BoatBanter.com - OT Bush hatred

BoatBanter.com (https://www.boatbanter.com/)

- General (https://www.boatbanter.com/general/)

- - OT Bush hatred (https://www.boatbanter.com/general/3056-ot-bush-hatred.html)

NOYB wrote:

Whoa. Hold on a minute. I thought you claimed to be a lifelong Republican
who just changed his stripes because you didn't like Bush? Your true colors
are showing here.

Your bad memory (or your penchant for telling outright lies) is showing here.

When did I ever claim to be a Republican at all, much less "lifelong?" I am a
conservative... an old fashioned ie *real* conservative. I have occasionally
voted Republican though.

Instead, BushCo has been a lone wolf and has gotten most of the rest of
the world angry at us.

Too ****ing bad for the rest of the world.

Yep, let's just nuke all the dirty little non-Americans and hole up in our
bunkers for a couple of generations. Wouldn't be much of a change for you,
you've already got your head in the sand.

The United States could inflict a military defeat on the combined forces of the
rest of the world, but we cannot fight several continents of dedicated
terrorists & suicide bombers. Nor would it be smart to try. The United States
cannot maintain it's economic position as a superpower without good trade
relations with most of the rest of the world. In short, telling the rest of the
world to go **** itself is a very stupid and short sighted tactic.

But hey, Republicans are supposed to be so great at foreign policy, I guess this
is just a sample...

DSK

On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 18:12:03 +0000, NOYB wrote:

It also didn't call for launching several hundred cruise missiles at Iraq
either. Did you have a problem with Clinton's decision to do so?

I honestly don't know. It could be argued that in the absence of WMDs,
his policies worked, but I'm of the school that military intervention is
the *last* resort. I'm also of the opinion that Bush 1 sufficiently
defanged the *******, and that sanctions were keeping Saddam bottled up.

Doug Kanter wrote:

Oh no. Now you've gone and done it. You've pointed out that there are
conservatives who are not necessarily Republicans. You'd better offer NOYB a
chair and smelling salts.

NOBBY is either a knee-jerk fascist, or a far left winger pretending to be one
(is anybody that good an actor?). Not surprising either way, his knowledge has
some serious gaps.

In the rural South that I grew up in, there were no Republicans. Yet it was a
very conservative and old fashioned environment. When I got a little older, and
the South switched almost overnight, it was because of the Republicans flaunting
an inhuman level of bigotry and racism... a policy that Bush is adept with...
and which accounts for most of the blue collar Republicans out there IMHO. The
Democratic Party disavowed attitudes like Lester Maddox's while the Republicans
embraced them.

I hope this answers the question "Why would anybody that isn't a millionaire
vote for G.W. Bush?"

DSK

"DSK" wrote in message
...
Doug Kanter wrote:

Oh no. Now you've gone and done it. You've pointed out that there are
conservatives who are not necessarily Republicans. You'd better offer
NOYB a
chair and smelling salts.

NOBBY is either a knee-jerk fascist, or a far left winger pretending to be
one
(is anybody that good an actor?). Not surprising either way, his knowledge
has
some serious gaps.

In the rural South that I grew up in, there were no Republicans. Yet it
was a
very conservative and old fashioned environment. When I got a little
older, and
the South switched almost overnight, it was because of the Republicans
flaunting
an inhuman level of bigotry and racism... a policy that Bush is adept
with...
and which accounts for most of the blue collar Republicans out there IMHO.
The
Democratic Party disavowed attitudes like Lester Maddox's while the
Republicans
embraced them.

I hope this answers the question "Why would anybody that isn't a
millionaire
vote for G.W. Bush?"

DSK

Political party: A club with a mailing list for fund raising.

On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 21:33:38 -0500, DSK wrote:

NOYB wrote:
As a Lieutenant, Kerry had the authority to use info supplied to him by
military intel in order to make on the spot decisions that may have risked
the life of the men under his control. Not much different from Bush, eh?

No, not much different, except that Bush ordered men under his control
into combat so that his father's and his Vice President's companies
could roll up tremendous profits. And he deliberately mis stated his
reasons and the backing intel for it.

Did Lt Kerry make a dime off his Viet Nam service?

Yeah, they're pretty much the same all right.

DSK

I don't believe you really believe what you just said.

John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

"John H" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 21:33:38 -0500, DSK wrote:

NOYB wrote:
As a Lieutenant, Kerry had the authority to use info supplied to him by
military intel in order to make on the spot decisions that may have
risked
the life of the men under his control. Not much different from Bush,
eh?

