direction. And when all is said and done, we will be even stronger and more focused on our agenda and defeating those who obstruct it, just in time for 2006 and 2008. Lest anyone forget, for several years before the 1980 election, we had knockdown battles within the GOP. The result: Ronald Reagan won two massive landslides.

The real crackup has already occurred--on the left! The Democratic Party has been hijacked by 1960s retreads like Howard Dean; billionaire eccentrics like George Soros; and leftwing computer geeks like Moveon.org. It nominated John Kerry, a notorious Vietnam-era antiwar activist, as its presidential standard-bearer. Its major spokesmen are old extremists like Ted Kennedy and new propagandists like Michael Moore. Its great presidential hope is one of the most divisive figures in U.S. politics, Hillary Clinton. And its favorite son is an impeached, disbarred, held-in-contempt ex-president, Bill Clinton.

The Democratic Party today is split over the war and a host of cultural issues, such as same-sex marriage and partial birth abortion. It wants to raise taxes, but dares not say so. It can't decide what message to convey to the American people or how to convey it. And even its once- reliable allies in the big media aren't as influential in promoting the party and its agenda as they were in the past. The new media--talk radio, the Internet and cable TV--not only have a growing following, but have helped expose the bias and falsehoods of the big-media, e.g., Dan Rather, CBS News and the forged National Guard documents. Hence, circulation and audience is down, and dropping.

The American left is stuck trying to repeat the history of its presumed glory years. They hope people will see Iraq as Vietnam, the entirety of the Bush administration as Watergate and Hurricane Katrina as the Great Depression. Beyond looking to the past for their salvation, the problem is that they continue to deceive even themselves. None of their comparisons are true. Meanwhile, we conservatives will continue to focus on making history.

Mr. Limbaugh is a radio-show host. This is the latest in our occasional series.

We believe in individual liberty, limited government, capitalism, the rule of law, faith, a color-blind society and national security. We support school choice, enterprise zones, tax cuts, welfare reform, faith-based initiatives, political speech, homeowner rights and the war on terrorism. And at our core we embrace and celebrate the most magnificent governing document ever ratified by any nation--the U.S. Constitution. Along with the Declaration of Independence, which recognizes our God-given natural right to be free, it is the foundation on which our government is built and has enabled us to flourish as a people.

The reality:

We the Conservatives only believe in individual liberty when it does not limit the prosperity of corporations or contradict religious dogma.
Limited government for the rich and the corporate
capitalism in the sense that it is not communism
the rule of laws that agree with our....
faith in a religion that is not even followed by those of us who attend church
a color blind society that can just smell the difference between races
national security that doesn't work, but costs the taxpayer plenty of money that will go straight in to the pockets of our grey market security companies
school choice that will cripple the schools of those who don't have as much money as us
enterprise zones so that we can litter the environment with toxins at our leisure
tax cuts for the wealthy
welfare reform because we're tired of being forced to be philanthropic
faith-based initiatives that go directly against our constitutional mandate to not establish religion
political speech so long as it agrees with our view points
homeowner rights so long as you're house isn't in the way of a wallmart or a rail road
And the war on terrorism because it makes us feel like we have a big set of gonads...

At our core we embrace and celebrate the most magnificent governing document ever ratified by any nation--the U.S. Constitution so long as it doesn't disagree with any of our motivations. Along with the Declaration of Independence, which recognizes our God-given natural right to be free, it is the foundation on which our government is built and has enabled us to flourish as a people because sometimes we can use it to invalidate arguments presented in the constitution even though it is not part of our body of laws.

The reality:

If you would like us to take you seriously, you need to apologize for your frontal attack on eL eS.

The reality:

We the Conservatives only believe in individual liberty when it does not limit the prosperity of corporations or contradict religious dogma.
Limited government for the rich and the corporate
capitalism in the sense that it is not communism
the rule of laws that agree with our....
faith in a religion that is not even followed by those of us who attend church
a color blind society that can just smell the difference between races
national security that doesn't work, but costs the taxpayer plenty of money that will go straight in to the pockets of our grey market security companies
school choice that will cripple the schools of those who don't have as much money as us
enterprise zones so that we can litter the environment with toxins at our leisure
tax cuts for the wealthy
welfare reform because we're tired of being forced to be philanthropic
faith-based initiatives that go directly against our constitutional mandate to not establish religion
political speech so long as it agrees with our view points
homeowner rights so long as you're house isn't in the way of a wallmart or a rail road
And the war on terrorism because it makes us feel like we have a big set of gonads...

At our core we embrace and celebrate the most magnificent governing document ever ratified by any nation--the U.S. Constitution so long as it doesn't disagree with any of our motivations. Along with the Declaration of Independence, which recognizes our God-given natural right to be free, it is the foundation on which our government is built and has enabled us to flourish as a people because sometimes we can use it to invalidate arguments presented in the constitution even though it is not part of our body of laws.

Very good, raveneyes, you have just articulated the Liberal philosophy. So now we know the difference between Conservatives and Liberals.

Thank you for making my point.

If you would like us to take you seriously, you need to apologize for your frontal attack on eL eS.

You are so misguided! FOSSTEN is the one who quoted Rush Limbaugh. A certified hypocritical RWW if I've ever seen one. Talk about credibility, ZIP, ZERO, NADA.

Rush Limbaugh.

^^^^^^^^^
Jerk off

If you would like us to take you seriously, you need to apologize for your frontal attack on eL eS.

I've already explained why I am unapologetic about my statements toward el eS here http://www.lincolnvscadillac.com/showpost.php?p=118954&postcount=13 and it is the closest to an apology you will get from me on the matter.

I meant what I said...the kid doesn't know me...he comes on this board and personally bashes me, and I will not put up with that kind of thing...it's unfair to ask me to do so.

Very good, raveneyes, you have just articulated the Liberal philosophy. So now we know the difference between Conservatives and Liberals.

Thank you for making my point.

That was a flimsy reply.

I clearly stated that I was posting my (albeit satirical) version of the conservative viewpoint.

Please clarify or remove your comment

The reality:

We the Conservatives only believe in individual liberty when it does not limit the prosperity of corporations or contradict religious dogma.
Limited government for the rich and the corporate
capitalism in the sense that it is not communism
the rule of laws that agree with our....
faith in a religion that is not even followed by those of us who attend church
a color blind society that can just smell the difference between races
national security that doesn't work, but costs the taxpayer plenty of money that will go straight in to the pockets of our grey market security companies
school choice that will cripple the schools of those who don't have as much money as us
enterprise zones so that we can litter the environment with toxins at our leisure
tax cuts for the wealthy
welfare reform because we're tired of being forced to be philanthropic
faith-based initiatives that go directly against our constitutional mandate to not establish religion
political speech so long as it agrees with our view points
homeowner rights so long as you're house isn't in the way of a wallmart or a rail road
And the war on terrorism because it makes us feel like we have a big set of gonads...

At our core we embrace and celebrate the most magnificent governing document ever ratified by any nation--the U.S. Constitution so long as it doesn't disagree with any of our motivations. Along with the Declaration of Independence, which recognizes our God-given natural right to be free, it is the foundation on which our government is built and has enabled us to flourish as a people because sometimes we can use it to invalidate arguments presented in the constitution even though it is not part of our body of laws.

Nailed it.

Very good, raveneyes, you have just articulated the Liberal philosophy. So now we know the difference between Conservatives and Liberals.

Thank you for making my point.


That's it? Just to pull one of the many that make no sense "Tax cuts for the wealthy" Liberals and not Conservatives are for that? You can do better than that.

Here's an idea, write something up about the Liberal Philosophy yourself, in a similar way. I and others would love to read it.

That's it? Just to pull one of the many that make no sense "Tax cuts for the wealthy" Liberals and not Conservatives are for that? You can do better than that.

Here's an idea, write something up about the Liberal Philosophy yourself, in a similar way. I and others would love to read it.Do a search.

Nailed it.Sorry, but I can't resist.

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/sfromley/fserve/fserve_tutorial22.jpg

And btw, I believe he missed it completely. Just an opinion.

You can not do a write up of Liberal Philosophy, because in the time it takes to come out of the right side of the mouth, the left side of the mouth changes the words.

Sorry, but I can't resist.

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/sfromley/fserve/fserve_tutorial22.jpg

And btw, I believe he missed it completely. Just an opinion.

I wasn’t aware that we aren’t allowed to agree on something we feel the same about. Excuse my ignorance. You sure 'owned' me.

Let me retract my original statement and supplement it with ‘Raveneyes you suck! You are 101% wrong even though that is mathematically impossible and you don’t know a thing, so don’t voice your opinions ever again and just follow the herd. We will soon have a free Iraq and America will be safe place where everyone can raise Christian babies.’

I wasn’t aware that we aren’t allowed to agree on something we feel the same about. Excuse my ignorance. You sure 'owned' me.My post wasn't just for you, so don't take it too personally. I really don't care about these kinds of posts. It's just funny to me all the stink that has risen here lately, and it should be funny to everyone.

Let me retract my original statement and supplement it with ‘Raveneyes you suck! You are 101% wrong even though that is mathematically impossible and you don’t know a thing, so don’t voice your opinions ever again and just follow the herd. We will soon have a free Iraq and America will be safe place where everyone can raise Christian babies.’ Consider your statement retracted, and welcome to the dark side! I'm glad you are finally in agreement with 6/5ths of the population! Seriously, I've never forced my beliefs on anyone and I don't think it's fair for you to imply that I do. Because I am not ashamed to say that I am a Christian should not be a reason for you to ridicule who I am, if that's what you are doing.

Republicans have principles? I guess lying/manipulating is a big principle they like to uphold.

/Rush Limbaugh, the druggie.

Republicans have principles? I guess lying/manipulating is a big principle they like to uphold.

/Rush Limbaugh, the druggie.EDIT: never mind.

I would agree Ken, that was unnecessary.

I would agree Ken, that was unnecessary.I certainly understand how easy it is to get caught up in something, as evidenced by my post that I deleted. So I sincerely appreciate your words of encouragement.

You can tell me Ken, it's fine. I consider myself to be a moderate Republican and Christian, but one thing that has consistently irked me about the present administration and Republican party, is that they act as if they are God's chosen party.

God isn't a Republican, God isn't even a Democrat: God is bigger than all that. And what should our goal as Christians be? Should it be polarizing America into 'with God and against God'? No, I strongly belive in separation of church and state- our goal as Christians should be to help the poor, nothing more.

And as for my comment about Rush Limbaugh, well, that's my other complaint about 'mainstream' Republicans. They act in a 'holier than thou' attitude. And this goes for both Democrats and Republicans- let's see some humility in Capitol Hill and around the world. Pride is a dangerous thing.

The world is not black and white- it's a lot of gray.

That was a flimsy reply.

I clearly stated that I was posting my (albeit satirical) version of the conservative viewpoint.

Please clarify or remove your comment

Hold your horses. I'm at work. I'll deal with you later.

