Skip to comments.
Bush reaches out to conservatives to quell revolt
Forbes ^
| Feb. 20, 2004
| Adam Entous
Posted on 02/22/2004 8:05:00 PM PST by FairOpinion
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 421-440, 441-460, 461-480 ... 601-617 next last
To: Tamsey
I've stated this gently a few times, let me try again. Okay. I appreciate your restraint.
You are forming conclusions about a thread that has several posts deleted. I can understand and forgive you for doing so in a heat of temper when you first noticed the thread, but I've pointed your mistake out to you now.
No mistake. As I mentioned a few times myself, if you felt these comments were too uncivil (as I'm sure they were), I'd suggest responding with an invitation to engage in more polite debate. Resorting to the same tactics yourself makes you little better than the original poster, IMHO. It also opens you up to legitimate criticism, which is what you're getting here. Don't get down in the mud (so to speak) and folks like myself will have nothing to criticize.
You are missing important information and you are wrong.
I think I have all the info I need to draw my conclusions. See above.
Since I know I won't be getting an apology from you I suggest you just give up and bother someone else.
I'd happily apologize, if my points were proven incorrect. That hasn't happened here.
To: Dane
There is a liberal press that Bush has to deal with. That's reality and he took away some of their bullets. I know you don't like it, but whoever said that this is a perfect world. There never was a great deal of public interest in CFR, contrary to what a few media organizations would have you believe. Had Bush clearly explained that this bill was unconstitutional and instructed Congress to strike the problematic parts and resend him the bill, he'd have come out of this episode looking better than ever (and immune to criticism).
Think back to stem cell research: he explained his views to the public and they respected his integrity. This would have been no different.
To: The American Man
Frankly, there are no words to begin to describe the tenor of your remarks. Disgusting and revolting come to mind. Perhaps others can add to the list.
You're remarkably confrontational and prone to personal attack for someone who is brand new.
443
posted on
02/23/2004 2:38:04 PM PST
by
Tamzee
(Hey, Bush supporting lurkers! Create an account and speak up! This is a critical year for the USA!)
To: NittanyLion
There never was a great deal of public interest in CFR, contrary to what a few media organizations would have you believe. Had Bush clearly explained that this bill was unconstitutional and instructed Congress to strike the problematic parts and resend him the bill, he'd have come out of this episode looking better than ever (and immune to criticism). That's easier said than done. You know and I know that the ad bans were wrong, but Joe Q. Public, they don't like seeing negative ads before Friends and the demo talking points would still have been Bush is protecting special interests, yada, yada, yada.
If he would have vetoed then it would have become a bigger issue, but since he didn't it went away with those same 1 or 2% mad about the ad bans.
See the lack of public interest can work both ways.
444
posted on
02/23/2004 2:44:25 PM PST
by
Dane
To: doodlelady
I used to think our common goals were the same.Good heavens... you ventured into this thread willingly? It's pretty bloody in here, don't slip and fall ;-)
I too used to think the common goals were the same. Actually they might be and what we are hearing is just a disproportionate clamor that doesn't represent his supporters now or even those back in 2000.
445
posted on
02/23/2004 2:45:49 PM PST
by
Tamzee
(Hey, Bush supporting lurkers! Create an account and speak up! This is a critical year for the USA!)
To: FairOpinion
I think they are trying to intimidate us, to get us to stop posting, and let them bash Bush unopposed, to their hearts content.
Yep... won't work. There are too many of us determined to see the Democrats defeated and Bush back in the White House for another four years.
446
posted on
02/23/2004 2:50:49 PM PST
by
Tamzee
(Hey, Bush supporting lurkers! Create an account and speak up! This is a critical year for the USA!)
To: NittanyLion
As I expected... I continue to see it differently.
Regards.
447
posted on
02/23/2004 2:53:36 PM PST
by
Tamzee
(Hey, Bush supporting lurkers! Create an account and speak up! This is a critical year for the USA!)
To: FairOpinion
A sucker punch from a friend hurst more than a blow from an enemy...
448
posted on
02/23/2004 2:56:26 PM PST
by
N3WBI3
To: Howlin
MY line of thinking? OUR loyalty to the founding fathers -- what they have bequeathed US -- supersedes other loyalties. This does NOT mean that WE have no other loyalties. It meens that loyalty to the founding fathers -- thier ideals and principles -- should serve as our primary sourse of guidance in these troubled times. Perhaps you misunderstood me.
> Your need to denigrade anybody who is living with the facts as we have them today speaks volumes about you, not me. <
I have NO NEED to denigrate you, or anyone, sir. I too, like you, am trying to live: with the facts as we have them today.
> my great great great great great grandfather was an aide de camp to George Washington during the American Revolutionary War and at the Continental Congress <
Well, one would think that you would be less dismissive -- and more respectful -- toward one (myself) whom holds your: great great great great great grandfather in such high esteem.
To: old school
But, I cringe at thought of some phony, piece of sh*t, silver-star recipient occupying the White House.And the White House knows this...that is why the President continues to try to appease the demos...he knows that even P.O.ed conservatives would suffer fingernail removal with vice grips before voting for Ketchup boy.
Before any of you jump to your little keyboards and start pounding a response, remind me again how much legislation has been vetoed by current President Bush??
To: hchutch
need to read from 300...
451
posted on
02/23/2004 3:29:26 PM PST
by
meema
To: lewislynn
Pleaseeeeeeeeee......... this isn't a "scare tactic" so don't try to pin that one on me. It is an insult and I do not appreciate it! It is a fact that:
#1: if one does not vote for a republican then a democrat will be in office
#2 there are only 2 parties in our lifetimes that will garner enough votes to put their nominee in that office
#3 just surviving a democrat in office and the damage he or she can do to this nation (always have and always will as you say) is not good enough if one has the power via the vote to prevent it.
You can name call all you want and try to be cynical and clever but it won't change what a dem can do - remember Chinagate, World Trade Towers, etc.!
To: FairOpinion
...but it came as something of a shock when fellow Republicans broke ranks over growth in government spending... Imagine. Republicans upset over growth in government spending. Scandalous!
453
posted on
02/23/2004 3:42:15 PM PST
by
Doohickey
(The ultimate paradigm of government is the public restroom)
To: Doohickey
Imagine. Republicans upset over growth in government spending. Scandalous!Good one...although for even broaching the subject you are open to ridicule.
To: The American Man
TYPO ALERT : meens (means) sourse (source ) thier ( their ) sorry!
To: The American Man
TYPO ALERT...is that in one post or for the whole week??
To: FairOpinion
So this past four years have been for the next for years? I can see next February's excuses now "we have to plow the middle to get Bill Frist elected!!!"
457
posted on
02/23/2004 4:01:44 PM PST
by
Doohickey
(The ultimate paradigm of government is the public restroom)
To: Cuttnhorse
>TYPO ALERT...is that in one post or for the whole week??<
OK. you got me! Can I get TYPO ALERT credit say, for the whole month?!
To: The American Man
I think for your honesty you have TYPOS in the bank for at least a month!
459
posted on
02/23/2004 4:16:49 PM PST
by
Cuttnhorse
(A TYPO "Hat Trick")
To: Tamsey
Wasn't Al Gore lampooned mercilessly in 1999 for pandering to the right? Why is it okay that President Bush has been pandering to the left for the past three years?
460
posted on
02/23/2004 5:14:44 PM PST
by
Doohickey
(Bush 2004! Because Kerry would be even WORSE!)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 421-440, 441-460, 461-480 ... 601-617 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson