Thursday, August 05, 2004

It's tough to be a Republican

I found this funny. Let the fireworks begin (I know you have me in your sights, ALa71 and Artbyruth - give me cover fire Lefty!):


It Is Tough Being a Republican in 2004, because somehow, you have to believe concurrently that:

1. Jesus loves you, but shares your deep hatred of homosexuals and Hillary Clinton.

2. The United States should get out of the United Nations, but our highest national priority is enforcing U. N. resolutions against Iraq.

3."Standing Tall for America" means firing your workers and moving their jobs to India.

4. A woman can't be trusted with decisions about her own body, but multi-national corporations can make decisions affecting all humankind without regulation.

5. Being a drug addict is a moral failing and a crime, unless you're a conservative radio host. Then it's an illness and you need our prayers for your recovery.

6. The best way to improve military morale is to praise the troops in speeches, while slashing veterans' benefits and combat pay.

7. Group sex and drug use are degenerate sins, unless you someday run for governor of California as a Republican.

8. If condoms are kept out of schools, adolescents won't have sex.

9. A good way to fight terrorism is to belittle our long-time allies, but then demand their cooperation and money.

10. HMOs and insurance companies make profits and have the interest of the public at heart.

11. Providing health care to all Iraqis is sound policy. Providing health care to all Americans is socialism.

12. Global warming and tobacco's link to cancer are junk science, but creationism should be taught in schools.

13. It is okay that the Bush family's "Carlisle Group" has done millions of business with the Bin Laden family.

14. Saddam was a good guy when Reagan armed him and Rumsfeld reassured him he was our buddy. A bad guy when Bush's daddy made war on him, a good guy when Cheney did business with him. But, then a bad guy again when Bush junior needed a prop for his re-election campaign as the "war president"

15. A president lying about an extramarital affair is an impeachable offense. A president lying about WMD existence, to enlist support for an unprovoked, undeclared war and occupation, in which thousands of soldiers and civilians die, is, somehow, solid "defense" policy in a "War against Terrorism".

16. Government should limit itself to the powers named in the Constitution, which should include "banning gay marriages and censoring the Internet".

17. The public has a right to know about Hillary's cattle trades, but George Bush's Harken Oil stock trade should be sealed in his Daddy's library, and is none of our business.

18. What Bill Clinton or John Kerry did in the 1960s was of vital national interest but what Bush did in the '80s is irrelevant.

19. Trade with Cuba is wrong because the country is communist, but trade with China and Vietnam is vital to a "spirit of international harmony".

20. You are a conservative, but it is OK to spend like there is no tomorrow and run up deficits that your grandchildren will have to pay, while at the same refunding as much tax money as possible to rich people who do not need it.

This illogical behavior can take a toll on a healthy mind. So if a friend of yours has been acting a bit dazed and confused lately, be nice: he or she may be a Republican!

22 comments:

~Jen~ said...

I'm sure you were giggling when you posted this. I might think it was funny too if I could get past the first one, but damn. Number one touched such a nerve with me that I can't read the rest of it.

I am sick and tired of people assuming that because I am a republican that I hate homosexuals. I have two gay cousins, whom I couldn't love more. They both have partners, whom I care for deeply. My brother-in-law is gay. We couldn't be closer friends. I have watched four people that I loved, one I even nursed at times, die of aids. I started doing aids fundraisers when I was 22 (and I'm 34 now)! I don't know any republicans who hate gay people!!! None. Zip. Zilch. Nada. Stop with the effing stereotype bull shit.

While I am ranting, if ONE MORE PERSON says to me in real life "How can you be a republican? You're so NICE!" I swear to god I am going postal on their buttocks. I have HAD IT with the effing stereotype bull shit.

artbyruth said...

Oh, I've seent these before on another blog...

1. Jesus loves you, but shares your deep hatred of homosexuals and Hillary Clinton.

Jesus loves all the world, that's why He died for the world. Haven't you read John 3:16? So, Jesus even loves Hillary and the homosexuals. Isn't that nice? BUT he words of Christ clearly say that "sin" separates us from God and will not be tolerated. That is what most Christians believe....but not all, apparently.

2. The United States should get out of the United Nations, but our highest national priority is enforcing U. N. resolutions against Iraq.

No, the United Nations should just go away. That would save this country billions of dollars each year. Then we can use that money toward education reform! Yippee!

But as long as it still exists, the resolutions placed against Hussein should have been respected by Hussein.

3."Standing Tall for America" means firing your workers and moving their jobs to India.

Well, let's talk about the Unions and what THEY stand for: taking members's dues and using them to elect Democrats into office against the wishes of said members. And against IRS laws, too.

As far as sending jobs oversees, talk to Heniz Corporation about that one. They have made millions doing just that.

4. A woman can't be trusted with decisions about her own body, but multi-national corporations can make decisions affecting all humankind without regulation.

A woman, no matter who she is, has no right to pay money to have her child killed. But, the law stands that she can....so I don't know what this sentence means.

but multi-national corporations can make decisions affecting all humankind without regulation.

Like cloning, or stem-cell research....stuff like that??

5. Being a drug addict is a moral failing and a crime, unless you're a conservative radio host. Then it's an illness and you need our prayers for your recovery.

Being a drug addict is a moral failing, but so is being addicted to anything. Allowing oneself to be overcome by anything other than God is a sin. That is what Paul was writing about when he wrote:

1 Cor 6:9-12 "Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor sexual perverts,
10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.
12 "All things are lawful for me," but not all things are helpful. "All things are lawful for me," but I will not be enslaved by anything."

When I taught Bible study in the women's prison, I often used these verses because I am included in the list of sins Paul writes. I was enslaved by many things...which is a sin.

These women were in prison because they sold or bought drugs..which is a crime. Rush Limbaugh admitted to being addicted, but was a crime committed? In this country you are innocent until proven guilty, remember?

6. The best way to improve military morale is to praise the troops in speeches, while slashing veterans' benefits and combat pay.

Bush just gave the military another raise....but John Kerry did vote against increasing military benefits.

7. Group sex and drug use are degenerate sins, unless you someday run for governor of California as a Republican.

No "unless" here. Group sex and drug use are still sins no matter who is doing them: Republican or Democrat. So it should read: group sex and drug use are sins even though you are elected President of the United States in 1992 as a Democrat.

8. If condoms are kept out of schools, adolescents won't have sex.

Republicans believe that if students are taught the truth about condoms (there is a 2% chance they will not prevent unwanted pregnancy or STD) and the truth about abstinence (it works 100% each time) then educated adolescents will make the right choices.

9. A good way to fight terrorism is to belittle our long-time allies, but then demand their cooperation and money.

That seems to be France and Spain's way of fighting terrorism....but I digress. Our President did go to the UN and seek hlep, he was turned down. End of story. Why should France, Germany, or Russia be rewarded for not helping in Iraq especially when there is ample evidence that they were making millions in lucrative oil contracts with terrorist, Saddam Hussein??

10. HMOs and insurance companies make profits and have the interest of the public at heart.

I honestly do not know anyone, Republican or Democrat, who thinks this way! And I have a mother who is a nurse, a sister-in-law who is a medical assistant...niether one thinks anything positive about HMO's.

11. Providing health care to all Iraqis is sound policy. Providing health care to all Americans is socialism.

Providing health care for FREE to all Americans is socialism and it doesn't work. It means incredibly high taxes for all. It means an end to trial lawyers like Edwards who make their millions off of suing doctors and hospitals. Federal Government would put an end to that real fast!

My Spanish teacher was from Spain and she always went on and on about their FREE health care and dental care for everyone. She made it sound so wonderful. Until someone ask how long it took to be seen by a doctor or dentist...and she didn't have anymore nice things to say about it after that.

12. Global warming and tobacco's link to cancer are junk science, but creationism should be taught in schools.

Global warming is theory but tobacco's link to cancer is definitely proven,no doubt. I do believe that creation and evolution should be taught side by side in schools so students acn see for themselves. That is what I have done with my son.
PLEASE read the book: "In Six Days: Why Fifty Scientists Choose to Believe In Creation" by John Ashton: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0890513414/qid=1091752275/sr=ka-1/ref=pd_ka_1/103-0656681-8939833

In it you will find these brilliant men and their incredible stories on how just by studying science they came to believe in God's sovereignty.

13. It is okay that the Bush family's "Carlisle Group" has done millions of business with the Bin Laden family

From Newsweek magazine: "As for the president's own Carlyle link, his service on the Caterair board ended when he quit to run for Texas governor- a few months before the first of the Saudi contracts to unrelated BDM firm was awarded. Moreover, Bush didn't invest in the Caterair deal and he didn't profit from it.

In fact, the Clinton admin. had connections with the Carlyle group too: The Crusader rocket artillery system (put in place during the Clinton admin.) was manufactured by United Defense, wholly owned by Carlyle. This program was cancelled by Donald Rumsfeld during the current administration.

And Bin Laden's family are not terrorists....bin Laden is.

Carlyle spokesman said to Newsweek: "The billions of dollars "figure is inaccurate and misleading. The movie (Fahrenheit 9/11) implies that the Saudis gave $1.4 billion to the Bushes and their friends. But most of it went to a Carlyle group company before Bush even joined the firm. Bush had nothing to do with BDM."

Carlyle's founding and still managing partner is David Rubenstein, a former top domestic policy advisor to Jimmy Carter. Also the firm's senior advisors are:

Thomas "Mack" McLarty, Bill Clinton's former White House chief of staff

Arthur Levitt, Clinton's former chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission

William Kennard, Clinton's chairman of the Fed. Communications Commission

and Spokesman Chris Ullman was a Clinton spokesman for the SEC.

So, it should be said that the Democrats believe it is ok that they do millions of dollars of business with Carlyle....doesn't sound like Carlyle is a Bush company.

14. Saddam was a good guy when Reagan armed him and Rumsfeld reassured him he was our buddy. A bad guy when Bush's daddy made war on him, a good guy when Cheney did business with him. But, then a bad guy again when Bush junior needed a prop for his re-election campaign as the "war president"

President Bush didn't "make war with him". Remember a little incident called: The Invasion of Kuwait? And Hussein was always bad guy. Even when Chirac was giving him a tour of France's nuclear reactors in the 80's. Real smart move. Let's reward Chirac with a lucrative reconstruction deal in Iraq!

15. A president lying about an extramarital affair is an impeachable offense.

No, a President lying under oath and tampering with a witness is an impeachable offense. That's what Bill Clinton did.

A president lying about WMD existence, to enlist support for an unprovoked, undeclared war and occupation, in which thousands of soldiers and civilians die, is, somehow, solid "defense" policy in a "War against Terrorism".

The President believed, as did Congress including John Kerry, that there were WMD's in Iraq and Hussein posed a threat. So, if Bush lied...so did John Kerry in 2001, 2002, 2003, and so on...


16. Government should limit itself to the powers named in the Constitution, which should include "banning gay marriages and censoring the Internet".

No comment on this one

17. The public has a right to know about Hillary's cattle trades, but George Bush's Harken Oil stock trade should be sealed in his Daddy's library, and is none of our business.

If it is sealed, then how can this author know about it? Believe me, with all the Michale Moores out there investigating the President...if there was a scandal it would have come out by now!

I'm tired..more later.

~Jen~ said...

TWD - that rant wasn't directed at you. I'm just frustrated at the world today.

leftyjones said...

Wooohooo!!!! I've got you covered TWD, that is if I can stop laughing. I loved your post and to be fair, I appreciate Artbyruth taking the time to contest it. I find that it reminds me quite a bit of a post I wrote last week in which created a list and found that a lot of the "answers" to my points were really not answers at all but rather just pointing fingers back.
(although Bigandmean and I had a good debate)
In a debate, its a little easier to trade barbs but if you are going to contest someone's comments....well, I figure, its not really worth answering the point if at any time in your answer you begin pointing to what the opposition does. That's not a rebuttal. That's twisting away from the point you don't want to deal with.

But...it is tiring, I know what Artbyruth means. Sometimes you have to walk away and come back when you're a little bit more charged.
Oh...and Jen....you're SOOOO nice....how can,,,,just kidding.

this we'll defend said...

Glad you guys had a good time with that one. And Jen, you do seem awfully nice, so I was wondering how...

Frater Bovious said...

Read your post, thought, wow, I have to respond to this, read the comments, realized everyone had said any and everything I might have said, took a deep breath, feeling relaxed and refreshed, and just thought I'd say Thanks for thinking for me! Now I can go on vacation knowing all is right with the world!

I really enjoy reading all the give and take between you guys. Thanks.

Not wanting to get all religious on everyone, but I do want to echo the comment about Jesus loves everyone. If you buy into any of the Christian faith, you cannot hate homosexuals, or anyone else. If He was willing to die for them and everyone else, even Saddam, I suppose we could at least tolerate people. Thanks again. gone on vacation. Check you in a week.

MickeyMe said...

I grew up being told Republicans were always right, Democrats were always wrong -- unless the Democrat was FDR because he saved us. Well, Ronald Reagan cured me of being a Republican and so far Bush the Once'd and Bush the Deuce have too. I had doubts about Reagan and couldn't make a decision until he told them to take out civil rights from their platform. That shocked and angered me. Then he and his daughter Maureen went around promising women he'd make it so good for them they'd never need the Equal Rights Amendment they wanted. That did it!

Reagan aimed at the senior citizens by going to senior centers and promising to solve all their problems and make life better in return for their vote. My parents were thrilled to hear that, so they voted for him. Less than six months after he got into the White House he had the Social Security Administration cut off all disability checks and medical care to anyone under 65. That cancelled out my stepdad's disability. He was unable to work and feared going broke trying to pay for his Rx medicines.

I filed papers to have his case reviewed and appeared as his advocate at the appeals hearing. By researching their files on him I discovered someone had removed several written proofs of his disability furnished by his doctors. One of the statements I made to the Administrative Judge was, "This Administration blatantly lied to get the senior citizens' votes. They were promised a better Social Security system and a better life. Today I've seen severely disabled people waiting in these halls to have their cases heard. Some appear to be well over age 65. I personally feel that this Administration intends to stress as many people as they can into an early death. By doing that, fewer funds will be paid out. This is a crime."

My stepdad was one of the lucky ones who got his disability reinstated. I'll never know how many of those sad cases who didn't have advocates fared. I suspect they didn't win back the money they needed.

I could go on and on with why I now won't vote for this Republican we have in the White House. However, I'm not obligated to justify how I vote. My husband and I respect the secret ballot. I've never asked him how he votes on anything, nor has he asked me.

Kat said...

I'll answer a couple with my own thoughts

Condoms in schools: I don't object to sex education. I do object to schools handing out condoms. Discussions about sex, abstaining or safe, should not be the domain of the government. Yes, I know, educating the country has hopefully helped stop the spread of disease. Fine. Giving condoms out at school tells students that it's ok to have sex. This is the parents' responsibility and domain. What if the parents want the child to abstain? Now the school(government) has over-ridden the parents. Parenting by schools leans too far towards the socialist movement for me. Parenting needs to go back to the parents.

Let's discuss children that don't have both parents or have problems at home. Does that mean that it is the governments responsibility to parent the child? Why are we moving towards abrogating the parents' rights and responsibilities?

Once schools distribute condoms, they are taking the place of the parents in teaching morals. That is the parents right and responsibility (er..am I being redundant).

Condoms are available at free clinics everywhere. It is not required for the schools to hand them out.