Republicans have principles? I guess lying/manipulating is a big principle they like to uphold.

/Rush Limbaugh, the druggie.

My apologies if this was deemed inflammatory by others, but I wanted to point out some hypocrisy.

Regarding the Ten Commandments issue, I don't see why it's a big deal. Do you think God would prefer us to argue over where they are placed, or would He prefer us to follow them instead? Why does it matter whether they hang in a courthouse, so long as they are written on our hearts?

My post wasn't just for you, so don't take it too personally. I really don't care about these kinds of posts. It's just funny to me all the stink that has risen here lately, and it should be funny to everyone..

Bah, I'm a big boy, insults roll off my back. I was just using the 'eye for an eye' tactic. I wasn't personally offended. No worries.

Consider your statement retracted, and welcome to the dark side! I'm glad you are finally in agreement with 6/5ths of the population! Seriously, I've never forced my beliefs on anyone and I don't think it's fair for you to imply that I do. Because I am not ashamed to say that I am a Christian should not be a reason for you to ridicule who I am, if that's what you are doing.

Shouldn't it be 5/6th? And please someone tell me there are not 5 Conservatives to every Liberal!? That would seriously ruin my life.

I am not ridiculing you.

You can not do a write up of Liberal Philosophy, because in the time it takes to come out of the right side of the mouth, the left side of the mouth changes the words.

Lol

woman is as a woman does.
A man only is if he does a woman..

Bigger lol.....

I've already explained why I am unapologetic about my statements toward el eS here http://www.lincolnvscadillac.com/showpost.php?p=118954&postcount=13 and it is the closest to an apology you will get from me on the matter.

I meant what I said...the kid doesn't know me...he comes on this board and personally bashes me, and I will not put up with that kind of thing...it's unfair to ask me to do so.

I also meant what I said. You are single handedly turning this forum into the anonymous poster Yahoo nutcase boards that were prevalent years ago. Act like an adult. He told you people may not like you, so what, roughly 50% of voters do not like the other guy. There is no excuse for the language that you used. If you cannot be more clever in your response, find another place to respond.

I think that you have entitled yourself to a seven day suspension.

I think that you have entitled yourself to a seven day suspension.

That would again be something for a moderator to decide...which I think there are two that frequent here...neither of which has seen fit to do so.

I'm sorry you feel I'm out of line. I'll let you know when I agree.

Lets all just chill out on some oxycotin, or whatever pills rush can get his hands on.

You are so misguided! FOSSTEN is the one who quoted Rush Limbaugh. A certified hypocritical RWW if I've ever seen one. Talk about credibility, ZIP, ZERO, NADA.

johnny, he's referring to another thread where raveneyes resorted to name-calling on EL ES, not my post.

That was a flimsy reply.

I clearly stated that I was posting my (albeit satirical) version of the conservative viewpoint.

Please clarify or remove your comment

The Liberal philosophy

Larger government, more control, less individual freedom, more dependence upon said government, no weapons for defense, reason with enemies instead of defeating them, punish the rich, cater to special interest groups like the gay/lesbian/feminist community, higher taxes, anti-religion (ACLU), create race and class wars, government-run healthcare, no wealthy people, everyone’s equal, socialist society, pro-abortion, anti-Constitution, anti-property rights, same-sex marriage, pro-union, anti-competition, pro-European socialist views, anti-American.

These are the issues that the Democrats support, but they can’t be honest about these, because if they were truly honest with the American people about these beliefs, they would never win another election. Therefore, the Democrats must try to hide the truth while bashing the Republican Party’s agenda, including name-calling. Howard Dean called Republicans “liars”, “evil”, “corrupt,” and “brain-dead.” Harry Reid called Bush a “loser.” Rangel called Bush a modern-day Bull Connor. Paul Hackett called Bush an SOB. John Corzine compared VP Dick Cheney to Saddam Hussein. You ONLY see this level of name-calling and attacking coming from the Democrat side.

The truth is that the Democrats haven’t had a real agenda in years. They even now are holding meetings to try to figure out what they are for, and still haven’t come up with anything. Howard Dean was asked point blank by a reporter what the Democrats’ plan would be for Iraq, and he said that their only plan is to watch Bush and hold him accountable. Translation: We don’t have any ideas, so we are just going to bash you if anything goes wrong. The last election was about discrediting Bush in favor of the weak weasel Kerry, and they failed. Now they are attacking Bush from all sides in an attempt to weaken his presidency, but they are forgetting that Bush isn’t running in ’08. In their zeal to ‘get Bush’ they miss the big picture and will lose BIG in ’08. Meanwhile, Bush will finish stocking the Supreme Court with originalist judges and get a new tax plan pushed through, while the Democrats, as usual, present NOTHING as an idea for how to improve the country.

For the last forty years, while the liberals sat back fat and happy on their laurels as the elite ruling class, the conservatives went out and changed the minds of the American people by arguing issues in the arena of ideas. Because the liberals have nothing substantive to offer, their only options were to cave or to attack. Since our ideas are superior and make sense and agree with the values of most Americans, the only recourse was to spread lies and deceit about Republicans. They want to starve schoolchildren or throw elderly people onto the street, etc. THAT CRAP WON'T FLY ANYMORE.

Look at the power of the conservatives in this country. Bush nominates a liberal/moderate to the Supreme Court, and the outcry is so strong that the nominee is effectively pulled as a result. (Yeah, I know, Miers pulled herself out of the running, but the effect is the same.) Despite the media’s constant badgering and prevaricating, it’s the CONSERVATIVES who got Bush to change his mind.

