Must Read

Well, if my plans had been implemented, the anti-war crowd would be weeping about Iraqi civilian deaths so much they wouldn't have time to pretend they gave a damn about the loss of American lives.
-Ann Coulter

Read the whole article here!

Cari's Krusaid Agenst Suldors

Part 2

News Article From the Wasington Times- with comentary by Steven

 The real question for voters in November is whether Democrats will be able to do to the entire legislative branch what they've done to their party. The agenda-less party is infected with a paralyzing negativity born of its singular hatred for President Bush. Will that mindset be permitted to seize control of our legislative branch? Will disgruntled conservatives collude to make this happen?

What have we done to our party? Nothing to say here, huh. Ooh, I thought you were being rhetorical. You’ve maid your party just the “hate bush” party. You guys haven no plan for the war on terror, no plan for immigration, no plan to save your precious environment, no plan to solve the gay marriage issue, no plan for gun control that you all insist on, and if you do have these plans, you have just been sitting on them while they get worse and worse, which hurts America.

How many times have you heard Democrats decrying the Bush administration for having no plan to win the peace in Iraq? We might have executed the initial phase of the war masterfully by removing Saddam Hussein, they now grudgingly concede, but we didn't anticipate and plan for the problems that would arise after his removal.

They didn't, but Democrats did. -Really? What is it? Are they keeping it a secret until elections? Causing the death of American lives so they can unveil their secret plan at the most politically beneficial time? Nice. -What i ment by this was that democrats knew there would be problems. Republicans knew there would be problems too. As Bush said in 2002 ” And military conflict could be difficult. An Iraqi regime faced with its own demise may attempt cruel and desperate measures.” (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html)

Putting aside a debate over that assertion, let's apply the same standard to their agenda for America today. Shouldn't we ask: "Democrats have a potentially masterful plan for removing Republicans from majority control, but what is their plan for action if they win?"

Didn't the republicans stupidity cause people to vote democratic? Well not yet it hasn’t. It seems a little early, and “stupid” isn’t a very good argument. -Look at the polls. It’s not my job to prove your arguments. Show me these polls.

Let's just look at the most important issues: the war on terror, including Iraq, the economy, social issues and immigration. In each category, they either have no plan or are unwilling to publicize it for fear Rovian Republicans will pick it apart and expose its flaws. 

On immigration, no matter how poorly Republicans have performed, the Democrats' approach would be significantly worse. They would open the borders wider, discourage assimilation further and promote amnesty harder.

As a Hispanic friend of mind so plainly puts it, "Let my People Mow" I don’t know what you’re trying to say here, it’s a little ridiculous to, again, that democrats have some secret plan and that they’re letting thousands of illegals enter the country each day while they wait for the best time to let out their plan.- it means that most Mexicans only come here to work and we should let them do it. They can do it legally if they want. Illegal and uncontrolled immigration is a real problem. I don’t care if you’re brown, black, white or yellow: you can’t come here without us knowing.

On the economy, they would increase domestic spending even more. And in their compulsion to punish the "rich," they would raise their taxes at the inevitable expense of choking the life out of our robust growth and increasing the deficit and national debt. Though the middle class and poor would be hurt, the rich would feel it, too -- and that would be almost as gratifying as hating President Bush

1. I don't understand how rising taxes will lead to this Well, if a rich man wants to start a business (and hire middle class and poor people), he won’t be able to if he’s paying 70% taxes like before Reagan. Thus, only the ultra rich will have this opportunity. - so basicaly you want to rase taxes of the poor and cut taxes of the rich No, I want to cut everybody’s taxes. The poor received tax cuts just like the rich did. I would like to see the poor and the rich pay even less taxes.

2. the only gratifying thing about hating bush is stating the truth. It would be nice if you’d say something other than “I hate Bush,” when you argue against the president.- since when is that my only argument Well, you have yet to tell state exactly why you hate Bush. Just that you hate him.

On social issues, Democrats and the mainstream media are engaged in an elaborate scam. I've long said they have undisguised contempt for traditional values voters. They prove it daily in their concerted drive to suppress the values voter turnout.

Since most of the media is run by conservatives, I don't understand how they are part of a "Liberal scam." Most of the media run by conservatives? Excuse me? A completely false story based on forged documents shockingly close to the last presidential election would not come from liberals (Bush national guard story). - Fox News Fox News has both conservatives and liberals. Besides, Fox News doesn’t represent “Most Media.”

