An Open letter to Jim Robinson: Can the Bush-Bashers

none ^ | today | me

[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

[Darth Sidious]

90 plus percent of conservatives approve of the way George W. Bush is conducting himself as the president of the United States.

And a comparable percent of Germans approved of the way Adolf Hitler was conducting himself as chancellor of Germany.

Polls are meaningless.

[NittanyLion]

Well, FR's level of detail and insight is certainly not what it once was. Your idea is definitely worthy fo discussion, though it's received none (far as I can tell). Would posters be rated by the forum or by selected admins?

[NittanyLion]

See, that post would put you solidly in the "elementary" level. All noise, no signal.

[IronJack]

What President Bush is doing is not betraying the conservative cause. He is using politics to confound the left.

What he is doing is using politics to confound the Right! Unlike those who blindly support any official with the correct letter behind their name, there are many here who are willing to see George Bush for what he is. And his agenda, campaign jabber notwithstanding, has been at best moderate, but is certainly not aligned with the conservative Right.

When he caved on Campaign Finance Reform, it opened my eyes. If he yields on the gun control issue, it's all over for him.

Those who do not understand this are either leftists themself or unable to separate themselves from their zealousness.

Typically arrogant judgment from someone willing to suspend all criticism of a politician just because he happens to be from the "right" ranks. I have no desire to "separate" myself from my zealousness. Because that zeal is on behalf of my conservative principles, and the survival of my nation. George Bush isn't doing much to advance either of those causes, so at best isn't much of a friend. Pardon me if I don't genuflect when his name is spoken.

As to censoring criticism of Bush, Jim is free to do as he pleases. But in my opinion it would be foolish to crush dissent in the name of preserving unity. It would be far better to air our grievances with this administration, and perhaps, in doing so, communicate our dissatisfaction. That way, maybe some prescient staffer could let the president know that there is at least a handful of vocal observers who think he sucks.

[texson66]

So you want an ARGUMENT, eh???

The Argument Sketch

From "Monty Python's Previous Record" and "Monty Python's Instant Record Collection" Originally transcribed by Dan Kay (dan@reed.uucp) Fixed up and Added "Complaint" and "Being Hit On The Head lessons" Aug/ 87 by Tak Ariga (tak@gpu.utcs.toronto.edu)

The Cast (in order of appearance.)

M= Man looking for an argument

R= Receptionist

Q= Abuser

A= Arguer (John Cleese)

C= Complainer (Eric Idle)

H= Head Hitter

M: Ah. I'd like to have an argument, please.

R: Certainly sir. Have you been here before?

M: No, I haven't, this is my first time.

R: I see. Well, do you want to have just one argument, or were you thinking of taking a course?

M: Well, what is the cost?

R: Well, It's one pound for a five minute argument, but only eight pounds for a course of ten.

M: Well, I think it would be best if I perhaps started off with just the one and then see how it goes.

R: Fine. Well, I'll see who's free at the moment.

Pause

R: Mr. DeBakey's free, but he's a little bit conciliatory. Ahh yes, Try Mr. Barnard; room 12.

M: Thank you.

(Walks down the hall. Opens door.)

Q: WHAT DO YOU WANT?

M: Well, I was told outside that...

Q: Don't give me that, you snotty-faced heap of parrot droppings!

M: What?

Q: Shut your festering gob, you tit! Your type really makes me puke, you vacuous, coffee-nosed, maloderous, pervert!!!

M: Look, I CAME HERE FOR AN ARGUMENT, I'm not going to just stand...!!

Q: OH, oh I'm sorry, but this is abuse.

M: Oh, I see, well, that explains it.

Q: Ah yes, you want room 12A, Just along the corridor.

M: Oh, Thank you very much. Sorry.

Q: Not at all.

M: Thank You.

(Under his breath) Stupid git!!

(Walk down the corridor)

M: (Knock)

A: Come in.

M: Ah, Is this the right room for an argument?

A: I told you once.

M: No you haven't.

A: Yes I have.

M: When?

A: Just now.

M: No you didn't.

A: Yes I did.

M: You didn't

A: I did!

M: You didn't!

A: I'm telling you I did!

M: You did not!!

A: Oh, I'm sorry, just one moment. Is this a five minute argument or the full half hour?

M: Oh, just the five minutes.

A: Ah, thank you. Anyway, I did.

M: You most certainly did not.

A: Look, let's get this thing clear; I quite definitely told you.