No, not much different, except that Bush ordered men under his control
into combat so that his father's and his Vice President's companies
could roll up tremendous profits. And he deliberately mis stated his
reasons and the backing intel for it.

Did Lt Kerry make a dime off his Viet Nam service?

Yeah, they're pretty much the same all right.

DSK

I don't believe you really believe what you just said.

John H

If you're referring to his "pretty much the same" comment, he was being
sarcastic, John. I think you've missed obvious sarcasm before. We're gonna
have to agree on some sort of little symbol, just for you. :-)

On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 21:43:13 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 21:33:38 -0500, DSK wrote:

NOYB wrote:
As a Lieutenant, Kerry had the authority to use info supplied to him by
military intel in order to make on the spot decisions that may have
risked
the life of the men under his control. Not much different from Bush,
eh?

No, not much different, except that Bush ordered men under his control
into combat so that his father's and his Vice President's companies
could roll up tremendous profits. And he deliberately mis stated his
reasons and the backing intel for it.

Did Lt Kerry make a dime off his Viet Nam service?

Yeah, they're pretty much the same all right.

DSK

I don't believe you really believe what you just said.

John H

If you're referring to his "pretty much the same" comment, he was being
sarcastic, John. I think you've missed obvious sarcasm before. We're gonna
have to agree on some sort of little symbol, just for you. :-)

No, I was referring specifically to, "...Bush ordered men under his
control into combat so that his father's and his Vice President's
companies could roll up tremendous profits."

Sounds like 'hate talk' to me. If their were an iota of truth in the
accusation, Clark, Dean, Kerry, et al (especially Sharpton) would have
already used it.

John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

"DSK" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:

Whoa. Hold on a minute. I thought you claimed to be a lifelong
Republican
who just changed his stripes because you didn't like Bush? Your true
colors
are showing here.

Your bad memory (or your penchant for telling outright lies) is showing
here.

When did I ever claim to be a Republican at all, much less "lifelong?" I
am a
conservative... an old fashioned ie *real* conservative. I have
occasionally
voted Republican though.

Instead, BushCo has been a lone wolf and has gotten most of the rest
of
the world angry at us.

Too ****ing bad for the rest of the world.

Yep, let's just nuke all the dirty little non-Americans

I never said "non-Americans".

and hole up in our
bunkers for a couple of generations. Wouldn't be much of a change for you,
you've already got your head in the sand.

The United States could inflict a military defeat on the combined forces
of the
rest of the world, but we cannot fight several continents of dedicated
terrorists & suicide bombers.

We can drive them from each country one by one, however...and make sure we
replace any terrorist-friendly regimes with leaders who will wipe out the
terrorist cells for us. If you read today's NY Times article about
al-Zarqawi's plea for help to the al Qaeda's leaders, you'll see that our
plan is working. Al Qaeda realizes that once a new government and military
is created out of the friends and relatives of a country's citizens, then it
becomes harder to remove that government through violence...because it only
builds hatred among the population.

Nor would it be smart to try. The United States
cannot maintain it's economic position as a superpower without good trade
relations with most of the rest of the world. In short, telling the rest
of the
world to go **** itself is a very stupid and short sighted tactic.

The non-U.S. economies depend more on us than we do them. We're making it
clear that to do business with us economically, countries must be on board
with us as we fight the war on terror. Great Britain, Italy, Australia,
Spain, and a handful of other countries understand it...and will reap the
rewards. China has been helping us defuse the N. Korean crisis, and will
reap the rewards. The hell with France and Russia. Putin is starting to
make them look like the old Soviet Union...he's running old nuclear scenario
war games again, and his political adversary just disappeared off the face
of the Earth.

But hey, Republicans are supposed to be so great at foreign policy, I
guess this
is just a sample...

Republicans have a spine.

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"DSK" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:

Whoa. Hold on a minute. I thought you claimed to be a lifelong
Republican
who just changed his stripes because you didn't like Bush? Your true
colors
are showing here.

Your bad memory (or your penchant for telling outright lies) is showing
here.

When did I ever claim to be a Republican at all, much less "lifelong?" I
am a
conservative... an old fashioned ie *real* conservative. I have
occasionally
voted Republican though.

Oh no. Now you've gone and done it. You've pointed out that there are
conservatives who are not necessarily Republicans.

Only the uniformed ones. How else can you be conservative on the issues,
but support the party that promotes the exact opposite principles?