Replies

It has been somewhat regrettable reading all these opposing replies on the various threads. Appears that each opposing position holds to their stated facts/events of various Administration actions/inactions with strong convictions. Then the attack of one's held belief/conviction is soon answered with personal attacks. This has happened from BOTH sides.

Your statement

It isn't the Bush bashing that gets me, that's OK, and Dubya will be fine in spite of these guys. It's the bashing of anyone who supports the president that pisses me off.

can readily be modified to reflect the opinions of the other side.

It isn't the Bush ~~bashing~~ bootlicks that gets me, that's OK, and Dubya will be fine in spite of these guys. It's the bashing of anyone who ~~supports~~ criticizes/questions the president that pisses me off.

I discern 'incoming' emotions from both sides. The President isn't perfect nor are his policies, positions. Yet this forum goes round and round either questioning or defending this Administration. Perhaps it is time to agree to disagree. To perceive the goal in 2002/2004.

I envision that some first time FR visitor may equate:

Bush-bot = Clinton enablers/apologists

Bush Bashers = Clinton haters.

We are indeed eating our own.

Examine your own posts, this one here, and the article that you posted earlier: "A Few Questions For Die-Hard Bush Supporters".

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