M: No you did not.

A: Yes I did.

M: No you didn't.

A: Yes I did.

M: No you didn't.

A: Yes I did.

M: No you didn't.

A: Yes I did.

M: You didn't.

A: Did.

M: Oh look, this isn't an argument.

A: Yes it is.

M: No it isn't. It's just contradiction.

A: No it isn't.

M: It is!

A: It is not.

M: Look, you just contradicted me.

A: I did not.

M: Oh you did!!

A: No, no, no.

M: You did just then.

A: Nonsense!

M: Oh, this is futile!

A: No it isn't.

M: I came here for a good argument.

A: No you didn't; no, you came here for an argument.

M: An argument isn't just contradiction.

A: It can be.

M: No it can't. An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.

A: No it isn't.

M: Yes it is! It's not just contradiction.

A: Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position.

M: Yes, but that's not just saying 'No it isn't.'

A: Yes it is!

M: No it isn't!

A: Yes it is!

M: Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes.

(short pause)

A: No it isn't.

M: It is.

A: Not at all.

M: Now look.

A: (Rings bell) Good Morning.

M: What?

A: That's it. Good morning.

M: I was just getting interested.

A: Sorry, the five minutes is up.

M: That was never five minutes!

A: I'm afraid it was.

M: It wasn't.

Pause

A: I'm sorry, but I'm not allowed to argue anymore.

M: What?!

A: If you want me to go on arguing, you'll have to pay for another five minutes.

M: Yes, but that was never five minutes, just now. Oh come on!

A: (Hums)

M: Look, this is ridiculous.

A: I'm sorry, but I'm not allowed to argue unless you've paid!

M: Oh, all right.

(pays money)

A: Thank you.

short pause,/p>

M: Well?

A: Well what?

M: That wasn't really five minutes, just now.

A: I told you, I'm not allowed to argue unless you've paid.</p.

M: I just paid!

A: No you didn't.

M: I DID!

A: No you didn't.

M: Look, I don't want to argue about that.

A: Well, you didn't pay.

M: Aha. If I didn't pay, why are you arguing? I Got you!

A: No you haven't.

M: Yes I have. If you're arguing, I must have paid.

A: Not necessarily. I could be arguing in my spare time.

M: Oh I've had enough of this.

A: No you haven't.

M: Oh Shut up.

(Walks down the stairs. Opens door.)

M: I want to complain.

C: You want to complain! Look at these shoes. I've only had them three weeks and the heels are worn right through.

M: No, I want to complain about...

C: If you complain nothing happens, you might as well not bother.

M: Oh!

C: Oh my back hurts, it's not a very fine day and I'm sick and tired of this office.

(Slams door. walks down corridor, opens next door.)

M: Hello, I want to... Ooooh!

H: No, no, no. Hold your head like this, then go Waaah. Try it again.

M: uuuwwhh!!

H: Better, Better, but Waah, Waah! Put your hand there.

M: No.

H: Now..

M: Waaaaah!!!

H: Good, Good! That's it.

M: Stop hitting me!!

H: What?

M: Stop hitting me!!

H: Stop hitting you?

M: Yes!</p.

H: Why did you come in here then?

M: I wanted to complain.

H: Oh no, that's next door. It's being-hit-on-the-head lessons in here.

M: What a stupid concept.

[Starwind]

LOL - The only thing missing are hyperlinks to other posts!

[NMC EXP]

An open letter to all who support censorship and the banning of those with opinions different from your own.

Click on the "About" link at FreeRepublic and this is what you will find:

========================================================

About Free Republic

Who are we? Free Republic is a loosely organized group of grassroots Americans who support our Constitution and look for honesty, integrity and honor from those in government. Like millions of Americans, we are fed up with our out of control federal government. Therefore, we are working together to roll back decades of liberal/socialist public policy and eliminate the waste, fraud, abuse and corruption pervasive in Washington today.

Most of the visitors to the Free Republic website are attracted to our very popular (and addictive) conservative forum for two basic reasons: First, this is a fast moving forum where you can often find breaking news and up to the minute updates. But, most importantly, visitors are encouraged to comment on the news of the day here, and especially to contribute whatever information they may have to help others better understand a particular story.

"FReeping" at the March for Justice

Free Republic is the group who put on the nationally televised "March for Justice" rally in October 1998 at the Washington Monument in Washington D.C. and the "Judgment Day" rally on the Capitol steps in December. The events were viewed by many in Congress and caused quite a stir in Washington and the press. We feel that they, along with the dozens of smaller events put on by Free Republic Chapters all around the country, helped change the tide against the President which eventually led to his impeachment.

