* I deny that Bush/Cheny lied us into war.
* I do not deny that McCain has reversed his position on some issues,
notably immigration reform. On torture, the situation is somewhat tortured.
McCain, as a victim of torture himself, has been adamant his entire career
in opposing it. What the Democrats are trying to do is use McCains vote
against requiring the CIA to use only those techniques listed in the Army
Field Manual as evidence he's in lock-step with the administration. There's
a good write-up at:
* I'd believe McCain took the base's desires into account when he selected
Sarah Palin, not even remotely convinced on the rest. Look, the Republican
party is made up of two elements: Social conservatives and Economic
Social conservatives are locked in to McCain on the issues of abortion, gun
rights, and Supreme Court nominations. The rest is just noise.
Economic conservatives are locked in to McCain on the issues of free trade
and tax cuts (Republicans believe tax cuts can cure cancer and alleviate
bee-bites). The rest is just noise.
In one poll I saw, a slightly higher percentage of Republicans support
McCain than Democrats do Obama. No Republican is going to base his vote
solely on torture, immigration reform, the war, or any of the almost (to
them) insignificant issues.
What about if you're a "weak" economic conservative (that is, in favor
of small government and low taxes, along with small government and
reduced spending, but not necessarily full scale deregulation and aren't
necessarily opposed to progressive income taxes) but are opposed to the
And why *wouldn't* someone base their vote on the war, when it is one of
the largest challenges facing us today?
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
A "conservative" not opposed to progressive income taxes? A "conservative"
not opposed to deregulation? There is no such critter.
Oh, we admit some regulation is necessary so the economic system can
function, but banning bug-bombs in New York City because some people ignore
the warnings? Banning Halon as a fire suppressant because of a threat to the
Ozone layer? Banning DDT? Emptying mental institutions? Liberal policies
(i.e., most regulations) often fail. And when they fail, they fail
catastrophically; innocent lives are lost, often in great numbers.
Economic conservatives (weak, strong, or otherwise) are indifferent - in the
main - to the agenda of social conservatives.
Conservatives are not opposed to ALL growth in government. We favor, for
example, a larger military, a larger border patrol, and larger prisons. Some
even support chaining miscreants to the wall. Upside down.
A couple of reasons: Because the war in Iraq should be a non-issue in this
election. It's virtually over. (The left, however, wants a second bite at
the apple by making the war germane. Just like they want a third try at
Another reason is that neither social conservatives nor economic
conservatives have a dog in the fight; they're indifferent to the war.
Almost. Economic conservatives see a down-stream benefit from free trade,
but new markets or cheaper raw materials are almost over the horizon and not
immediately important. Social conservatives see a slim possibility of
bringing Mother Church to the heathens. But neither of these reasons is
It's up to us neoconservatives to thread the gap between the two to foster
American hegemony and world domination.
As to your original point about economic conservatives being opposed to the
religious right - there is a tension. But those who feel stronger about
economics are willing to put up with the Bible-thumpers because they need
their support. Likewise, the strongly religious can easily accommodate the
one-worlders and corporate masters because free trade doesn't really affect
God. All in all, it's a convenient marriage; loveless, but nevertheless
Contrast that with the conglomeration of interests in the Democrat party.
Environmentalists are opposed to drilling in ANWAR but the unions are in
favor. Civil rights leaders don't much like women getting preferences and
feminists don't like racial quotas. The Democrats are a family, an often
It might help if they had an ACCURATE idea of what the war was about and
it's real state at the present.
Nate has based his on inaccuracy and media propaganda.(that explains a
Nate,who do you believe is going to enlarge government the LEAST?
Obama already has advanced plans to greatly enlarge the government and to
usurp the Constitution.
you -say- you are a "conservative",but all your points demonstrate you are
was put together under the supervision of the lone holdover from the
Clinton administration. So, it would have to be assumed that the
holdover was in collusion with the GOP and that he sold his soul to Bush
for the job. Hard to believe.. although we ARE talking about a Clinton
appointee so may be you have a point (g().
