XPost: alt.politics.british, alt.politics.bush, alt.politics.democrats   
   XPost: alt.politics.republicans, can.legal, misc.legal   
   From: forget@it.com   
      
   Gerard Greeley wrote:   
   > Ken Smith  wrote in message news:<40A67D3E.4080303@it.com>...   
      
   > Neither of which is why I responded.  I am tired of so-called   
   > Republicans like you bashing our President, and the fine Republicans   
   > in our media (Hannity, Limbaugh) who take a stand everyday against the   
   > liberal-class Bush bashing.  I called you out on it.  If you're gonna   
   > stick your neck out, don't cry when you get bitch-slapped on it.   
      
      Then, let's get it on, Cowpoke!  Politics, one of my favorite topics.   
     Let's start with the basics, shall we?   
      
      Remember candidate George W. Bush?  You know, the fellow who preached   
   fiscal responsibility?  The one who told us he wouldn't send our troops   
   all over the globe to fight endless wars of liberation and other police   
   actions?   
      I'm an old-school Goldwater Republican.  That means that I generally   
   maintain that government should not micromanage our affairs or that of   
   other countries -- and that extends to what people do in the privacy of   
   their own bedrooms.  And I maintain that the government should pay its   
   own way.  I was a McCainiac, but I could have lived with the Bush that   
   was sold to us.  (Problem is, Karl Rove is like Goebbels, and has about   
   as much personal character.)   
      
      So, why am I unhappy with George Bush?  Because he lies like a   
   Clinton and runs deficits like a Carter.  To get us into this   
   ill-advised "W-ar" we had no business being in, Bush told us that (1)   
   Saddam had stockpiles of WMD that he was ready to use on us and/or give   
   to terrorists, (2) he had a hand in 9/11, and (3) this W-ar was going to   
   pay for itself.   
      Bush buried the needle on my bullshit-detector from the get-go; it   
   was clear to me before the W-ar that he wasn't an imminent threat, and   
   that the claim of a link to 9/11 was ridiculous on its face.  (After   
   all, the terrorists got their money from Saudi and their training here   
   -- Saddam would have been superfluous and besides, that's not the kind   
   of stuff a sane dictator would give to someone who might use it against   
   him.)  The claim that the W-ar would pay for itself was laughable on its   
   face, and was strictly for the consumption of non-intelligent adults.   
      
      I lost every shred of respect I had for Powell when he prostituted   
   himself in front of the U.N. that day.   
      
      It was all about oil, Israel, and 2004.  Bush rolled the dice, and   
   may have brought our entire country down with him.  No, I don't endorse it.   
      
      To make matters worse, Bush ran the Iraq occupation like he ran "his"   
   businesses -- into the ground.  They didn't plan for the insurgency, but   
   anyone who had studied the history of warfare would know that that was   
   the Ba'athists' only play.  Abu Ghraib only makes matters worse, as the   
   White House tries to dance around what was clearly a plan to violate the   
   Geneva Conventions, authorized at the top.  If they had had a workable   
   plan for managing Iraq -- pardoning most of the lower-level Ba'athists,   
   who had joined the Party out of mere self-preservation -- the transition   
   would have been a lot smoother.   
      
      And then, there's Bush's short-sighted W-ar on the middle-class, who   
   form the backbone of the Party.  The small businessman.  The fledgling   
   entrepeneur.  The people who buy into the notion that what's good for   
   business is good for us all.  His tax plan is a total disaster, as we   
   can't afford it -- not with this W-ar to pay for.  I don't countenance   
   trillion-dollar deficits, and the blood is again on his hands.   
      
      Bush's refusal to defend our borders, and pissing away money on the   
   W-ar when it would be better spent on tax credits for Ford Escapes or   
   other hybrids, aren't just economic issues; they are national security   
   issues.  And the PATRIOT Act would have warmed George Orwell's heart.   
   Lots to criticize about the Shrub, and you'll hear it from Republicans   
   if you listen.   
      
      Now, which of those criticisms are "non-Republican?"   
      
      As for my Republican credentials, I've been a precinct captain and   
   three-caucus delegate for the last two cycles, and have been active in   
   several campaigns.  I filed an amicus brief in our apportionment case,   
   and my argument ended up being the dissent's.  I'm more involved at a   
   local level, where the Party is closer to its traditional ideals.   
      
      Now, as for the NeoCon-artists' rogues gallery, like Jack "4-F" Kemp,   
   who was fit enough to play quarterback for the Buffalo Bills but not fit   
   enough to fight in 'Nam (compare him to Pat Tillman!), "Bellagio Bill"   
   Bennett -- who pissed away a half-mill in the $500 slots in one weekend   
   in Vegas, but claims that he broke even over the years -- an ol' tough   
   on other guys' crime "Drugs" Limburger, let us say that they are a band   
   of Begalas with wash-off flag tattoos.  And there's a *great* FAUX News   
   drinking game: Take a drink every time Cavuto says "Coalition" -- and   
   have an EMT handy with a stomach pump. ;)   
      You can't make fun of the Carvilles and the Clintons without cracking   
   those clowns where they deserve it.  (Problem is, the Carvilles seem to   
   have fallen off the face of the earth ... and I *miss* Al Gore. :))   
      
   >>Let us just say on its face, that your story is less than compelling.   
   >   
   > You are an abusive SOB.   
      
      And I suppose you endorsed it when Laura Ingram started calling   
   Wesley Clark "Weaselly?"  And I suppose you use the word "feminazi?"   
   Where it is appropriate, I am as hard on our guys as I am our opponents   
   -- and in some cases, even harder.  As I see it, our strength as   
   Republicans is in being straight-up, and even admitting it when our side   
   screws up.  To do anything less is to be another George Steponallofus.   
      
   >>But be that as it may; you can start by revealing your former handle,   
   >>so we can all get a fair notion of what your political position *really*   
   >>is.   
   >   
   > Up to this point, I wouldn't have had a problem with it.  Most of the   
   > regs know me.   
      
      I don't know where you are, but I'm posting from misc.legal.  My   
   guess is that it would only be off-topic in can.legal, as Bush is a fair   
   topic virtually everywhere else.  Of course, the Bushies hate any   
   criticism of their red-horned hero.   
      
   > You are crashing our newsgroup with your blame   
   > Conservative complaining.  You're off-topic.  I've looked back at your   
   > posting history with Mr. Kaldis, and I've noticed that you like to use   
   > past posts against people as a tactic to twist them to your liking,   
   > which is proof positive that you have nothing relevant to say.   
      
      I'll tell you what: You convince the national Republican Party to   
   take down the "Kerry vs. Kerry" protion of their website, and I'll cease   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)