Be sure to attend our next national rally, the "Tribute to the House Managers" Dinner and Rally which is scheduled for May 4th, 1999. There will be a rally during the day and a dinner honoring the House Impeachment Managers in the evening. This will be an unique, once in a lifetime, opportunity to meet and discuss the impeachment with the Congressmen involved.

Free Republic was founded in 1996 by Jim Robinson, a private citizen from Fresno, California. Funding for Free Republic is provided strictly by donations from our membership and readers. We have close to 20,000 registered members as of this writing (March 1999) and we are receiving an average of 50,000 to 100,000 "hits" per day to our web site from tens of thousands of people throughout the country and around the world.

Incidentally, we have been told that "everyone" on Capitol Hill reads Free Republic everyday. Some notables who are "FReepers" or who have participated in our rallies or activism events include: Dr. Alan Keyes, Gary Aldrich, Larry Klayman, Mark Levin, Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, Congressman Bob Barr, Dr. Paul Fick, Matt Drudge, Bob Tyrell, "Peter the Lawyer", James Golden (Bo Snerdley), Reed Irvine, Joyce ‘ReJoice’ Smith, Rev. Jesse Peterson, Linda Tripp, Juanita Broaddrick, L.D. Brown, Patrick Knowlton, Billy Dale and many, many others.

Free Republic is a grassroots organization and we are forming chapters in all states. Please check our Chapters page for the Free Republic Chapter near you. And please feel welcome to join Free Republic today. You will be among great friends and patriots, and together, we will make a difference.

Free Republic is not affiliated with any political party, news source, government agency or any other entity.

What is our mission? Free Republic is dedicated to reversing the trend of unconstitutional government expansion and is advocating a complete restoration of our constitutional republic. Listed below are some of the issues we feel strongly about.

Basically, we believe that the Founders designed our system of government in the form of a constitutionally limited republic, with maximum freedom intended for the people and minimum government control or interference into our personal lives and business affairs.

The united states of America was intended to be a federation of sovereign states, each with its own constitution and state government. Governments at all levels -- federal, state and local -- were to be controlled by the people. Our Constitution explicitly restricts the power of our federal government; and our Bill of Rights guarantees that NO government may infringe upon our God given unalienable rights. This is to ensure that the real power remains close to home, with the states, the local governments and always in the hands of the people.

We the People have granted our federal government limited powers to oversee certain things, such as national defense, interstate commerce, the postal service, the coining of money, and the operation of a court system. Most other powers now in the hands of the federal government were illegally usurped from the states and from the people. Somehow, over the years, our guiding principles of law, as set forth in the Constitution, have been eroded to the point that the federal government now has total control -- leaving the states impotent and the people as captive servants to the federal government. This must be reversed if we are to survive as a free Republic and a free people. We at Free Republic are determined to return the Constitution to its rightful place as the Supreme Law of the land as the Founders intended.

It is not necessary for everyone to hold the same views to be members of Free Republic, however, many of us do share many of the following as common beliefs and goals:

· The preservation and complete restoration of our Constitution and Bill of Rights with special emphasis on the first, second, fourth, fifth, sixth, ninth and tenth amendments and, of course, our right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness -- free of government intervention. · We call for the repeal of the 17th amendment, which will reverse the independence of the Senate and reestablish the Senate as a representative of the State governments, as intended by the Founding Fathers. This arrangement was intended to be a critical check against illegal federal expansion over the States, and the people residing in the various States, and will act to return the powers not granted to the federal government, as enumerated in the Constitution, to the states. · We call for the repeal of the 16th amendment and to abolish the income tax and the IRS. Revenues to the federal government should come from excise taxes and tariffs. · We call for the repeal of the Emergency and War Powers Acts, an end to all national emergencies and a ban on the unilateral creation of law by Presidential edict. We are also working for the repeal all laws created by unconstitutional and extraconstitutional devices, such as Executive Order or Presidential Directive.

Repeal of the war and emergency powers acts and the various states of national emergencies will allow the abolishing of all unconstitutional federal law, agencies and departments. This will return us to a Federalist system of government and return many responsibilities to the States and personal rights to the citizens.

