Quote:

theory9 said:
Neither side is interested in any facts that can't be used to spin their version of reality into hyberole orbit. You're both cocksuckers in the real world...




I've been pretty clear all along for the last 3 years or so, where I support, and where I oppose, Bush's policy.

Consistently.




1) I oppose Bush's tax cuts, which is why I didn't vote for him in 2000. But did because of the Iraq and Afghan wars in 2004, largely because the Democrats offered a horrible alternative. If the Democrat offered had been Joseph Lieberman or Joseph Biden (someone whose actions in Vietnam were not parallel to the treasonous ideology of Jane Fonda, as Kerry's were) then I would have seriously conssidered the alternative to Bush.


2) As a republican, I have an interest in seeing the national debt eliminated.
And while I recognize the validity of the pro-Bush tax-cut argument, that the cut was a big influence on pulling us out of a recession, I believe the counter-argument that it didn't make that much of a difference, and would have been better spent paying down the debt.

3) And I also mentioned in a post elsewhere today, as I have many times previously, consistently over the last three years, that I think we should have gone in with a larger invasion force, or at the first sign of looting and trouble escalated the invasion/occupation force to 2 or 3 hundred thousand.




I'm not afraid to constructively criticize the President, or respectfully say he's wrong, or that I oppose specific policies of Bush's.

But if any Republican, such as John McCain, Chuck Hegel, Richard Lugar, etc., or any other Republican official, private citizen or Republican soldier, disagrees with or criticizes Bush policy in Iraq, it's portrayed by liberals and the media as "chaos" in the Republican party, or Republicans in disarray, or Republicans "eating their own".

And if Republicans agree, liberals portray it as a bad thing, "automatons" goose-stepping mindlessly to the Cause.
And if Republicans disagree, it's portrayed by liberals as "chaos". Or "lack of unity".
Well, NEWSFLASH: There will always be some dissent in both parties, no matter what the era or the issue.

And I've done both, I've dissented and agreed with Bush.





So any attempt to label me as a partisan cocksucker, along with the likes of r3x and Whomod/unrestrained id/PaulWellr/etc., pretty much reveals itself as unfounded.



I don't gleefully jump on every half-baked and unproven negative rumor to emerge about Democrats the way the cocksuckers I've criticized have of Republicans.




If you look back at THREE YEARS of my posting here, you see that my posts have repeatedly defended Bush against unproven allegations, venomously asserted as fact.

And I've repeatedly said that if these were proven as true allegations at any time, I would say that yes, it's been proven, and these guys need to be removed from office and replaced with someone who can re-establish public trust.
But only if it is proven.
And all I hear is allegations.

And partisan attempts to smear me and others for supporting our president, against similar smear tactics and unproven allegations.


  • from Do Racists have lower IQ's...

    Liberals who bemoan discrimination, intolerance, restraint of Constitutional freedoms, and promotion of hatred toward various abberant minorities, have absolutely no problem with discriminating against, being intolerant of, restricting Constitutional freedoms of, and directing hate-filled scapegoat rhetoric against conservatives.

    EXACTLY what they accuse Republicans/conservatives of doing, is EXACTLY what liberals/Democrats do themselves, to those who oppose their beliefs.