You proved my point because you took every statement that articulated the Conservative philosophy and either twisted it or lied about it. Har de har har. That proves that you have no real ideas to offer the country except to try to lie about conservatives and attempt to make our beliefs out to be something they are not. The truth is that we conservatives understand you liberals better than you understand us, which is why we control the government right now. The only thing you control right now is the mainstream media, and that is fading fast as they lose credibility and viewership/readership. People just aren’t falling for liberal BS anymore.

Very lame David.

This is clearly your skewed perspective.

doesn't make sense for a conservative to write about a liberal viewpoint, or for al franken to write rush's editorial. I give fossten's thoughts very little credence.

The Liberal philosophy

Larger government, more control, less individual freedom, more dependence upon said government, no weapons for defense, reason with enemies instead of defeating them, punish the rich, cater to special interest groups like the gay/lesbian/feminist community, higher taxes, anti-religion (ACLU), create race and class wars, government-run healthcare, no wealthy people, everyone’s equal, socialist society, pro-abortion, anti-Constitution, anti-property rights, same-sex marriage, pro-union, anti-competition, pro-European socialist views, anti-American.
By your post you obviously know nothing about the liberal perspective nor anything about mine. Also, this is the most blatantly offensive post you've made in quite some time, and where you accuse me of being offensive it is always an example of me responding to ONE person's comments, where you are offensive is almost always against whole groups or sets of ideas, I had hoped you were done with that, but obviously you're not. Not everything everyone thinks or does is because of the group they belong to.

You proved my point because you took every statement that articulated the Conservative philosophy and either twisted it or lied about it. Har de har har. That proves that you have no real ideas to offer the country except to try to lie about conservatives and attempt to make our beliefs out to be something they are not.
I did not twist or lie about anything. Firstly you quoted Rush Limbaugh...a man even most other conservatives don't respect the viewpoints of, so I wouldn't think he qualifies to represent the conservative movement (he used to, but not since the days of Newt went away). Secondly, if you'll note my points, they are all the same points Rush made, from a non-conservative's viewpoint of them. They are how the rest of the world sees the conservative viewpoint.

The truth is that we conservatives understand you liberals better than you understand us, which is why we control the government right now. The only thing you control right now is the mainstream media, and that is fading fast as they lose credibility and viewership/readership. People just aren’t falling for liberal BS anymore.
And...once again...I am not a liberal. I have several conservative viewpoints. I despise gun control...I think most taxes are too high...I believe in supporting business (small business)...I want strong national security (done right)...these amongst other things are not what most of my liberal friends agree with me on. I am not politically affiliated...so every time you think I am speaking for the liberal you're just limiting yourself with your assumptions that everyone belongs to some group or another. You think you have a clear picture of how things are going in this country and the way things ought to be, but you only have an ideology. The conservative movement has always been about ideology...'the world would be best if' scenarios, and the liberal movement has always been about making the real world a better place.

I admire many conservatives for their passion and their ideology, but many conservatives when you isolate them and place them in the real world lose that ideology quickly because they find that ideology though nice, doesn't work in practice. And I say isolate them because ideology will always maintain a hold on a person's psyche when they have someone else to bolster their grandiose ideas.

johnny, he's referring to another thread where raveneyes resorted to name-calling on EL ES, not my post.

And to make this accurate:

"Johnny, Vitas is singling out raveneyes for responding in kind to eL eS' bashing him in another thread while he has not asked for a public apology from eL eS, nor publicly chastised eL eS for the ridiculous fight."

And see this post:

http://www.lincolnvscadillac.com/showpost.php?p=118827&postcount=9

and my correct prediction:

I'd also like to note that while a conservative started with the personal attacks I'm sure I'll be the one to be taken to task for it by someone...I apologize in advance to those of you who have to read this, but I don't take kindly to what some people assume around here, and there's not much else those individuals seem to understand at times.

...where you accuse me of being offensive it is always an example of me responding to ONE person's comments, where you are offensive is almost always against whole groups or sets of ideas, I had hoped you were done with that, but obviously you're not...

Thank you. You make a good point, which is that when I am 'offensive,' as you put it, it is against groups of people or ideas, instead of singling out a specific person and attacking him/her, which is what you do by your own admission, and which, by the way, is against the rules of this forum. I follow the rules, you break them.

I did not twist or lie about anything. Firstly you quoted Rush Limbaugh...a man even most other conservatives don't respect the viewpoints of, so I wouldn't think he qualifies to represent the conservative movement (he used to, but not since the days of Newt went away).


You DID twist and lie about everything in that article. You 'edited' each line with your own twisted opinion, which is not what was said, but what you think should have been said which totally changes the meaning of what was said, ergo, your ideas and thoughts, not the author's.

Secondly, Rush has 20 million listeners each week, which indicates that he DOES represent the thinking of conservatives by and large. It certainly lends more credence to that line of thinking than not. Your just saying it doesn't make it so.

Interesting how you attack Rush, one person, instead of debating ideas. Typical liberal tactic.

Secondly, if you'll note my points, they are all the same points Rush made, from a non-conservative's viewpoint of them. They are how the rest of the world sees the conservative viewpoint.

Which proves my point. Non-conservatives DON'T UNDERSTAND conservatives. We do, however, understand the liberal agenda.