A return to a strictly Constitutional form of federal government will automatically repeal and abolish all unconstitutional federal involvement in states issues such as: crime, health, education, welfare and the environment. The Tenth Amendment will again be in effect, which will bar all federal attempts at legislating social issues. This will also require that social programs such as Social Security, welfare and Medicare be repealed. So too, will most federal subsidies.

· We further call for the rescinding of all treaties and/or International Agreements which are not in perfect agreement with the federal government’s Constitutionally mandated task of protecting the rights of the people.

· We believe that the United States should disassociate itself from the U.N. and that the U.N. should be forced to leave the United States. Furthermore, we demand that the federal government refrain from meddling in the business and squabbles of foreign nations, unless there is an imminent threat to the people of the United States.

· We also call for the strengthening of our military and defenses; the effective control over illegal immigration and smuggling; the paying down the national debt; and strict control over federal agencies like the CIA and the FBI.

NOTE: Free Republic does NOT condone bigotry or violence and does NOT advocate an overthrow of the government.

=====================================================

Many if not most of you have never read this mission statement. Many of those who have ignore what it says.

Read it for the first time or read it again and refer me to the part where it is written that Constitutionists and libertarians are not to be tolerated at FreeRepublic.

A rhetorical question on my part because no such clause exists. This forum is about a return to a constitutional form of government and individual liberty.

Regards

J.R.

[makoman]

Hey it is good to know your enemy! The DemonRats Underground can count on this Freeper being around. I do not disrupt, I mislead! There is a difference there. If you want to counter their disruption, blend in and confuse the already confused.

[SuperLuminal]

Hmmm! Over the past 4 years, most rants like your's have been written by scumbag klintonistas.

Their goals:

• Cause dissention among Freepers;
• Waste bandwidth; and,
• Further any other commie cause.

  Not much evidence here that things have changed......

[Poohbah]

There are several flavors of "Bush Basher" on this forum. The worst of breed are the folks who sandbagged the GOP in 1992 and 1996. They have refused to vote Republican because their candidate didn't get the nomination. In 2000, they slow-rolled the GOP one more time, figuring that they'd prefer President Gore as long as they could say that they put him in office. Surprise, surprise! The GOP won without their vote. Now they're PO'd beyond words, because their threat to bolt the party isn't relevant anymore.

You can recognize them in the following ways:

• They joined in late 2000 or later
• They usually claim to have Freeped Gore
• They demand that Bush do their exact bidding on their one pet issue
• They demand that Bush not compromise one whit despite the hostile Senate
• They mention Reagan and claim he didn't compromise at all (he did)
• They post "Bush has lost my vote with THIS move" every couple of weeks, ofthen in opus-like vanities
• They throw names like "Bush-bot" around

They aren't worth banning.

[RedBloodedAmerican]

You forgot:

They support "other" conservatives who make their living trashing Bush out of ignorance.

[RedBloodedAmerican]

I think Big Guy's post was referring to the people who do the exact thing you mentioned. Instead of writing this post, maybe he should copy and paste your comment into each thread where these posters exist. It would fit, wouldn't it?

[RedBloodedAmerican]

Seen this thread? Please take the time to read it.

[Poohbah]

Good grief, how could I have forgotten that?

Yup, they're usually Keyesters (in the Reagan sense of what he'd had it up to with leaks), McCainiacs, Buchananites, and Phillipians.

[NMC EXP]

If you want to criticize someone's position on some policy, have at it. But do not trash or smear the man. That would include Browne, Buchanan, Bush, Keyes, et al, or whomever else may be your favorite trashee
--Jim Robinson

Perfectly consistent with Mr. Robinson's mission statement for FreeRepublic. An observation with which you disagree I assume.

Did you read and understand the mission statement?

Regards

J.R.

[Publius6961]

We need to expose these bashers for who they are and the Agendas they have!

There's an easier way: ignore them.
I can usually tell the contents by the headline or by the first paragraph.

I never respond to a idiot post; life is too short.
Same thing with a Hilary or a Chelsea or a First rapist post; What do I care what they are "up to"?

[faintpraise]

Is it Bush-bashing to still oppose the usual log-rolling that continually expands government power and spending regardless of which party is in power? Should we abandon our limited government ideals and make nice whenever a Republican is presiding over the pork and bureaucracy?

[Ms. AntiFeminazi]

Hahaha. Hrm. Between? and who would win? lol.

