Replies

OK....let's be factual here. In the first place, I didn't come up with that theory, I just agreed with it.......and the fact that it was on the DU first backs that up.

I've read a lot of your posts and you obviously have a problem with this President, and distort what those of us who respect and admire him say, and look on us with condescension, so, while this is probably a waste of time to do this, I will take this article point by point.

Number 1 - appointing qualified homosexuals to certain posts is not even remotely related to the xlintonian pro-gay agenda position. Besides which, it would be against the law (like it or not) to disqualify them on the basis of their sexual preferences. And have you noticed any love for this President coming from gay groups? I don't THINK so.

Number 2- Xlinton was pro-death to unborn babies. President Bush values life to the point where he is despised by abortion groups. He stopped new embryonic research and addressed the embryos as LIFE....something never done by a President. In addition, he has taken multiple steps to change our culture back to a culture of life. Another preposterous comparison.

Number 3 - Israel will experience more peace with a Palestinian state than they are now. President Bush knows scripture and prays for wisdom every day. I'm praying for the same......maybe you should consider that yourself.

Number 3 - No one is crying about his immigration policies??? The author obviously has never been NEAR Free Republic.

Number 4 - Ozzie Ozbourne at the WH....preposterous theory to begin with, that the President could be the antiChrist because of this, but it has been proven untrue.

The article is absurd, irresponsible, and dangerous, and you are neither logical nor wise to defend it.

OK - then let's really get factual here. I haven't commented on anything Bush did that was mentioned in the articles. You are right I have serious problems with some of the actions of the President. I have serious problems when supposedly thinking Americans follow anyone blindly and in lockstep and spend a lot of time spinning things into absurdity to try to make what he does seem right.

Now as I said - the article to me said - 'everyone asked is Bill Clinton is the anti-Christ - but no one has asked about Pres. Bush'. Whether you like it or not - that is probably factual. I know a lot of people discussed that - but I haven't heard anyone say it about Pres. Bush. Now it is a dopey article and I didn't actually look at it in terms of the actual anti-christ, but in terms of a double standard. He named some things - I didn't. I simply asked, and have before, that some thinking Republicans just think how they would have reacted if a fund raising picture of Clinton with a 'possible' terrorist had shown up. I did not mention those things. The only answer I have every gotten - is but Bush is a good man. That's no answer. He is a man. He does some things that are wrong. He does some things that are destructive.

But stick with me here - I haven't commented on any of the things in the article. I only mentioned Osbourne in response to another poster who said their parents were Christians and watched it. I can't imagine anyone wanting to bring that into their homes. You see - nothing - not one teeny thing in my statement about Bush.

Now I know you feel you need to post insults to anyone who doesn't worship the President - and if you want to slam anything I have said - use what I said - don't grab something out of thin air just so you can say something nasty.

But you are right - it frightens me that so many on here seem to think this man walks on water and could do absolutely no wrong. That's very scary thinking in a citizenry.

So you see, taking the article point by point was a waste of time - because my posts had nothing to do with the items in the article - so maybe you have me confused with someone else on that score.