This is why being a conservative is great...

[burmafrd]

Just ignore the libs like tyke. They will never get it never understand - just ignore them. They are not worth the effort to make a long reply.

[trickblue]

Originally Posted by tyke1doe

Who just happens to be chosen RNC Chair just when Obama gets elected president.

Next you'll be telling me that McCain nominated Palin because she was qualified for the job and NOT because he was trying to counter the "first black President" historical trump with the "first woman Vice President" trump.

Mars property still for sale.

Please... your agenda is clear...

Republicans have championed minority rights for over a century, while Democrats denied them...

Now all of the sudden they are the party of racism... it was an excellent move by the Dems... and they have been effective... but it is a lie...

If you would like a history lesson on the subject... I can give it to you...

[Scranton Tiger]

Originally Posted by tyke1doe

Next you'll be telling me that McCain nominated Palin because she was qualified for the job and NOT because he was trying to counter the "first black President" historical trump with the "first woman Vice President" trump.

Sometimes people just can't see the forest for the trees. McCain nominating Palin had nothing to do with President Obama being black. It had everything to do with the Conservatives believing Obama would nominate Hillary Clinton as his VP. I give the man credit for going against what the media was basically trying to force him to do. That took some guts and it gained him alot of respect in my eyes. If he had nominated Clinton, I really believe the Democrats would have gotten buried in the election. It would also have set up Clinton for a presidential run in 2012 while also giving them a fall guy to blame the 2008 election loss on.

[tyke1doe]

Originally Posted by burmafrd

Just ignore the libs like tyke. They will never get it never understand - just ignore them. They are not worth the effort to make a long reply.

Uh, I'm not a liberal. I would be considered a conservative, especially on social issues. But I'm not 100 percent conservative anymore than you are. You favor big government too when it comes to the military, even in support of unjust wars. Only, you rationalize it as a necessity when this Iraqi War was NOT a necessity.

And that's my point. People talk about liberals this, liberals that, conservatives this, conservatives that. But everyone has a bit of liberalism in them just as they have a bit of conservatism in them.

[Doomsday101]

Originally Posted by tyke1doe

Uh, I'm not a liberal. I would be considered a conservative, especially on social issues. But I'm not 100 percent conservative anymore than you are. You favor big government too when it comes to the military, even in support of unjust wars. Only, you rationalize it as a necessity when this Iraqi War was NOT a necessity.

And that's my point. People talk about liberals this, liberals that, conservatives this, conservatives that. But everyone has a bit of liberalism in them just as they have a bit of conservatism in them.

Military falls under the constitution of providing for the national security. I don't recall seeing anything in the constitution about providing bailout money for private business or ensuring everyone gets a college education or everyone entitled to be a home owner.

[tyke1doe]

Originally Posted by Scranton Tiger

That was the point of saying Bush should have done what he wanted from the start and said screw NATO. I'll use an example to illustrate my point. If the police suspect you of having lets say illegal weapons, a drug lab, stolen money, etc, in your house, they'll get a warrant and move in. They will not tell you for six months in advance that "we're coming so everything had better be square when we do". If they did, what do you think would happen. Do you REALLY believe Iraq had NO weapons of mass destruction? REALLY? Before you answer, remember that Saddam gassed thousands of his own people. We know that for a fact. No, there is no doubt in my mind at all that the weapons were there. Using the "we didn't find anything" excuse is just a convenient way for all those liberals who were screaming for us to invade to now try and cover their own ***. You know it and so does everyone else. Whether they admit it or not.

First, the issue wasn't whether Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. The issue was whether Iraq would pass WMDs to Al-Quaeda. Bush argued that we needed to attack Iraq because it possessed WMDs of mass destruction and that Saddam would hand them off to Al-Quaeda.

Second, we had been carefully monitoring Iraq since the Gulf War. We had instituted a no-fly zone over Iraq. What was the need to attack Iraq when we already had certain procedures and policies in place?