If there is an epidemic of pregnancies or social diseases at the schoold, the people that should be notified are the parents. One of the problems I see today is not enough parent/teacher/school interaction. More of that and we'd have a little less discussion about whether condoms should be distributed because parents would know what the hell their schools are teaching.

any parent that gets surprised when little johnny comes home and tells them he knows how babies are made and how to use a condom, ought to have a theoretical clue board upside the head. Frankly, that's are problem today. We don't need to worry about it. Somebody else will. Maybe the government. They do such a damn fine job with everything else. Surely they can teach our children morals? /sarcasm

~Jen~ said...

TWD, I used to think Lefty was the only one who deserved a spankin'. Now I am adding you to the list!

(I needed that laugh you naughty boys)

:)

Peter V said...

I decided to turn the other cheek.

P.S. When I find the "It's tough to be a Democrap" I'll have the appropriate response. But as we all know it's not tough to be a democrap because.....

artbyruth said...

I enjoy a good debate. It helps reinforce my beliefs. At least no one here gets angry and MEAN like at Air America radio blog. Those Libs there are just horrible to ANYONE who dares to disagree with them.

No thanks.

I will finish my response later as I still have to write my post for my own blog today. Yipes! I am already behind.

My son and his best friend are playing Gamecube now. All the bells, buzzers, and other noises are driving me NUTS!!! But, they are having a good time.

The plight of the stay-at-home mom.

kbivins said...

That list is just great - too funny!! I came over here to see your site finally because, although I notice it as a link at justrose's site, I saw what you wrote to CBFTW when he was talking about who to vote for. I just had to see what else you were talking about. All of the political back and forth is great so long as no one gets mean and nasty - not to mention close minded. I like a friendly debate as much as the next guy, but when people start saying "ALL republicans..." or "ALL democrats are..." I get totally turned off. Thanks for keeping an open mind and realizing that there are more important aspects to a person than their political affiliation.

artbyruth said...

TWD- Curious what you think about this.....

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/8/5/114239.shtml

funny (or not so funny...) how this was NOT on the MSM.

Kat said...

Actually...I want you to go watch this film. Yes, it's republican supported. I won't fool you. But I want you to watch the whole thing.

Then...If you want to keep up with the Kerry "nuance" on the war thing, I will have to check off "blind to facts" on your dossier and wonder how the hell you're going to make it as a lawyer. Just saying.

http://kerryoniraq.com

this we'll defend said...

Artbyruth: If the Newsmax report is accurate is still leaves left unsaid how "imminent" the threat is (for instance, we know that Iran is currently developing nukes but our first option shouldn't be invasion).

Assuming that
1) the report is true, which I highly doubt given that nobody else seems to be supporting it, and
2) that Saddam was close to getting his hands on a working nuke, then
3) we should have invaded and removed him from power.

Even with #3, we should also have

4) told the world the reason we were doing so and presenting evidence (for instance if this report is true Mr. Bush should be giving details in a press conference instead of letting some reporter dig it up, which is another reason I doubt it is true) and

5) we still should have had a better plan for post-war Iraq, including providing enough troops to the commanders to ensure security in the first crucial months following Saddam's fall.

But as I said in the first posting I ever made on this blog, if Saddam were close to acquiring a nuclear weapon then, given his history not only with us but in the critical middle east region, we should have removed him. I don't see any credible evidence of that, none was presented before the war, and if it exists now we should be telling everybody and their brother so that we can gain allied support (and relief for our troops) and rebuild our lost credibility world-wide. I don't see that happening. Which means the report is either untrue or that the Administration doesn't think it important. I don't think the latter makes much sense, do you?

this we'll defend said...

Kat, I am not blind to facts. I watched the movie all the way through. Obviously you are quite convinced that it proves your case. I am not.

A few facts:

1) Saddam was a threat and universally acknowledged as a threat. Republicans keep trying to infer that Democrats really were supporing the president's decision to invade and are only now changing their tune by posting quotes not only by Kerry but also by Bill Clinton, Madeline Albright, etc. etc. Let's agree here - the Democratic leadership AND Kerry (and me) has always viewed Saddam as a threat - a big one.

2) Al Qaeda also presents a threat.

3) Saddam is not al qaeda. Are we in agreement so far? I think we are.

4) Assuming that Saddam presented an imminent and likely threat we would be totally justified in going to war. That is the just war doctrine. It is what our nation and the world claim to follow. It is the standard we claim to use and should use. Notice that "threat" is only one of 3 elements required in that statement (there are other elements but I explained them in detail in my first post on this blog): the 1) "threat" must be 2) "imminent" and finally 3) "likely." We had #1, but it was not imminent or likely as Saddam had neither the technology or the motivation to meet #2 and #3. That didn't mean ignore him - it meant keep an eye on him and try to contain him. Which we did, successfully, from the end of the first war until we launched the invasion that removed him from power.

Those that claim we couldn't "afford" to wait assume that the just war doctrine means you have to wait until the H-bombs are on their way or until after you are attacked. Not at all. An imminent and likely threat is one that, if you wait, you will not be able to prevent and will happen more likely than not. We had and have no evidence that Saddam was close to acquiring weapons technology that could present a viable threat to us. This is simply a fact. Others claim we should have "finished the job" the first time, but that revisionist history ignores both the cost we are paying now and the great benefits we gained in doing exactly what we said we were going to do, and in living up to our promise to do no more, in throwing Saddam out of Iraq. The senior Bush, in my opinion, understood the world much, much better than his son.

So clips of Kerry going on about Saddam being a threat are to his credit. I believed then and believe now that he was a threat.

5) On 9/11 we were attacked by AQ, so all other existing threats should have been moved to the "back burner" until those that attacked us were eliminated. This was not done. Instead another threat, one not related to Al Queda, was moved to the number one priority. Claims were made then and are still made now that the threat is the same - that it is all part of a "war on terror." This is simply untrue. Non-state actors such as terrorists are not as deterrable as state actors with a definite geographic location and a fixed source of power - their people. This means that a government is always much more deterrable than a group of fanatics that move from nation to nation hiding out and striking at random. Thus the threat Saddam presented was very, very different from the "war on terror" that started well before 9/11. Linking the two weakened our focus against AQ and has cost us dearly in blood, treasure, international standing & cooperation, has recruited new terrorists into AQ, and has lessened our power to deter our other very real enemies of which there are many.

Mr. Kerry's position has pretty much tracked mine all along. I don't think I'm a flip-flopper at all. Toward the end of the film Kerry says (in what the film presented as a flip-flop) that his vote to give the president authorization was not a vote for war but a vote for war only as a last resort and the president then rushed to war with many options still left on the table. This is what happened. The problem isn't necessarily that we are at war (we were already against AQ) but the WAY we went to war. Did we, at the time and place and in the manner we did, have to go to war?

I don't think so. Neither did Kerry, and time has shown us both right.

Mr. Bush gave a speech today in which he said that (this is from memory so it isn't word for word) "there are some out there who think that going on the offense produces new terrorists. Well, I'm here to tell them they're wrong. The only way to win is to go on the offense." He does the same thing there that the film does - answers the question he wished had been asked instead of the one that actually was asked. Kerry and the democrats aren't against an offensive on AQ - the question is, did invading Iraq help or harm our national security? Iraq is not AQ. We should be eliminating AQ. We instead have most of our resources in Iraq. Mr. Bush then defends himself by telling us that we must fight back. But nobody doubts that - the question is, are we fighting back the right way?

Now we are in Iraq and we MUST win, and it makes in much harder to win against AQ. the invasion hurt our national security.

The attacks by what appear to be organized foreign terrorists the past few days - perhaps even AQ - have already been seized on by many right-wing pundits as proof that the war in Iraq was about terror all along. They ignore that those opposed to the war predicted it would "super-charge" terrorism, and so it has. Rather than validate the invasion as a course of action the recent attacks have shown how much support and encouragement we gave our enemies by deposing Saddam Hussein - a lesser and not as immediate threat we had successfully contained for over a decade, and one that grew weaker by the day.