Can't wait to see your reply on this one. ;)

[William Terrell]

Bush-Bashers do not wait for the facts to come out or try to find out the president's strategy, they just jump. Everyone bashed bush because of the Global Warming report, then they found out what it really meant. it is sort of like the media reporting that the Supreme Court came out in favor of Gore in Bush v. Gore until they read the actual decision.

The following was posted by Uncle Bill on another thread. Is this what you consider "Bush bashing"? Do you have any excuse for not keeping up with facts as they develop? I'd take a long and hard look at the activities of politicians and get off the loyalty-no-matter-what kick. Tell me, Oh GreatNonthinkingBushFan, again about what Gore would do if elected.

---

Press Briefing - June 5, 2002
"Q Ari, if I could change subjects for a second. This morning you said that the President quoted a speech, indicating that the President believes that human activity is largely responsible for the increase in greenhouse gases. But I'm wondering if he also agrees with an EPA report which indicated that human activity is likely the cause of global warming?

MR. FLEISCHER: Let me just read from the President's statement of June 11th on global warming, and let me read from the recent report the EPA submitted to the United Nations. And I think you'll hear that on the key issues, they really sound very, very similar. This is the President on June 11th in the Rose Garden, in a speech where he announced his global warming policies.

"Concentration of greenhouse gases, especially C02, have increased substantially since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. And the National Academy of Sciences indicate that the increase is due in large part to human activity." That's the President himself speaking.

Here is from the report, page 4, that was just submitted to the United States by the EPA: "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as the result of human activities, causing global mean surface temperature and subsurface ocean temperature to rise. While the changes observed over the last several decades are due most likely to human activities, we cannot rule out that some significant part is also a reflection of natural variability." And I think what you're hearing is the same thing.

Q I'm glad you make the connection explicitly, since the President addressed greenhouse gases, but not specifically global warming. Does the President agree with the conclusion that human activity is likely the cause of global warming?

MR. FLEISCHER: That's what the President said in his speech in June.

Q That's not exactly what he said. He does agree with it?

MR. FLEISCHER: When the President cites the National Academy of Science as saying that the National Academy of Science indicates that the increase is due in large part to human activity, I don't know how the President could say it more specifically than that.

Q He hasn't changed his mind at all?

MR. FLEISCHER: No. Here's -- the bottom line for the President is, number one, he has made a proposal that he believes is a proposal that not only can reduce the problem of greenhouse gases and global warming, but also protects the American economy, so the American economy can lead the world in technological and scientific advances that also have an effect in reducing pollution.

The President has said, citing the National Academy of Sciences, that the increase is due in large part to human activity. The President has also continued, citing both, now this report the EPA has sent to the United Nations, previous evidence from the National Academy of Sciences, that there's uncertainty -- and the recent report notes that there is considerable uncertainty. That's the state of science, and the President agrees with it. I don't think people dispute that.

Q Its uncertainty, but he can still draw that conclusion, that --

MR. FLEISCHER: He didn't June 11th.

Q He didn't exactly do it, but you're saying it now.

MR. FLEISCHER: Again, when the President cites a report by the National Academy of Sciences that indicates the increase is due in large part to human activity, I think you have two reports that are very similar.

Q Why was he --

Q Why did he call it the bureaucracy yesterday?

MR. FLEISCHER: I think the EPA issued a report that says the same thing. And I think the President was also reflecting about some of the way it was covered, that made it sound as if the report was somehow inconsistent with what he had said previously.

Q I don't think he reflected at all, he just said that, I saw it put out by a bureaucracy. What did he reflect on?

MR. FLEISCHER: I'm sharing with you his insights."
Ari Fleischer Sound Bite

---

"Christie Whitman, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency chief, said Saturday that the United States supports the goal of Kyoto but was reviewing its strategy for achieving it."

GLOBAL LYING - Thomas Sowell

Fleischer Flips Back - White House Realigns With EPA - Rush Limbaugh

G. (global) W. (warming) Bush? - Cal Thomas

Is Bush playing treaty "chicken"? - The Washington Times

Get Out the Ouija Boards - Dr. Sallie Baliunas

Say It Ain't So, George

"And now, a Republican administration will continue and complete the work of a Democratic administration. This is the way environmental policy should work."
George W. Bush, April 19, 2001, upon Patriot's Day approval of the UN's POP Treaty.

[Arkinsaw]

I DO very much mind seeing lies ( like the one you just posted ! ) used as a " fact " !

Look very carefully at my post and tell me what was a lie.