And...once again...I am not a liberal. I have several conservative viewpoints. I despise gun control...I think most taxes are too high...I believe in supporting business (small business)...I want strong national security (done right)...these amongst other things are not what most of my liberal friends agree with me on. I am not politically affiliated...so every time you think I am speaking for the liberal you're just limiting yourself with your assumptions that everyone belongs to some group or another. You think you have a clear picture of how things are going in this country and the way things ought to be, but you only have an ideology. The conservative movement has always been about ideology...'the world would be best if' scenarios, and the liberal movement has always been about making the real world a better place.

Not a liberal, huh? By who's definition? You are most certainly not a conservative. But more to the point, what's wrong with being a liberal? Is it bad to be portrayed as such? If you're not a liberal, then you certainly come across as an anti-conservative, which to me makes no difference.

I admire many conservatives for their passion and their ideology...

Name three people that are conservative that you admire.

...but many conservatives when you isolate them and place them in the real world lose that ideology quickly because they find that ideology though nice, doesn't work in practice....

That's usually because they are vehemently opposed by liberals who prevaricate and fabricate in order to smear them and defeat their attempts.


And I say isolate them because ideology will always maintain a hold on a person's psyche when they have someone else to bolster their grandiose ideas.

A perfect example of a liberal attempt to squash conservatism.

And for you, captainalias, making comments about another person's mistakes, such as oxycontin addiction, is typical liberal smear and is bad form, but we expect that from you, since you have no real substance to offer in the arena of ideas.

And for you, captainalias, making comments about another person's mistakes, such as oxycontin addiction, is typical liberal smear and is bad form, but we expect that from you, since you have no real substance to offer in the arena of ideas.

How about I just call you a godless commie? You seem to like that tactic of name calling and smearing yourself.

How about I just call you blah blah blah? Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah...

Do whatever you want. You are new to this forum, and it won't be long before Bryan or even Joey smacks you down for not understanding the rules. Personally, I don't care, since you only come off as sophomoric and mean-spirited and uneducated when you name-call.

If you can come up with a recent example of me actually saying, "You're a godless commie," I'd be very interested to see it.

Do whatever you want. You are new to this forum, and it won't be long before Bryan or even Joey smacks you down for not understanding the rules. Personally, I don't care, since you only come off as sophomoric and mean-spirited and uneducated when you name-call.

If you can come up with a recent example of me actually saying, "You're a godless commie," I'd be very interested to see it.

Is that a threat? So when you speak out of 'passion', the admins won't do anything?

Well, let me see here. You said Deville was a commie, and you said that communism was godless, so by the transitive property, you are calling him a 'godless commie'. Although, according you, you were simply calling his ideas 'commie', which as I pointed out in the other post, would have been a valid point had you said that, rather than saying 'You sound like...'

He's got a point there.

And to make this accurate:

"Johnny, Vitas is singling out raveneyes for responding in kind to eL eS' bashing him in another thread while he has not asked for a public apology from eL eS, nor publicly chastised eL eS for the ridiculous fight."

And see this post:

http://www.lincolnvscadillac.com/showpost.php?p=118827&postcount=9

and my correct prediction:

If you r-e-a-d my post to which you replied earlier, I specifically addressed that issue.

"He told you people may not like you, so what, roughly 50% of voters do not like the other guy. There is no excuse for the language that you used. If you cannot be more clever in your response, find another place to respond."

As to your "prediction," WOW YOU ACTUALLY FORSAW THAT YOUR ENGAGING IN NAME CALLING WOULD BE CONSIDERED OFFENSIVE. wow truly "prescient"

One of the other Lincoln boards was imploded by this sort of name calling crap. They banned political discussion. If that is what you want to happen here, well, carry on.

You know...I actually like everyone who participates in this particular forum. I've had my heated arguments with a few people but nothing was taken personal in the end.

But quite frankly...if this whiney bs doesn't stop soon I'm gonna have to leave the political forum to the babies.

This "You broke my GI Joe so I'm gonna burn down your Lincoln Log house" crap has gotta end!

...I'm gonna have to leave the political forum to the babies....

I would like to see more intelligent responses, after facts are presented that obviates the discussion, than "Your guy is stupid."


If that is the best that these kids can do, then "we" are in deep trouble.

I saw a cartoon the other day...I'll try to find it. But anyway, it was a picture of the elephant and the mule arguing on either sides of a teeter-totter. They were balancing on a pillar named freedom and keeping the board (called the USA) from falling into the sea of tyranny that the pillar soared over. Now if we could all respect each other for being the voice that keeps both our sides from falling into the abyss we would be in a better position to continue yelling at each other...

...did that make sense???

Now if we could all respect each other for being the voice that keeps both our sides from falling into the abyss we would be in a better position to continue yelling at each other...

...did that make sense???

You would think that we were all living in the same country...

Dissent is fine, it makes our country so much better for it, but when you see comments that obviously beg for OUR downfall in these fragile times you need to examine what their agenda is. And, clearly, they have an agenda.

Bush is doing a stellar job in handling the Economy under the extremely adverse circumstances that were given to him. The Iraq war was won long ago, now we have to deal with allowing the Iraqi people the ability to make the transition to governing and protecting themselves. In the meantime we are finding massive amounts of WMD, in terrorists and insurgents. When done, this will be the biggest and most important Revolution in our generation. Dealing with the hate of Islam extremists at the core.

In the meantime we are finding massive amounts of WMD, in terrorists and insurgents. When done, this will be the biggest and most important Revolution in our generation. Dealing with the hate of Islam extremists at the core.

Excuse me, but I must be missing something. Where are these 'massive amounts of WMD' that you speak of? Cheney's head is pretty big, but not massively big.

Excuse me, but I must be missing something. Where are these 'massive amounts of WMD' that you speak of? Cheney's head is pretty big, but not massively big.