Third, if the police suspected I had a drug lab and if they gave me six months to move my lab, I'm pretty sure if they want to build a case against me, they're going to be monitoring who comes in and out of my house and notice whether I'm moving anything. Then, after they execute the search warrant, they're going to painstakingly comb my house with the latest technology to find hidden residue of drug use. So, using your analogy, where is the "residual" evidence? We didn't find not ONE WMD.

Fourth, the intelligence report Bush built to attack Iraq was tenuous at best. It wasn't complete nor conclusive. If you're going to attack a country and kill thousands upon thousands of their citizens, not to mention killing American men and women who have to fight that war, spend billions upon billions of dollars to conduct that war and then not have an "end" date in sight, you'd BETTER BE DANG SURE THAT YOU HAVE EVIDENCE TO CONDUCT SUCH A WAR!!!
Where's the evidence?

Fifth, it's interesting that Bush couldn't even believe his own lie. Instead of returning to the American people and telling them that there were no WMDs, as we thought, he "morphed" his reasons into "Well, we got rid of an evil dictator who was killing thousands of his people." Oh, so that's the rationale. Well, we'd better get ready to attack hundreds of countries now because of evil dictators. Yeah, the American people - even conservatives - will get behind that reasoning.

Sixth, the "Saddam gassed thousands of his people" argument operates on the same logic as "I guess you don't remember 9/11 when pointing to defend the Iraqi invasion. Uh, newsflash, but just because Saddam gassed thousands of his people doesn't mean he was behind 9/11 or that he was going to give WMDs to Al-Quaeda. That's like saying because O.J. Simpson killed two people, he's now going to assassinate the president of the United States.

I don't recall saying I believed Saddam planned the attacks. Sympathy has nothing to do with it either. It's about cold hard reality. I'll use another example. Let's say a person you know murders someone. If you helped them do it, if you helped them plan it, if you helped them after the fact, if you knew and did nothing, you would be an accomplice and would be tried as such. We know Saddam and Bin Laden were allies. We also know that terrorists train at bases in Iraq, or they did before the war. So, if Saddam was so innocent, why didn't any of the liberals go on TV, radio and the print media screaming for his release? Why didn't they AT LEAST try and stop the execution? You know the answer. Do you want me to say it so you don't have to?

Sorry, but your examples don't fit this situation. Bush and the King of Saudi Arabia are allies. So does that mean by extension that the Saudi king attacked Iraq? The link between Saddam and bin Laden was tenuous at best. And as I've said previously, you can't start war on hunches. You'd better be absolutely certain that you're starting a war for a right and just cause.

Second, what does liberals going on television, radio and media have to do with this? Again, you want this to be some liberals vs. conservatives argument. For me, it's a right vs. wrong argument, i.e., you don't start a war killing thousands upon thousands of people on a hunch and then once proven you're wrong not even address the American people about it but spin the reason you gave out of existence.

Also, even if God himself/herself came down and said their were never any WMDs in Iraq and that Saddam didn't have any part of 9/11, I would still call the war just.

This says it all. And that's really ashame. You are just like the liberals you attack, so dedicated to ideology that you can't admit when you're wrong.

Have you done ANY research about Saddam? How about just a little light reading? The man was the most sadistic dictator the Earth has seen since the days of Hitler. That man and his leaders needed to be executed and his regime brought down. If you feel differently, I would love to hear why.

It's amusing when people tell you to read and then offer statements like "the most sadistic dictator the Earth has seen since the days of Hitler."

Ever heard of Idi Amin? Augusto Pinochet? Kim Sung II? Mao Xedong? Slobadon Milosevic? Pol Pot?

Oh, and one more thing. I noticed that you didn't answer the question but instead tried to change the subject. Now that's a shtick and a classic liberal one at that. Avoid answering a question by attacking the questioner or by bending the truth, ever so slightly, to convince others that your views are right and their views are wrong.

What question? Your hypothetical questions?

Your hypotheticals have nothing to do with this conversation. They're merely a diversion.