It is inconceivable that Christian conservatives are blind to the left's contempt for them or self-destructive enough to contribute to the ascension of the party that boos the Boy Scouts and filibusters Constitution-honoring judges.

1. I am a Boy Scout and the only thing i do not support is there policy towards homosexuals -Okay…one liberal. Liberals tend to disagree with faith based activities such as Boy Scouts, since United Way pulled funding when Boy Scouts exercised their 1st Amendment rights in the way of Homosexuals. - how is denying the rights of others part of the first amendment The Right to Assembly includes the right to assemble or not assemble with certain people, for any reason. So, if Boy Scouts don’t approve of homosexuality (which would make them hypocrites) then they don’t have to associate with them, as the constitution says.

2. And these judges are? -Kerry tried to filibuster Alito (http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/01/27/alito/index.html)  Democrats filibustered Judge Pickering (http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040117-121632-3680r.htm), and just for kicks here’s an article talking about ten judges filibustered by democrats (http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040117-121632-3680r.htm). - 1. i don't like kerry all that much He’s still a democrat and he still tried to filibuster a Conservative Judge. 2. Bush has not made good decitions with judges so far Not according to congress, since they voted him in. What decisions are you saying are bad? 3.  Don't those articles just proove there is a conservative media, not a Liberal media No, these articles are reporting factual information that took place in congress, if reporting facts is what you call “conservative” then yes.

3. Conservatives are blind to the real issues, but they use every opportunity to insult liberals -I believe it was liberals who ignored the election to talk about Bush’s national guard history, and lie a bout it. Conservatives aren’t constantly blaming everything on “the vast rightwing conspiracy.” In fact, where did you get this idea? What issue are conservatives “blind” to? - global warming, gun control, ect. Global Warming isn’t a real issue, and gun control isn’t a national issue, the constitution leaves that power to the states. States could completely forbid guns, congress (according to the constitution) can’t say a thing about them.

On national security generally, Democrats would ratchet up even further their opposition to almost every tool we use to prosecute the war.

Knowing that the tools they use involve torture, and defying the constitution, I do not see how that is a bad thing. -What about them defies the constitution? Terrorists and suspected terrorists don’t have our constitution…that would be a little imperialistic now wouldn’t it? - everything about torture defies the constitution. And since they are under the care of Americans, they are under the protection of our constitution No, they are in our prisons, they do not get constitutional rights. Why would you offer this to terrorists?

On Iraq, if you concede that conditions there are discouraging, you still -- as a responsible voter --must ask yourself what Democrats would do differently, unless you are just too angry to care. Democrats are irreversibly committed to the myth that Iraq is not part of the war on terror -- never mind that all global jihadists themselves radically disagree.

What does Iraq have to do with the war on terror?-  Well lets see, I’m pretty sure we’ve caught drones of terrorists in Iraq, so maybe that. Also we do have Saddam on tape talking about using WMD on the US, were you suggesting that we sit and wait until Chicago is in ruins before we strike? That would be more unconstitutional than making terrorist play naked twister. - I mean what does Iraq now mean to the war on terror We’re still catching terrorists in Iraq, that’s what.

I don't think i need to continue. Who wrote this article you ask, why its none other then David Limbaugh, the same person who says the democrats are using the media for propaganda, that the democrats are really trying to get terrorists to attack, that the New York times is treasonous, and that democrats cause the terrorists to hate us. - I’m going to need quotes for some of these, especially the one that says “democrats cause the terrorist to hate us” because that’s something liberals insist about conservatives. The reason terrorists hate us is because my named doesn’t start with Muhammad and my mom shows her hair, and David Limbaugh knows this. - just do a google serch on it No, it’s not my job to prove your arguments.

Round and Round we go.

News Article From the Wasington Times- with comentary by Steven

The real question for voters in November is whether Democrats will be able to do to the entire legislative branch what they've done to their party. The agenda-less party is infected with a paralyzing negativity born of its singular hatred for President Bush. Will that mindset be permitted to seize control of our legislative branch? Will disgruntled conservatives collude to make this happen?

What have we done to our party?

How many times have you heard Democrats decrying the Bush administration for having no plan to win the peace in Iraq? We might have executed the initial phase of the war masterfully by removing Saddam Hussein, they now grudgingly concede, but we didn't anticipate and plan for the problems that would arise after his removal.

They didn't, but Democrats did. Really? What is it? Are they keeping it a secret until elections? Causing the death of American lives so they can unveil their secret plan at the most politically beneficial time? Nice.