What attacked New York on 9/11/01?

What attacked New York on 9/11/01?

Not a WMD. besides, those terrorists were from Saudi Arabia, not Iraq. I see you've been duped by Bush's strategem, where he would simultaneously mention Saddam and 9/11 in the same sentence.

Not a WMD. besides, those terrorists were from Saudi Arabia, not Iraq. I see you've been duped by Bush's strategem, where he would simultaneously mention Saddam and 9/11 in the same sentence.

So was it terrorists that attacked NY? If I may ask, how old are you?

So was it terrorists that attacked NY? If I may ask, how old are you?

So it wasn't terrorists that attacked NYC? What college did you go to, if I may ask?

So it wasn't terrorists that attacked NYC? What college did you go to, if I may ask?

See, you have learned something new today. Terrorists are the equivalent of weapons of mass destruction. BTW they "said" they were Saudi's. Would you expect criminals to identify themselves?

See, you have learned something new today. Terrorists are the equivalent of weapons of mass destruction. BTW they "said" they were Saudi's. Would you expect criminals to identify themselves?

wmd = weapons that involve nuclear, biological, or chemical attacks.

terrorists do not equal WMD, so stop twisting it around.

So when we IDed them as Saudis, they weren't Saudis but Iraqis, even though the 9/11 Commission IDed them as Saudis? And you have better intel I presume?

So when we IDed them as Saudis, they weren't Saudis but Iraqis, even though the 9/11 Commission IDed them as Saudis? And you have better intel I presume?

I have not heard that rumor. Please provide a credible link. In the meantime, terrorists are as bad as, or worse than WMD. Figure that out for yourself.

Who attacked NY on 9/11/01?

I have not heard that rumor. Please provide a credible link. In the meantime, terrorists are as bad as, or worse than WMD. Figure that out for yourself.

Who attacked NY on 9/11/01?

Haha, you're very funny Vitas, always providing a good laugh. You make up your own definition, saying that terrorists are the equivalent of WMD. Funny, no one in the Bush administration has even said that one. So you're telling me, that the terrorists who attacked on 9/11 did equal to, or more damage than a WMD? They killed more people than a nuke, bio bomb, or chemical arty shell would do? Really, very amusing my dear Vitas.

As for this 'rumor', you ought to try reading your own government's 9/11 Commission documents instead of making up your own data.

Mohammed Atta- Egyptian National, see chp. 5, 9/11 report, pg. 16
Ramzi Binalshibh- Yemeni National, ", pg. 17
Marwan al Shehhi- UAE, Ibid
Ziad Jarrah- Lebanese, Ibid.
Said Bahaji, Zakariya Essabar, Mounir el Motassadeq, Abdelghani Mzoudi,- Moroccan, Ibid.
Hani Hanjour, Omar Bakarbashat, Nawaf al Hazmi, Khalid
al Mihdhar- Saudi Arabia, Chp. 7, pg. 11


"Twelve of the 13 muscle hijackers (excluding Nawaf al Hazmi and Mihdhar)
came from Saudi Arabia: Satam al Suqami,Wail al Shehri,Waleed al Shehri,
Abdul Aziz al Omari, Ahmed al Ghamdi, Hamza al Ghamdi, Mohand al
Shehri, Majed Moqed, Salem al Hazmi, Saeed al Ghamdi,Ahmad al Haznawi,
and Ahmed al Nami." Chp. 7

Really, go read it yourself.

Haha, you're very funny Vitas, always providing a good laugh. You make up your own definition, saying that terrorists are the equivalent of WMD. Funny, no one in the Bush administration has even said that one. So you're telling me, that the terrorists who attacked on 9/11 did equal to, or more damage than a WMD?

You tell ANYONE that 9/11 was a joke. I would like to see the web broadcast of that.

If you think that 9/11 was a "joke" I would hope that other people disagree with you. And now you have buried yourself.

You tell ANYONE that 9/11 was a joke. I would like to see the web broadcast of that.

If you think that 9/11 was a "joke" I would hope that other people disagree with you. And now you have buried yourself.

I do hope you're under the age of 18, because your reading comprehension could use some work. Otherwise it's downright embarassing.

I do hope you're under the age of 18, because your reading comprehension could use some work. Otherwise it's downright embarassing.


Would you like a dictionary link, or is it impossible for you to find by yourself?

It really doesn't matter to me what country they were from. Since Saddam has been shown to have ties to Al Qaeda, it's rather easy to connect the dots.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/033jgqyi.asp

http://www.techcentralstation.com/092503F.html

As a matter of fact, it's easier for us to connect the dots from Saddam to Al Qaeda than it is for the liberals to connect the dots, for example, from Bush to Abu Ghraib, or from Bush to Katrina, or from Bush to Valerie Plame, yet the liberals continue to assert these wild claims. So by their definition, it should be simple to connect Saddam and Al Qaeda.

In addition to that, liberals routinely forget that the U.N. passed several resolutions over several years that condemned Saddam's malfeasance relating to WMDs and, in fact, called for military action. It just so happens that Bush was the first (but not the only) leader who had the guts to act on that call.

It really doesn't matter to me what country they were from. Since Saddam has been shown to have ties to Al Qaeda, it's rather easy to connect the dots.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/033jgqyi.asp

http://www.techcentralstation.com/092503F.html

As a matter of fact, it's easier for us to connect the dots from Saddam to Al Qaeda than it is for the liberals to connect the dots, for example, from Bush to Abu Ghraib, or from Bush to Katrina, or from Bush to Valerie Plame, yet the liberals continue to assert these wild claims. So by their definition, it should be simple to connect Saddam and Al Qaeda.