2).The raw intelligence was placed in a secured room in the
Capital prior to the vote so Congresscritter could see it and judge for
themselves, less than 1 did.
3)> Even the Freakin' French were not arguing at the time that SH did
not have weapons, just that we should continue with the status quo.
Largely because Elf, their large oil company was involved with oil for
UN.. err kickbacks to SH, err. food deal. (The irony in this so
$). The Iraqi high command was at least as surprised as anyone else
by the lack of WMDs. Apparently the Sadamster was using the fact that
"other general" were in command of WMD to keep them in line.
5). H certainly wasn't acting like a man w/o something to hide.
One of those things that has been said over and over until accepted.
Again "ignorant Bush core voter block".
You omitted the info that many other allies information matched ours WRT
the WMD material was moved to Syria.
Well,the leftists hear only what they want to hear,and anything that
demonizes Bush(the "illegitimate President") HAS to be gospel.
They repeat it over and over so it then becomes (to them) the "truth".
Liberals operate on feelings and not on rational thought.
Nate clearly didn't hear ALL the reasons Bush gave for the Iraq invasion.
His Mainstream Media,all Bush haters,omitted or deemphasized much to aid in
the demonization of Bush.(the MSM ARE >70% DemocRAT...)
And yet it's odd that the support of said allies started to dry up after
we invaded Iraq...
Come on, be honest, when you turned on the TV and saw GWB sitting there
telling us that US forces had just invaded Iraq, weren't you thinking
exactly what I was - which was pretty much "WTF? Why the hell would he
do THAT when we're already committed in Afghanistan? What the hell
happened? Shit, this is all about his dad, isn't it?" Never mind that
GHWB is on record as stating that the deliberately did not go after
Saddam after our initial objectives in GW1 were met as that would
destabilize the country and we didn't have the resources to rebuild it
from the ground up etc.
Then it's good that GWB will be out of office before he has the chance
to invade Syria on your intelligence and embarasses us even more.
There were really only two. WMD's and connections to Bin Laden. Both
lies. The latter wasn't really an explicit lie, more of an attempt to
associate the two by juxtaposing them in speeches, even though there was
no connection between Saddam and Al-Qaida (then) IRL. Cheney did slip
up once and made an explicit connection between the two on TV though,
although nobody seemed to make any kind of big deal out of it for some
There might have been other reasons for the invasion, but they were
never presented to the American public.
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
I do far more than watch Fox News.
(and no talk radio,no O'Reilly,no Rush...)
Anyone who thinks Time,Newsweek,CBS,NBC,ABC,or CNN are fair and
balanced(not even close...) are oblivious.
Nate is citing all the typical LIBERAL,leftist talking points.But he claims
to be "centrist".
Well,the Soviet communists used to claim they were "progressives",just like
the Liberals and DemocRATs of today.
And there's lots of similarities between them.
Nate is SO blind.
I don't understand this preoccupation with "withdrawal." The United States
has a military presence ("Status of Forces" agreement) with 108 countries.
That means we have military units/personnel in 108 countries - over and
above token groups like embassy marine guards or visiting warships.
We have them there for our benefit.
Not long ago, the Democrats made a big deal out of McCain's guess that we
might be in Iraq for an extended period. Heck, we've had US forces in
Germany for sixty-three years, a like time for Japan, Korea for over fifty
years. We've had US forces in Cuba for 110 years!
Having US forces scattered around the globe - some for many decades - has
been the policy of our government for a hundred years.
Look at the places where we did "withdraw:" Vietnam and Panama come to mind.
Hong Kong is another example
The "withdrawal" of the righteous yielded failure and disaster for those
No, the Democrat's mantra for "withdrawal" seems but a thinly-disguised
tactic to ensure defeat.
I don't want to commit our young men and women for 10 years in Iraq for
It's yet to be explained to me why we're even in Iraq, save for the lies
of the Bush administration all proven to have been false.
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.