Posted on 06/06/2002 9:57:11 PM PDT by Big Guy and Rusty 99
Dear Mr. Robinson,
I have been a loyal member of the Free Republic since before the 2000 election. I have been a Conservative since the early days of Clinton. When I found this site, I thought "Thank God, people who think like me." I have continued to think this until the more recent days. Now, it seems that there are threads left and right bashing our President.
Why? There are things the President has done which I don't agree with but my loyality still lies with him. I am not sure if these "Bush-Bashers" fail to see the reality that with politics comes comprimise or it is something worse. I feel there is a cancer in the Free Republic. Some are eating their own.
I feel that some of these people are members of the dreaded democratic underground disguised as disgruntled conservatives. They are only here to stir up trouble. What's worse, they are doing just that. I am not sure what I think you should do.
As a conservative, I believe in our moral code but I also realize the reality of politics. I back our President but if he were doing something unsavory (like lying under oath,) I could not support him. This is unlike the left's clintonista dogma. What President Bush is doing is not betraying the conservative cause. He is using politics to confound the left. Those who do not understand this are either leftists themself or unable to separate themselves from their zealousness.
This is your show. You choose who gets to be a member and who does not. Those who break your rules are banished from the kingdom. I am not discouraging free speech, but this is free speech in your forum. These Bush-Bashers are brining us down. When this infighting happened in 1992, Bill Clinton got elected. let's not let that happen again.
Yours,
Big Guy and Rusty 99
Good shot, right in the ten ring.
You have it right Joe.
I say if you can't take the heat, stay out of the kithchen.
Maybe what we need is a GW fan club, and have it so anyone that has ever disagreed with GW be expelled immediately.
I see, so it is inevitable right? All part of God’s plan?
If, in your words, I am " a sucker " , then you dear, are a petulant 2 year old, who needs your mouth washed out with soap, a spanking, and an education.
Allow me a little hyperbole--it was obviously used as a rhetorical device. I have seen a bunch of posts on this, and other threads in which the terms "traitor" and "treason" are used promiscuously in speaking of our President. Close enough for me.
On the other hand. I can make a very very valid argument, that this country, as of June 6th, 2002, is more liberal than when George W. Bush took office, almost a year and a half ago. That's not saying we would have been better off with gore, which we wouldn't be.
Perhaps. But is that because GW is leading the way to liberalism; or because the political reality on the ground is such that the correlation of forces is going to cause some leftward movement on some issues and that to resist them is to get thrown out of office? Obviously, the question is rhetorical.
I have a question for you. Many of us (myself included) are bolting from the GOP (the first time for me) and looking at voting third party Conservative candidates come the next Presidential election.
I bolted the Republicans once and came back. I was young and pure then, and it seemed like a good idea at the time. Actually, it was a terrible idea that had no relation to the real world of politics.
All that would be accomplished would be to elect algore or hitlary. Have you noticed the democrats being nice nice to Nader supporters since the 2000 election? I haven't. In fact, a concerted move in this direction could make the party lurch further to the left to grab more of the middle voters to make up for your absence. In the meantime, we have president hill and bill clinton is mugging at us from the whitehouse again. NOOOOOOOOO.
THE REPUBLICAN PARTY NEEDS CONSERVATIVE TRUE BELIEVERS. IF YOU ARE A CONSERVATIVE, GET INVOLVED IN THE PARTY, ACCUMULATE INFLUENCE AND POWER AND THEN USE IT.
Maybe questions should be asked about if this is a Bush problem or a GOP problem. Here in Texas, the GOP is thinking about/doing something to deal with RINOs (i.e. making candidates with GOP labels basically say "here is our platform, we agree with these points").
The issue to me isn't whether a person is a RINO. The question is: do they govern to the right of their constituency. If we could elect a more conservative republican in a conservative state, by all means, lets lose the RINO that is holding that seat. McCain is a good example. Arizona would elect someone much more conservative than he.
But most of the notorious RINOs like Jeffords are from states that are to the left of Stalingrad. The alternative there is not a more conservative republican; but a democrat. That alternative would mean no conservative judges confirmed to the appeals courts by the senate, even though our president is trying to appoint good conservatives.
If you want to change things, you have to be willing to exercise political power. To exercise political power, you need a party, a big one. In America today, the only game in town for conservatives is the Republican party. But too many people want to sit and complain about the party; and do nothing more. They are ceding their right to whine if they do nothing. I am not speaking about you. You are obviously interested in being involved and doing something. My suggestion is to gather influence in the party by whatever means works for you and then USE IT.
Sir,I resume my pen, in reply to the curious epistle, you have been pleased to favour me with; and can assure you, that, notwithstanding, I am naturally of a grave and phlegmatic disposition, it has been the source of abundant merriment to me. The spirit that breathes throughout is so rancorous, illiberal and imperious: The argumentative part of it so puerile and fallacious: The misrepresentations of facts so palpable and flagrant: The criticisms so illiterate, trifling and absurd: The conceits so low, steril and splenetic, that I will venture to pronounce it one of the most ludicrous performances, which has been exhibited to public view, during all the present controversy.
You have not even imposed the laborious task of pursuing you through a labyrinth of subtilty. You have not had ability sufficient, however violent your efforts, to try the depths of sophistry; but have barely skimmed along its surface. I should, almost, deem the animadversions, I am going to make, unnecessary, were it not, that, without them, you might exult in a fancied victory, and arrogate to yourself imaginary trophies.
But while I pass this judgment, it is not my intention to detract from your real merit. Candour obliges me to acknowledge, that you possess every accomplishment of a polemical writer, which may serve to dazzle and mislead superficial and vulgar minds; a peremptory dictatorial air, a pert vivacity of expression, an inordinate passion for conceit, and a noble disdain of being fettered by the laws of truth. These, Sir, are important qualifications, and these all unite in you, in a very eminent degree. . .
Alexander Hamilton " The Farmer Refuted" 1775
Just kidding. A reminder that no matter how rough the debate gets here, it is nothing new.
Sounds like you desire a website characteristic of snot-nosed, pecksniffian academic pedants using bombastic bloviating bilge, boring and barren, but supposedly "civilized"; with poster's worth ranked of course by people like yourself. Why don't you collect a list of the "undesirables" and petition Jim Robinson to personally remove them from this website? I'm hoping to be the first to be banned when the New Web Order descends upon this site and makes it a mutual admiration society for selective commentary.
WOW!
All I put forth, by way of analogy, was an idea that world facilitate, foster and help elementary learners/writers/teachers a means to improve and make more effective their writing by studying high school level writing and college level writing. And basically the same for high school learners/writers/teachers. Every lurker and poster could read any forum and post to the forum that had similar skill level of writing and teaching.
For me it really started to crash home to me about the time I heard "Islam is a religion og peace." Up to that point I had just gotten bored with this "New Tone" boring guy we had elected President.
He couldn't give a decent speech and regularly made stupid facial expressions at the most inoportune moments. Actually I had started to mostly ignore him. I remember thinking "Gee, this is how I felt about politics back in my younger days. Nixon. What a twerp. This one's just a dweeb. BORING."
But then 9/11 happened and one HAD to pay attention again. Islam is a religion og peace. Then news of immigration going on as per usual. Not even a crimp in Middle East immigration. That wasn't one of W's lies ... just abject wholly irresponible failute.
Then there was the pc conduct of the so called war on terrorism. My God! It was as if a bunch of girls were calling the shots.
Then there was his dispicable treatment of Israel in the face of it's non stop terror siege. This goes on today. But it suits W's PC sensitivities to just let Israel twist in the wind. No Bush doctrine here.
Then there was campaign finance. Then there was the farm bill. Then Global Warming.
These are just my own personal highlights. Of course he has violated several other of his so called positions. The man is a walking talking joke. I am embarassed to have voted for him.
I see now you are a "Buddhist"?
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.