Call me blind to facts if you will, but I don't think selective use of a few facts makes as impressive a case as a view of all the facts available that are used to present a much larger picture.

Vadergrrrl said...

I just wanted to send you some thanks. your a hero baby!

i may be a liberal berkeley grad, but i still support you 100% in your beliefs. i may not agree with everything, but damn, the way you explain things; it just makes me nod and smile.

xxxooooooo

this we'll defend said...

Vadergrlll - thanks!

91ghost said...

Again, I consider myself as an independent Conservative. As someone who welcomed Bush's presidency in 2000, I am deeply disappointed to say that while I don't agree with everything here, there are indeed some real truths to numbers 1-20--and I am disappointed from a conservative standpoint. I cannot believe the growth in government--it seems as if the day is coming when government will be wiping our asses for us. The offshoring of jobs is treachory--explaining it away as "good for the economy" just doesn't pass the smell test. I can't believe that we have this gargantuan homeland security department that is run off our taxes yet any Tom, Dick, or Harry can just mosey on across our borders. I can't believe that our President, as Commander-in-Chief, did not personally stick up for Lt.Col West and put a halt to his court martial trial. I can't believe that all civilians in Fallujah and like cities have not been given a 72 hour window to get out of town before it is leveled--instead we'll just let the militia run those towns with impunity, and let more soldiers and marines get knocked off in the long run because of an administration that wants to run tactics based on political correctness and election fears. I can't believe that sub-contracts for the large Iraq contracts have gone to "8a" firms instead of small firms owned by disabled veterans: I guess skin color means more to this administration than having had your legs blown off for your country. What the hell, I will be casting a hesitant and bitter vote for Bush, with my eyes wide open---but to put it mildly, I am deeply disappointed and let down by many "leaders" in this nation who can talk a good conservative game, but sure don't walk the walk.

Captain Holly said...

In the interest of brevity, I'll ignore the silly, paranoid nonsense points in the post.

#12. Global warming is hardly a forgone conclusion. The earth's climate has fluctuated wildly (on its own, without Halliburton or SUVs) throughout the past 100,000 years; the earth was actually warmer back in the 1500's (it's how "Greenland" got its name). Claiming that out-of-control warming is inevitable based on the past 100 years of data is kind of like saying that you can know exactly how a movie will end by watching a single second of the trailer.

#14. Saddam received very little of his weaponry from the Reagan Administration. The overwhelming majority of his arsenal was from three countries: Russia, China, and France, including the French-built Osirak reactor, which was capable of producing not only highly-enriched Uranium, but Plutonium as well.

It's a good thing those unilateral Israelis ignored the UN and destroyed it before it could start production.

#15. I'm interested in knowing: Who in the world, besides Saddam and his protestor shills, said that he didn't have WMD? Not the French, Russians, or the Germans; they all said he did, but that we should give the inspectors more time. In fact, General Tommy Franks said in an interview just last week that both King Abdullah of Jordan and Hosni Mubarak of Egypt told him that Saddam had WMD and would use them if the US invaded. Were they lying, too, yes or no?

Don't forget, either, that President Clinton almost took us to war in December 1998, for the very same reasons that President Bush did in March 2003: Saddam had not verified destruction of WMD, as per UN resolutions. Was Bill lying then, yes or no?

#16. Pray tell, what is unconstitutional about proposing an amendment to ban gay marriage? Isn't that how it's supposed to be done? Or are only "liberal" constitutional amendments "constitutional"?

#19. And, uh, pray tell, who was it who opened trade with Viet Nam? (A hint: his name was William Jefferson Clinton).

It's no wonder so many Democrats are suffering from BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome). To make Bush into a nefarious liar, they have to ignore reality.

Bigandmean said...

Anytime you begin a post by defining someone else's beliefs, religious, political or otherwise, you lose all credibility. Stating what you believe sets up an interesting discussion. Stating what you believe someone else believes does just the opposite.

this we'll defend said...

Bigandmean: I started out with "I found this funny" and then asked for comments. Usually it is you or ALa71 telling ME to lighten up...