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
The piece was written with the intention of offending supporters of president Bush, it starts with the very title.
The article is a thinly-disguised attack on the supporters of the president trying to pass itself off as a critique of some of the policies and actions of the administration. It states it's purpose early, and with little disguise. From the very opening paragraph: "If, however, you cast your vote for Bush, still believe he is the only hope for America and intend to support every move he makes without so much as a raised eyebrow, this is for you."
It continues: "D.C. Republicans assured us that he would restore integrity to the White House and would be a marked improvement over the promiscuous Bill Clinton. Well, in all honesty, that could have been accomplished by electing a neutered chimp to the office of president".
If we truly wanted a neutered chimp in the White House, we would have elected Pat Buchanan.
Now, that was a slam, and uncalled for, but so was the article. Perhaps Mr. Shelton should take time to discuss the issues (no, he did not, he simply listed some questions as an enabler to his slam on Bush supporters), instead of attacking the people who support the administration.
Mr. Shelton's last two and a half paragraphs are nothing but a direct attack on Bush supporters, and, along with the rest of the article, a slam on anyone who believes anything other than what he believes in.
Now, your own post is insulting.
You equate the word Bushbot (generally agreed to mean a mindless supporter of the administration, bad enough on its own) to a Clinton enabler/apologist. Well, to date, President Bush has yet to do something that would land an everyday citizen on jail, there's quite a bit of difference between people who defend matters of policy, and those who defend criminal actions.
Then you go on by substituting the term "Bush bashing" (my term) with your "Bush bootlick".
Now, in my post, I directed my comments at an, you however, insulted the individuals.
I've always read quite a bit of what you post in FR, and while we don't agree on quite a few issues, I find you posts usually to be well supported, and thought provoking. Yet, here you are, inciting the very actions that you criticize.
Perhaps, if you are truly concerned about how an outsider may view this site, you need (as we all do) to examine your own posts.
Luis
First of all, no one has to agree with everything Bush does. If everyone posting on FR had to comply with what was "acceptable," we would merely become as sheep. There would be a fear of saying too much, so better to say nothing. Where's the intellectual exchange which may have ensued from posting a comment which provoked a passionate debate---leading to a better understanding of the situation, and, perhaps, changed minds (not only with the poster who posted something "inflammatory")?
Second, how could any of us sharpen our understanding of those with opposing views, learn debating tactics to "win" them over, question our own minds and hearts, and "learn" why we believe what we do believe, if it weren't for dissention? And if there are truly democRats posting their liberal spew, fine, we see them for who they are and can gather their "lines of the day" and use it as a tool in our daily life, when we talk to "real people" who are democRats and liberals, knowing they will use those same "lines," have those same ideas; we'll know where they're coming from. Why? Because we've learned here what ALL the arguments are......
For the above reasons, I must respectfully disagree with you.
[...snip..] 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. [..snip...]
MR. FLEISCHER: He didn't June 11th. [...snip...]
Are these typo's? The text in the post matches the text on the WhiteHouse.gov website.
These are ostensibly quotes from a press release previously issued, but with embedded dates (June 11th) for next Tuesday? Ari Fleischer is using the same dates (and does not correct the reporter) so it's not just the reporter...So, what's up with that?
Mercy-if you cannot decipher the extraordinary, breathtakingly refreshing leadership of our President, you are hurting somewhere in your heart. Did bill klinton do this to you?
I am sorry you were called names, etc. due to some thoughtless people. I have endured the same from the Bushies.
I just find a call to banish people that are not 100% a Bushie to be obnoxious. I really hope you do not support that as i have enjoyed your posts in the past. If you do, please rethink your position.
To me, I find very little in this president to cheer about. He is no conservative, at least not in the areas that i care about (exception is that he is pro-life, thank God).
I am sure Saddam is quaking in his boots now just because the Coast Guard reports to somebody new.
HRP
Who gets banned first?
So lying while NOT under oath doesn't qualify as "unsavory"?
The knife cuts both ways. And many Bush supporters are just as prone to ignore honest intellectual argument as the supposed "infiltrators" and "extreme right wingers" they are now calling to ban from the forum.
Or none!
Dan
(Oh, hey, wait....)
And this is accomplished by supporting Republicans, not Democrats. When you dont't support a Republican or fail to vote for a REpublican, the Democrat gains the advantage. It's very simple.
It's not as simple as you think. That was the philosophy behind Dole's and others support of Jeffords whenever a real Republican wanted to primary him. Look where that got us.
Is it really too much to ask that our "conservative" president not dramatically increase spending in non-military areas? What happened to the mid-90's when our party talked of eliminating the Department of Education and the NEA? Is it too much to ask that a Republican president not dramaticaly increase their spending?
I defended W for a long time on this forum. I thought it was ok that he was not pursuing controversial domestic policies while trying to win this war, but why does he have to be a worse spender that Clinton?
If we start banning opinions we don't like, then we're no better than Scumocrat Underground or MsMagazine's FemiNazi chat room crybabies.
Liar.
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.