In addition to that, liberals routinely forget that the U.N. passed several resolutions over several years that condemned Saddam's malfeasance relating to WMDs and, in fact, called for military action. It just so happens that Bush was the first (but not the only) leader who had the guts to act on that call.

How convenient of you to quote links that use speculative evidence and were dated in 2003. Why not use the 9/11 Commission report? Dated July 2004, it has the most comprehensive information. The links between Saddam and Al-Q are tenuous at best. The reason give by Bush to go to war was for WMDs, not terrorists, and there is little evidence to show of any Al-Q-Saddam link.

I like your hand-waving arguments without examining the details. So convincing! Resolution 1441 never authorized the use of force, unless there was a revival of the use of force in Resolution 678 (passed by the UNSC in 1990). To use force would require a vote by the UNSC, but the US didn't wait for that.

Oh, and where are those WMDs?

I like your hand-waving arguments without examining the details. So convincing! Resolution 1441 never authorized the use of force, unless there was a revival of the use of force in Resolution 678 (passed by the UNSC in 1990). To use force would require a vote by the UNSC, but the US didn't wait for that.



-lol-

I hope I can stop laughing at some point in the near future.

-lol-

I hope I can stop laughing at some point in the near future.

It helps to read the source documents, rather than make things up.

Would you like a dictionary link, or is it impossible for you to find by yourself?

I quote Jane's Intelligence Digest, April 15, 2005. Jane's is a premier, non-partisan, resource regarding defense matters.

JANE'S INTELLIGENCE DIGEST - APRIL 15, 2005, 'Assessing WMD Intelligence'

The US based all their intelligence on one guy, an Iraqi defector named 'Curveball', who it turns out, was not internally trusted. Even so, Bush made the case for war based on his 'intel', who we know "fabricated the information he supplied in an attempt to gain permanent asylum and to avoid being returned to Iraq."

Here's the link: www.janes.com, go to intelligence digest, and go through their articles.

Please do quote me a dictionary link that says WMD = terrorists.

As Bush says, 'Bring it on'.

Where's that dictionary link I was promised?

I do hope you're under the age of 18, because your reading comprehension could use some work. Otherwise it's downright embarassing.

Don't fall for his tactic's. You clearly disproved his 'Iraqis attacked on 9/11' skit by posting the report. Now he's just trying to turn around what little he can.

That would be funny to hear though, if Bush came out and said that the WMD's were in fact terrorist all along and not nukes or bio-chem weapons. I don't think he or his cabinet would be that stupid though.

It helps to read the source documents, rather than make things up.

http://www.geocities.com/vitas00/LINCOLNS/a.gif

Where's that dictionary link I was promised?

http://www.bartleby.com/61/

Hope this helps.

Don't fall for his tactic's. You clearly disproved his 'Iraqis attacked on 9/11' skit by posting the report.

http://www.geocities.com/vitas00/LINCOLNS/a.gif

http://www.geocities.com/vitas00/LINCOLNS/a.gif

So the 9/11 commission report was wrong? Just answer me that.

http://www.bartleby.com/61/

Hope this helps.

Give me the link to the definition. I was courteous enough to provide you the links, articles, dates, and citations.

So the 9/11 commission report was wrong? Just answer me that.


Why does the 9/11 Commission hate America?

So the 9/11 commission report was wrong? Just answer me that.

Don't fall for his tactic's. You clearly disproved his 'Iraqis attacked on 9/11' skit by posting the report.

Please show me where I said 'Iraqis attacked on 9/11.' If you cannot find that, please retract your statement.

Give me the link to the definition. I was courteous enough to provide you the links, articles, dates, and citations.

You are throwing me for a loop here. You said that you could not understand my grammar, or something like that, I offered you a link to a dictionary. And I gave it to you.

You are throwing me for a loop here. You said that you could not understand my grammar, or something like that, I offered you a link to a dictionary. And I gave it to you.

'or something like that'. Go back and read the posts; you said that WMD = terrorists, and could provide a dictionary link stating so.

'or something like that'. Go back and read the posts; you said that WMD = terrorists, and could provide a dictionary link stating so.

Please go back and see exactly what I offered to provide a dictionary link to. Let's be precise here. I will deal with the entire subject later, when I feel like it, and find the time to do so. That may be a week from now. In the meantime, I want you to acknowledge EXACTLY what I offered you for a dictionary link, and what I gave you.

I have been through this many times over the years in political discussions. I spend a full hour or two answering the issue in detail, and the wise guy leftocrat responds with a one liner, "oh, your guy is stupid." Show me some good faith here.

I have been through this many times over the years in political discussions. I spend a full hour or two answering the issue in detail, and the wise guy leftocrat responds with a one liner, "oh, your guy is stupid."

In 'detail'? haha. You never got back to me about the 9/11 Commission report, or the Jane's article.

A simple question- was the 9/11 Commission wrong? And if so, state your 'detailed' evidence.

In 'detail'? haha. You never got back to me about the 9/11 Commission report, or the Jane's article.

A simple question- was the 9/11 Commission wrong? And if so, state your 'detailed' evidence.

http://www.geocities.com/vitas00/LINCOLNS/a.gif



It is obvious that you are a "rookie" at political discussion.


Perhaps Barry may be able to give you some advice.

http://www.geocities.com/vitas00/LINCOLNS/a.gif



It is obvious that you are a "rookie" at political discussion.


Perhaps Barry may be able to give you some advice.

