Weird GOP Deathwish?

[Annie]

Libs tend to be opposed to anything Pres Bush is for

That may have been why they went against their party leaders. Whatever the reason, I will take their opposition on this issue

Like the amnesty bill? No Child Left Behind?

 

[JeffWartman]

While I could not vote for the Republican challengers - I did write letter to the editor, and did some work for some

If I could have voted for them, I would have

I'm asking for one name...do you have one?

If you worked for some, and wrote letters to the editor as you claim, you must have a name. Give me one name.

 

[Annie]

More bad moves by the administration. I really am beginning to believe there is an conspiracy.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ODU1YWMyN2M4MWY0OWViMTBkMzY0MTM1Yjg1NGY5ZTQ=

Radical Outreach
Bush coddles American apologists for radical Islam

By Steve Emerson

At Wednesday’s rededication ceremony of the Saudi-funded Islamic Center of Washington, D.C., President Bush missed a perfect opportunity to repudiate apologism for radical Islam, and instead announced his latest plan to get the Muslim world to stop hating America: appoint a special envoy to the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC).

Bush praised the OIC, saying, “We admire and thank those Muslims who have denounced what the Secretary General of the OIC called ‘radical fringe elements who pretend that they act in the name of Islam.’” The special envoy’s mission, Bush said, would be to “listen and learn” to OIC ambassadors.

While this may sound nice, it is rooted in complete ignorance of the rampant radicalism, pro-terrorist, and anti-American sentiments routinely found in statements by the OIC and its leaders, including referring to “Islamophobia” — and not the mass slaughter of innocents in the name of Islam — the “worst form of terrorism,” as OIC did last May.

In 2002, the OIC published its “Declaration on International Terrorism.” Therein, the authors stated, amongst other outrageous claims, that there was no such thing as Palestinian terrorism, writing, “We reject any attempt to associate Islamic states or Palestinian and Lebanese resistance with terrorism.” To the OIC, groups like Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, and Hezbollah are not terrorists, but “freedom fighters.”

This is just the beginning of a litany of the OIC’s wrongs.In March 2006, OIC General Secretary Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu embraced Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal at a press conference at OIC’s headquarters. Ihsanoglu whitewashed: “With its win, Hamas begins a new stage in the development of the Palestinian issue. We assure that Hamas will deal with all national and international requirements in a practical and logical way.”

At a “special session” of the OIC in August of the same year, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad called for “the elimination of the Zionist regime,” a statement that OIC failed to condemn. Moreover, the OIC has repeatedly backed Iran’s nuclear ambitions. As Ishanoglu said in April, “All member states of the OIC and I have obviously supported Iran's right to access peaceful nuclear technology,” despite clear indications that the Iranian regime’s uranium-enrichment program is designed chiefly to make nuclear weapons.

And then, there is OIC’s explaining away of the 9/11 attacks, which “expressed the frustration, disappointment, and disillusion that are festering deep in the Muslims’ soul towards the aggressions and discriminations committed by the West.”

These are the people that President Bush feels the need to “listen and learn” from. And the Bush administration’s wishful thinking extends beyond his feelings toward the OIC, to the very location where Bush was giving his speech...

More on OIC, links to MSM at site:

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=26043_Media_Fail_to_Inform_Public_About_OIC&only

Media Fail to Inform Public About OIC

In all the mainstream media articles about President Bush’s announcement that he’s appointing an envoy to the Organization of the Islamic Conference, not a single one actually looks at the history and statements of this hate-filled Islamic group, whose charter explicitly states that it was formed to help implement the destruction of Israel.

Case in point: this is how the Washington Post describes the OIC: Bush Plans Envoy To Islamic Nations.

The creation of the post will mark the first time a U.S. president has designated an envoy to the 38-year-old organization, which promotes Islamic solidarity and cooperation.​

I guess it would just be too difficult for these journalists to actually do some research and find out what the OIC really promotes. They’ve even covered it themselves in the past, but now seem to have forgotten about Malaysian prime minister Mahathir Mohamed’s statement that “Jews rule the world by proxy” and Muslims must unite to find a way to wipe them out: Speech by Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad of Malaysia to the Tenth Islamic Summit Conference.

Or they could just search LGF, for years of stories about the hate speech and support for murder and jihad for which the Organization of the Islamic Conference is infamous: LGF search: “Islamic Conference”.

Our mainstream media: making sure the public stays ignorant. (But we know every detail about Paris Hilton’s field trip to jail.)

Thu, Jun 28, 2007 at 8:41:11 am PST

 

[red states rule]

Mr President: How the hell do you reason with people that want all of us DEAD?

 

[maineman]

Mr President: How the hell do you reason with people that want all of us DEAD?

do you honestly think that the majority of the arab - or persian - world wants all of us dead?

 

[red states rule]

do you honestly think that the majority of the arab - or persian - world wants all of us dead?

based on what I see - yes, a majority do

 

[Annie]

do you honestly think that the majority of the arab - or persian - world wants all of us dead?

Either that or converted, though most would not personally cause it.

 

[maineman]

Either that or converted, though most would not personally cause it.

I disagree. my experiences tell me otherwise.

but we will have to agree to disagree on this point, because I have first hand knowledge of just how stubborn you can be.

 

[Annie]

I disagree. my experiences tell me otherwise.

but we will have to agree to disagree on this point, because I have first hand knowledge of just how stubborn you can be.