You've not offered one point of fact that pertains to our invasion of Iraq. All you've give is hypothetical "what ifs" and generalities about evil dictators as if the United States policy is to take out evil dictators.

And the sad part in all this discussion is I, like you, am a conservative. I bought the argument that we should fight against Iraq based on its non-compliance of weapons inspections. But I CLEARLY remember the argument, i.e., Saddam Hussein has WMDs and will pass them to terrorists. And that's why we have to stop them. And I said then that if we don't find those weapons, then I will change my position with respect to this war. We didn't, and we didn't get so much as an apology or an explanation.

See, I'm a critical-thinking conservative. I just don't accept the party line or the ideological line that says defend conservatism at all cost. If conservatives are wrong, they are wrong. If they're right, they're right.

But you've already said that if God Himself came down and said the war was wrong, you'd say it was right.

I think that statement said more powerfully and succinctly anything I could about your position on this issue.

[tyke1doe]

Originally Posted by Doomsday101

Military falls under the constitution of providing for the national security. I don't recall seeing anything in the constitution about providing bailout money for private business or ensuring everyone gets a college education or everyone entitled to be a home owner.

But starting unjust wars doesn't fall under the Constitution. Try to keep up.

[Doomsday101]

Originally Posted by tyke1doe

But starting unjust wars doesn't fall under the Constitution. Try to keep up.

Unjust war? So Iraq did what they agreed to do under the surrender pac they made after the gulf war? They abided by the resolutions is that what you are saying?

[tyke1doe]

Originally Posted by trickblue

Please... your agenda is clear...

Republicans have championed minority rights for over a century, while Democrats denied them...

Now all of the sudden they are the party of racism... it was an excellent move by the Dems... and they have been effective... but it is a lie...

If you would like a history lesson on the subject... I can give it to you...

Please pay attention. You apparently don't understand the difference between conservatism vs. liberalism and how those terms are not uniquely synonmous with Republican and Democrat?

You do understand that Republicans were considered liberal during the days of slavery don't you? Lincoln, who was despised by the South's political "conservative," was a Republican.

Stop trying to transport definitions and labels out of their time period.

It's like people claiming that Thomas Jefferson was a deist then trying to interpret "deism" by today's understanding of the word. Thomas Jefferson may have been a deist. But he was NOT a deist in the sense of the word the way deist consider themselves today.

[tyke1doe]

Originally Posted by Doomsday101

Unjust war? So Iraq did what they agreed to do under the surrender pac they made after the gulf war? They abided by the resolutions is that what you are saying?

No. But that wasn't grounds to resume an attack against Iraq either.

[Doomsday101]

Originally Posted by tyke1doe

No. But that wasn't grounds to resume an attack against Iraq either.

I agree the assumption by the US and other intelligent agentcy was they were hiding WMD and with good reason after all Iraq had dones this before. As far as legit cause to go in it was all there in the resolution and the consequeses of not abiding by the resolution was also there. Saddam could have avoided all of this but he choose to call our bluff and once again miscalculated as he did in the gulf war when he figured we would not act on his invation of Kuwait.

[trickblue]

Originally Posted by tyke1doe

Please pay attention. You apparently don't understand the difference between conservatism vs. liberalism and how those terms are not uniquely synonmous with Republican and Democrat?

You do understand that Republicans were considered liberal during the days of slavery don't you? Lincoln, who was despised by the South's political "conservative," was a Republican.

Stop trying to transport definitions and labels out of their time period.

It's like people claiming that Thomas Jefferson was a deist then trying to interpret "deism" by today's understanding of the word. Thomas Jefferson may have been a deist. But he was NOT a deist in the sense of the word the way deist consider themselves today.

But your post I replied to had nothing to do with conservative vs. liberal... in fact it was nothing to do with your response to me... you must have me confused with another poster...

It was your implication that the GOP would have never nominated a woman if the dems hadn't nominated a black man; thus, the party of good old white boys... I merely pointed out that the GOP has historically been the party championing the rights of blacks while the Democrat party historically has been racist...

