A liberal e-mailer that is also a Blog Talk Radio host regularly e-mails back and forth with me. Recently, he sent his rebuttal to my post Super Tuesday and the Three Legged Stool. In addition, there has been a lot of discussion in the comment section about the three legged stool and the three branches of government - - - I did not intend for the three legs to represent the three branches of government. From a Constitutional point of view, the Judicial Branch should not have the power it wields today! But that is for another time to discuss. Perhaps it'll come up this Saturday on the Founding Truth Radio Show.
Anyhow, back to my liberal e-mailer, he claimed in his e-mail that I distorted the truth, and that Conservatives are famous for that.
Really?
Here's my response to him:
You, like most liberals, have this distorted belief that Bush is all things to Conservatives, and you kept referencing Bush during this e-mail. Bush is not my idea of an ideal president. He did serve as a better president than what the Democrats had to offer, and in some aspects, has been willing to fight the war launched against us on numerous occasions, the most notable acts of war against the United States of America being the Iranian hostage takeover in 1979, and 9/11 in 2001.
When faced with Hillary's quote about garnishing wages of those that refuse to participate with her government sponsored health plan, you did not argue about the quote, which tells me you have no problem with government rounding up those that refuse to bow down to a socialistic government . . . I thought dissent was an Americans right? Or is that only the case when the dissent is liberals against Republicans? Then you asked, what is Marxism? In the strictest terms the answer is: the system of thought developed by Karl Marx, his co-worker Friedrich Engels, and their followers. But when you delve into it, Marxism is the political and economic philosophy in which the concept of class struggle plays a central role in understanding society's allegedly inevitable development from bourgeois oppression under capitalism to a socialist and ultimately classless society. If you take apart what the Liberal Wing of the Democratic Party offers, and specifically, the elements of Hillary Clinton's Campaign, it is clearly accurate to say that Hillary Clinton is a Marxist. If you really need me to spell it out for you, I will, but I think you know that what she is preaching, and the ultimate goals of Marxism, are one and the same. Hardly a distortion of the facts.
I did not include the words "willing to" in the underlined part because those words were not a part of her quote.
Calling me a Bush Backer was fascinating. Am I a Bush Backer because I support the war effort? I do not support Bush on many issues. I believe he is an idiot when it comes to the immigration issue, I believe he is a globalist, a political idea I have been speaking out against for more than 25 years, I can't stand his big government spending and his big government plans like "No Child Left Behind" and the pharmaceutical deal he made, and I have a real problem with his recent attempts to sell out the Israelis in these recent peace talks with the Palestinians. That is a distortion on your part. As for bringing the troops home, I agree that I would love for them to come home, but it must be in a position of strength and victory, not in a position of weakness and retreat. To call anyone that is in support of National Security and this war effort a "Bush Backer" is short-sighted, and hardly accurate.
What is Social Conservatism? Social issues, dominantly abortion, homosexuality, and gun ownership, fall under that umbrella. And you may be right that some people that "brag" about being conservatives believe one thing today and another tomorrow - just because someone says they are something, it doesn't mean that they are. As for Conservatives loving labels that muddy the waters, aren't you using labels by calling them conservatives? How about the "Centrist" label the left uses hoping to make people believe they are more centrally situated on the political spectrum? How about the labels used against Christians? Rosie O'donnell was real good at that. Please, don't try to peddle that "labels are a conservative thing" on me.
Since you say that you are an atheist, and you seem to think that the social issues from a conservative position is me trying to push Christianity on you, does that mean the sanctity of life means nothing to you? Unborn children should be murdered just because they are "unwanted?" They are not allowed to have the opportunity to live because a woman has decided to throw the child's life away like yesterday's garbage? And why should YOUR belief stand in the way of MY belief (to quote you), or the life of an innocent child? As for gay rights and gay marriage, I could care less if gays want to love each other, even though I see it as vile and immoral, but I do not think they should have the right to shove it in my face, or besmerch the Christian Institution of marriage, bastardizing it into something God did not intend. That would be like me trying to force you to pray to a God you don't want anything to do with.
You asked, "Does anyone need to have a weapon that will hold more than 6 shells?" Why should a law abiding citizen be limited because the criminal element can't behave?
You proclaimed I was wrong about the gun control in Germany in 1938. What about all of the other examples? Oh, and regarding Germany, it is you that is Wrong! The Geneva Convention DID NOT force the removal of al guns in Germany. The Versailles Peace Treaty in 1919 dictated that, but the Germans evaded the treaty, and it wasn't long before weapons again became prominent among German citizens - - - at least until 1938 when the NAZI regime instituted the removal of all weapons from non-military persons so that the people could not rise up against the totalitarian government.
You asked, "What is Bush's strong suit?" As I said earlier, I am not a Bush-bot as you seem to be thinking, but I do believe that one thing he has done right is take the fight to the enemy, rather than sit on his hands and wait for the next act of war against our country.
McCain "claims" he is a war hero, and he may be. What he went through is no different than what American soldiers are enduring daily, now. Why can't the Left call "them" War Heroes too? And just because McCain may, or may not, be a War Hero, that doesn't make him an expert on war. And taking McCain's claims to heart as you have, have you read what Dr. Jack Wheeler has written? http://radiopatriot.blogspot.com/2008/02/spooks-from-past.html
I am not saying Jack Wheeler is one hundred percent accurate, for he provides no tangible evidence. In fact, his claim may be a whole lot of hooey. . . but it is something to chew on as a possibility.
I agree with you on your opinion regarding illegals - take away the jobs (and freebies) and they will deport themselves, or head on up to Canada.
You ask "Would I be for waterboarding American's by the other side?" The enemy does worse. The other side does not toy with mild techniques like waterboarding. They do much worse to our young men and women, and to their victims regardless of who they are. How can anyone be against a technique that does not ultimately kill the subject, but is proven to be a valuable method in obtaining important information that in the long run "saves American lives!" I suppose you place the comfort level of the enemy prisoners over the lives of our American Troops. How could anybody be for pampering the enemy as it costs American lives because an uncomfortable technique was not used?
The Law of the Sea Treaty places a global beaurocracy over our own government. It is a loss of sovereignty over our territorial waters. And the fact that the Bush Administration supports it only confirms what I stated earlier, George W. Bush is a globalist - and I believe that a globalist government entity is a VERY BAD THING.
Comments on my site must remain short and sweet, that is why it didn't allow you to comment.
Doug
http://www.politicalpistachio.com/
Oh, and an added note, Liberals constantly accuse Conservatives of being hate-mongers. If that is so, then why is it whenever a Liberal visits a Conservative site, or when they refer to conservatives as my good buddy, Tom, does, they use profanity or name calling as their primary tool? Example? The first comment to my Aftermath post by someone named Kevin Sims said, "Nutcase."
Who's the hateful ones famous for distortions after all?
No comments:
Post a Comment