Just answer his question, come on now. Was the 9/11 commission report wrong? If he is a 'rookie' than a seasoned veteran such as yourself would have no problem schooling him on the 'ins and outs' of the 9/11 report.

Just answer his question, come on now. Was the 9/11 commission report wrong? If he is a 'rookie' than a seasoned veteran such as yourself would have no problem schooling him on the 'ins and outs' of the 9/11 report.

First things first. The dictionary link.

First things first. The dictionary link.

Actually, I asked my question first and you never replied and then you brought up the dictionary link. When do WMDs = terrorists, and what was wrong with the 9/11 Commission Report?

If by 'veteran' at political discussions, then you must mean dodging people's questions.

Let's review our little conversation, shall we? I asked about the 9/11 Commission Report first, before you mentioned anything about a dictionary link. And you have not given me a reply yet. What's the matter, scared to answer a 'rookiee'?

The interesting thing is, you originally asked, "WHAT attacked on 9/11", indicating that you felt WMD attacked. But in post #52, you changed it back to 'WHO attacked', subtly acknowledging your mistake. Sneaky.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Vitas Post #43: "we are finding massive amounts of WMD, in terrorists and insurgents."

My post #44: "Where are these massive amounts of WMD?"

Vitas Post #45: "What attacked New York on 9/11/01?"

My post #46: "Not a WMD. besides, those terrorists were from Saudi Arabia, not Iraq. I see you've been duped by Bush's strategem, where he would simultaneously mention Saddam and 9/11 in the same sentence."

Vitas Ppost #49: "Terrorists are the equivalent of weapons of mass destruction. BTW they "said" they were Saudi's. Would you expect criminals to identify themselves?"

My post #50&51: "wmd = weapons that involve nuclear, biological, or chemical attacks.

terrorists do not equal WMD, so stop twisting it around. So when we IDed them as Saudis, they weren't Saudis but Iraqis, even though the 9/11 Commission IDed them as Saudis? And you have better intel I presume?"

Vitas Post #52: "I have not heard that rumor. Please provide a credible link. In the meantime, terrorists are as bad as, or worse than WMD. Figure that out for yourself.

Who attacked NY on 9/11/01?"

My post #53: Citation of 9/11 Commission Report.

Vitas Post #56: "Would you like a dictionary link?"

Perhaps I was too quick to jump to the conclusion that you were talking about a dictionary link about WMDs, rather than talking about nothing at all. However, I asked you my question about the 9/11 Commission Report even before you mentioend anything about a dictionary, and you never replied.

Actually, I asked my question first and you never replied and then you brought up the dictionary link. When do WMDs = terrorists, and what was wrong with the 9/11 Commission Report?

PAL, you are repeating yourself, and are in fact boring. Do I really need to spend the time showing you where you are, illogical, and wrong. I've got better things to do. But if you insist, I will do so, and then you have to be human enough to render the appropriate apology. -NG-

PAL, you are repeating yourself, and are in fact boring. Do I really need to spend the time showing you where you are, illogical, and wrong. I've got better things to do. But if you insist, I will do so, and then you have to be human enough to render the appropriate apology. -NG-

Why am I repeating myself? because you never gave me an answer. Please tell me in which post of yours you gave me an answer?

Perhaps it is because you cannot give an answer, so you keep using these cunctatory tactics. If you could give an answer, we wouldn't be debating your lack of answers 40 posts later.

Where's that dictionary link I was promised?

Oh geez, let's start with this. Isn't it wonderful how people are fascinated with the Internet.

What did I promise for a dictionary link? Do I really have to explain this to you step by step? Is that what a leftocrat is?

All of you are cluttering up this thread.

Why don't you go start one titled, "Nyaaah Nyaaah, I know you are but what am I?" and stop kicking dirt all over this one.

Oh geez, let's start with this. Isn't it wonderful how people are fascinated with the Internet.

What did I promise for a dictionary link? Do I really have to explain this to you step by step? Is that what a leftocrat is?

Why keep avoiding my question? I asked why the 9/11 Commission is wrong. That was BEFORE (do you understand English?) I asked for your dictionary link. And, you never mentioned anything about a dictionary link for a leftocrat, until now.

You have not given me a reply, which indicates that you DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER. Rookiee.

All of you are cluttering up this thread.

Why don't you go start one titled, "Nyaaah Nyaaah, I know you are but what am I?" and stop kicking dirt all over this one.


Why don't you tell Vitas to quit avoiding my question of why the 9/11 Commission is wrong? Which was asked before his dictionary link question, and to which he has not given an answer to.

Why keep avoiding my question? I asked why the 9/11 Commission is wrong. That was BEFORE (do you understand English?) I asked for your dictionary link.

You have not given me a reply, which indicates that you DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER. Rookiee.

So in other words, when you posted:

October 31st, 2005, 06:50 PM #62
captainalias
Full Member


View My Photo Gallery


Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Belle Mead, NJ
Posts: 316 Where's that dictionary link I was promised?

You had no clue what you were talking about. Correct?

I want you two rookies to wrap up your objections, so that I can answer them specifically and

....


then we will bang heads

I want you two rookies to wrap up your objections, so that I can answer them specifically and

....


then we will bang heads

Just answer the two simple questons:

1) Where does it say that terrorist are now considered WMD's?

and

2) Was the 9/11 commission report wrong?

Simple, stop dodging and calling him a 'rookie' and saying if he'd like for you to prove him wrong etc. etc. If he is wrong prove it, I am sure he will admit to being wrong if your facts are correct.