Yes, I know the GOP used to be termed the liberal party because of their stance on slavery. As you stated, words change meaning over years, but history doesn't change... just historical perspective and manipulation.

I fully understand that conservative/liberal does't mean Democrat/Republican as I mention that all of the time. I am not a Republican nor have I voted for one in a national election in over 8 years.

Until this last election, there is little that separated the parties in practice although their rhetoric is vastly different. The radicals have now taken over the Democrat Party and I'm hoping it moves the GOP back to fiscal conservatism as I will then have a party to vote for in a national election.

[JBond]

Originally Posted by tyke1doe

But starting unjust wars doesn't fall under the Constitution. Try to keep up.

Then tell the crazy freaking Muslims to mind their own damn business and we wouldn't have to kick the crap out of their pathetic *****.

[tyke1doe]

Originally Posted by trickblue

But your post I replied to had nothing to do with conservative vs. liberal... in fact it was nothing to do with your response to me... you must have me confused with another poster...

You're correct. I'm blending my conversations. That's the drawback of carrying on several similar conversations at once. My bad.

It was your implication that the GOP would have never nominated a woman if the dems hadn't nominated a black man; thus, the party of good old white boys... I merely pointed out that the GOP has historically been the party championing the rights of blacks while the Democrat party historically has been racist...

Now, my argument about liberal vs. conservative comes into play. You can't transport labels out of their historical context. the GOP may have championed minority causes, pre Civil Rights era, but 1.) the nation was more conservative then than it is now ... 2.) the Republicans fighting to end slavery were considered "liberals" at the time and those opposing slavery were considered "conservatives" and 3.) you wouldn't get too many contemporary blacks supporting the view that the GOP have championed the rights of blacks white the Democrats have been racist.

You're trying to take credit for Republican positions of the past, but when you look very closely at history, those were "liberal" Republicans not "conservative" Republicans. State's rights has traditionally been a conservative mantra. And state's rights was used to champion everything from limited voting rights, slavery and racial discrimination/Jim Crow laws.

But back to my main point, yes, I have serious doubts that Michael Steele would have been RNC chairman had Obama not been a candidate. And I have even more serious doubts that Palin would have been chosen if not for Hillary and Obama. Palin wasn't qualified to be vice president. Her selection came out of the blue for even many Republicans.

Yes, I know the GOP used to be termed the liberal party because of their stance on slavery. As you stated, words change meaning over years, but history doesn't change... just historical perspective and manipulation.

And if you want to take solace in the fact that the GOP opposed slavery, be my guest. I don't have any problem with that and, in fact, it is accurate.
What I'm saying, though, is that the arguments here (and the put-downs) center around "liberalism" as if that's a dirty word. Well, "liberalism" can be a good word just as "conservatism" can be a dirty word. Furthermore, "conservatives" use the system just as "liberals" do.
And, as it has been said, the Republican Party hasn't been "The Party of Lincoln" in quite some time - at least how many blacks perceive the Republican Party.

Now, granted, we live in a new era. We're not in slavery times nor in the era of segregation. And the message that Republicans preach about self-determination and its social conservative platform appeal to me. But I don't treat the GOP or conservatism as if it can do no wrong.

(Interestingly enough, on other boards I am seen as the staunch conservative.)

I've learned, at least politically, you don't put all your eggs in one basket.

I fully understand that conservative/liberal does't mean Democrat/Republican as I mention that all of the time. I am not a Republican nor have I voted for one in a national election in over 8 years.

Until this last election, there is little that separated the parties in practice although their rhetoric is vastly different. The radicals have now taken over the Democrat Party and I'm hoping it moves the GOP back to fiscal conservatism as I will then have a party to vote for in a national election.

Fair enough.

[tyke1doe]

Originally Posted by JBond

Then tell the crazy freaking Muslims to mind their own damn business and we wouldn't have to kick the crap out of their pathetic *****.

for the humor in your post.

Seriously, though, the Middle East is probably saying the same thing about America.

You do know why we intervened in Kuwait don't you? I'll give you a three-letter guess?