That's true enough! Cheers!

 

[JeffWartman]

Which primary challenger to any Republican incumbent in the entire United States did you support in the 2006 congressional election?

Can you please answer my question, RSR?

 

[red states rule]

Can you please answer my question, RSR?

Try reading very S-L-O-W-L-Y

My Representive did not have any problems with the voters. He voted against and declined the pay raise - unlike the other Republicans. There was no GOP opponent running against him

 

[Annie]

It most definitely is, a conspiracy. Bush is trying to kill the GOP!

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/bush-called-out-for-his-earmarks-2007-06-28.html

Bush called out for his earmarks
By Alexander Bolton
June 28, 2007
Democratic and Republican appropriators are accusing President Bush of urging Congress to pack spending bills with pet projects despite his high-profile crackdown on earmarks this year.

A House Appropriations Committee report accompanying legislation funding the Department of the Interior shows that Bush requested 93 of the 321 earmarks in the bill. A panel report for the financial services and general government spending bill showed that Bush requested 17 special projects worth $947 million, more than any single member of Congress.

Senate appropriators have identified more than 350 earmarks in the military construction spending bill requested by the president.

Lawmakers say these lists of earmarks are inconsistent with Bush’s tough talk on earmarks this year.

During a Rose Garden speech in January, Bush called for the number of earmarks to be cut in half.

“Earmarks often divert precious funds from vital priorities like national defense,” Bush said. “And each year they cost the taxpayers billions of dollars.

“Congress needs to adopt real reform that requires full disclosure of the sponsors, the costs, the recipients, and the justifications for every earmark,” he said. “And Congress needs to cut the number and cost of earmarks next year at least in half.”

When Bush recently nominated former House Budget Committee Chairman Jim Nussle (R-Iowa) as head of the White House budget office, he reminded Congress that he would veto bills with excessive levels of spending and curb the number of earmarks.

“It would appear the administration likes earmarks from their perspective,” said Rep. Robert Aderholt (Ala.), a Republican member of the House Appropriations Committee.

...

 

[JeffWartman]

Try reading very S-L-O-W-L-Y

My Representive did not have any problems with the voters. He voted against and declined the pay raise - unlike the other Republicans. There was no GOP opponent running against him

Are you retarded? I'M ASKING FOR ANY PRIMARY OPPONENT IN THE ENTIRE COUNTRY.

Maineman said: "I do not believe that you will actively support a primary opponent to an incumbent republican and increase the risk of losing the seat."

Then you, RSR, said: "I did in the last elections"

So which one did you support? Or did you lie in post #162?

 

[actsnoblemartin]

RSR, STOP BEING RUDE!

Try reading very S-L-O-W-L-Y

My Representive did not have any problems with the voters. He voted against and declined the pay raise - unlike the other Republicans. There was no GOP opponent running against him

 

[red states rule]

RSR, STOP BEING RUDE!

I have posted the same thing (less the read slowly) about 5 times

Either he can't read English or he needs to take his time reading

 

[JeffWartman]

I have posted the same thing (less the read slowly) about 5 times

Either he can't read English or he needs to take his time reading

No, you haven't. Either you are too dumb to understand the question or you are some kind of bot which is just programmed to post RNC talking points. I'm asking you a simple question that you cannot answer, because you lied.

I will post again. Please answer my question with one name.

Maineman said: "I do not believe that you will actively support a primary opponent to an incumbent republican and increase the risk of losing the seat."

Then you, RSR, said: "I did in the last elections"

So which one did you support? Or did you lie in post #162?

You said "I did in the last elections"

So if this is a true statement, who was it? Or did you lie?

 

[red states rule]

No, you haven't. Either you are too dumb to understand the question or you are some kind of bot which is just programmed to post RNC talking points. I'm asking you a simple question that you cannot answer, because you lied.

I will post again. Please answer my question with one name.

Maineman said: "I do not believe that you will actively support a primary opponent to an incumbent republican and increase the risk of losing the seat."

Then you, RSR, said: "I did in the last elections"

So which one did you support? Or did you lie in post #162?

You said "I did in the last elections"

So if this is a true statement, who was it? Or did you lie?

I supported all the challengers to the incumbant Republicans

I voted for Pat Toomey over Arlen Specter in 04 primary

Here is the list of the the Republicans I would have voted against if I could have voted against them

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/18/u...f9e38b4b2cbf5c&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

 

[JeffWartman]

I supported all the challengers to the incumbant Republicans

I voted for Pat Toomey over Arlen Specter in 04 primary

Here is the list of the the Republicans I would have voted against if I could have voted against them

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/18/u...f9e38b4b2cbf5c&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

You just aren't smart enough to understand the question.

 

[red states rule]

You just aren't smart enough to understand the question.

No, you are just a jerk who is never happy with a straight answer. For some reason you have a big chip on your shoulder and are pissed off at the world

 

[JeffWartman]

No, you are just a jerk who is never happy with a straight answer. For some reason you have a big chip on your shoulder and are pissed off at the world

You could not be more wrong.

Your problem is that you have this brainless black and white view of the world.

You are programmed to believe in this liberal vs. conservative dichotomy that is completely brainless.

Every Republican in Washington are crooks who deserve be voted out of office.
Every Democrat in Washington are crooks who deserve to be voted out of office.

Get it?