Putting aside a debate over that assertion, let's apply the same standard to their agenda for America today. Shouldn't we ask: "Democrats have a potentially masterful plan for removing Republicans from majority control, but what is their plan for action if they win?"

Didn't the republicans stupidity cause people to vote democratic? Well not yet it hasn’t. It seems a little early, and “stupid” isn’t a very good argument.

Let's just look at the most important issues: the war on terror, including Iraq, the economy, social issues and immigration. In each category, they either have no plan or are unwilling to publicize it for fear Rovian Republicans will pick it apart and expose its flaws. 

On immigration, no matter how poorly Republicans have performed, the Democrats' approach would be significantly worse. They would open the borders wider, discourage assimilation further and promote amnesty harder.

As a Hispanic friend of mind so plainly puts it, "Let my People Mow" I don’t know what you’re trying to say here, it’s a little ridiculous to, again, that democrats have some secret plan and that they’re letting thousands of illegals enter the country each day while they wait for the best time to let out their plan.

On the economy, they would increase domestic spending even more. And in their compulsion to punish the "rich," they would raise their taxes at the inevitable expense of choking the life out of our robust growth and increasing the deficit and national debt. Though the middle class and poor would be hurt, the rich would feel it, too -- and that would be almost as gratifying as hating President Bush

1. I don't understand how rising taxes will lead to this Well, if a rich man wants to start a business (and hire middle class and poor people), he won’t be able to if he’s paying 70% taxes like before Reagan. Thus, only the ultra rich will have this opportunity.

2. the only gratifying thing about hating bush is stating the truth. It would be nice if you’d say something other than “I hate Bush,” when you argue against the president.

On social issues, Democrats and the mainstream media are engaged in an elaborate scam. I've long said they have undisguised contempt for traditional values voters. They prove it daily in their concerted drive to suppress the values voter turnout.

Since most of the media is run by conservatives, I don't understand how they are part of a "Liberal scam." Most of the media run by conservatives? Excuse me? A completely false story based on forged documents shockingly close to the last presidential election would not come from liberals (Bush national guard story).

It is inconceivable that Christian conservatives are blind to the left's contempt for them or self-destructive enough to contribute to the ascension of the party that boos the Boy Scouts and filibusters Constitution-honoring judges.

1. I am a Boy Scout and the only thing i do not support is there policy towards homosexuals Okay…one liberal. Liberals tend to disagree with faith based activities such as Boy Scouts, since United Way pulled funding when Boy Scouts exercised their 1^st Amendment rights in the way of Homosexuals.

2. And these judges are? Kerry tried to filibuster Alito (http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/01/27/alito/index.html)  Democrats filibustered Judge Pickering (http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040117-121632-3680r.htm), and just for kicks here’s an article talking about ten judges filibustered by democrats (http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040117-121632-3680r.htm).

3. Conservatives are blind to the real issues, but they use every opportunity to insult liberals I believe it was liberals who ignored the election to talk about Bush’s national guard history, and lie a bout it. Conservatives aren’t constantly blaming everything on “the vast rightwing conspiracy.” In fact, where did you get this idea? What issue are conservatives “blind” to?

On national security generally, Democrats would ratchet up even further their opposition to almost every tool we use to prosecute the war.

Knowing that the tools they use involve torture, and defying the constitution, I do not see how that is a bad thing. What about them defies the constitution? Terrorists and suspected terrorists don’t have our constitution…that would be a little imperialistic now wouldn’t it?

On Iraq, if you concede that conditions there are discouraging, you still -- as a responsible voter --must ask yourself what Democrats would do differently, unless you are just too angry to care. Democrats are irreversibly committed to the myth that Iraq is not part of the war on terror -- never mind that all global jihadists themselves radically disagree.

What does Iraq have to do with the war on terror? Well lets see, I’m pretty sure we’ve caught drones of terrorists in Iraq, so maybe that. Also we do have Saddam on tape talking about using WMD on the US, were you suggesting that we sit and wait until Chicago is in ruins before we strike? That would be more unconstitutional than making terrorist play naked twister.

I don't think i need to continue. Who wrote this article you ask, why its none other then David Limbaugh, the same person who says the democrats are using the media for propaganda, that the democrats are really trying to get terrorists to attack, that the New York times is treasonous, and that democrats cause the terrorists to hate us. I’m going to need quotes for some of these, especially the one that says “democrats cause the terrorist to hate us” because that’s something liberals insist about conservatives. The reason terrorists hate us is because my named doesn’t start with Muhammad and my mom shows her hair, and David Limbaugh knows this.