Posted on 07/05/2005 9:37:54 PM PDT by Brian_Baldwin
Tone what down, Mr. Bush? Who are you talking to?
To conservatives?
I think he is.
And I think Laura Ingraham, thinks he is, too.
And, proud of God Knows What, he slighted the conservatives who are suppose to sit around and watch their hair turn white as year after year after year after year betrayal, and now having given so much to put the Republicans and the Bush family BACK in power, who believed the oath Bush gave to church leaders, to conservative leaders, in back door meetings, when lots of money exchanged hands, and money from common people hard earned, and who told the common people all over this nation that he will fight to put a conservative on the bench, and now this from Mr. Peepers he tells us to “tone it down”? Laura Ingraham told Bush tonight, no YOU Bush, you tone it down. Don’t hush us. You hush. You listen. The House, The Senate, The White House, years and years in the making, and now it’s all yours, conservatives who ground down for you, and when it is time, you tell us to tone it down? Squander another 20 years?
Oh, I see. Really. Well, maybe you tone it down Mr. President, or perhaps as some are now calling you Mr. Peepers. Or should I be more respectful?
You tone it down when you talk to conservatives about this vital issue, this nomination to the Court. You better listen. If you told us a lie, you are going to really see who can make hell regarding “Bush Lied”, and it won’t be coming from the Left who are going to make you eat your own words.
You come to the conservatives, to the heroes, to the Patriots, willingly this time. That is more than just good advice, it's real good advice. Respect your family? You respect our families, and everything they have done for you. Your friends? Your loyalties? Who has been your friend, and gave you loyalty? You now need to respect our families, our loyalties. But if you will not approach my friends, my conservatives, with affection, of your own free will, you can take your family and your loyalty to your friends (in power) and you can sit and ride a dead horse right to where you are going, Mr. President.
Don’t you tell me about how the illegal aliens “do the work”, the work that Americans “won’t do”. Don’t you tell me what I would do or not do to support my family. How dare you. And you don’t tell us to tone it down. How dare you, again. Not this time.
Ugly words? You haven’t even heard it yet.
lol
Alberto Gonzales has called Roe v. Wade "inviolate", which means he supports abortion on demand.
Well from the tone this thread is taking you may be right about the possible personal attacks I may have missed.
That would be too bad. Nevertheless I hope President Bush does not use a kinder, gentler, compassionate decision making process for selecting a nominee for the SC.
Although I must admit, there is nothing more kinder or gentler or compassionate,
than
saving a baby
No he has not. He has made ONE ruling on abortion as a judge and it was on a Texas parental notification law that, in his opinion, did not pass constitutional muster. It forced Texas to revise the law in a way that would pass. His ruling actually shielded Texas law from being struck down by higher courts. He is a strong Catholic and is not an abortion supporter. Have you heard any Catholic groups yelling at Bush not to nominate him?
I don't, for a moment, believe that Laura said 1/2 the things that the coward who put this moronic vanity attributed to her, but IF she had, then there was nothing "vicious" in my post. I stated facts. Her engagement was broken; that has an effect on people and the way they think. She has breast cancer; that to is a physical and mental shock. Chemo effects people differently and yes, can addled the thinking processes. I didn't wish her to die from any or all of these factors.
I have, sadly, known and loved many women who have DIED from cancer. I know, intimately, what they went through. And most of them, were more intelligent, Conservative, and politically savvy than Laura ever will be, so put that in your pipe and smoke it!
GOD only knows what it is that you imagine you saw in my post, but I suggest that if anyone here has a "cult mentality", it is you, as a fanatic for this talking head.
Sad that you seem to be okay with selling conservative values downriver for ANOTHER 20 years just because you're offended with a little tough aimed at seeing an originalist with those values on the Supreme Court. Perhaps you'd have preferred that Patrick Henry "tone it down"?
I, for one, am perfectly happy to hear someone give it to the President straight up; I sure would, given the opportunity. I am under no illusion that framing the call for an originalist in dulcet tones would aid in bringing the President face-to-face with the profile the Court needs now and the will of the People to make it happen.
No. Let the message be delivered in stark terms: the mass of the Republic may well rest wholly upon this and the next one or two nominees, and THIS President will likely be the one to select them all. At such a dire juncture, one ought feel no reluctance to dispense with decorous formailties in order that clarity is assured.
So, then, I add my own voice to the ranks:
Mr. President, you will do well to remember all who have labored to put you where you are; to give you majorities in both houses of Congress; to back you up at the polls, at the UN, and in the court of Public Opinion. We, the People have stood up for you, Mr. President, and NOW we are calling in our chips. We want a conservative, constitutional originalist on the Supreme Court, Mr. President. That is what we will settle for, and no less. You will nominate someone of that stripe. You will exercise your political muscle to shepherd that nominee through the Senate. You will have as many 'come to Jesus' meetings with as many Senators as it takes to bring them around to your way of thinking. You will not shrink, shirk or waffle, Mr. President. You will persevere.
THIS is why we put you back in the White House. Not for "four more years", but for two or three good originalist Supreme Court justices. What you do with this opportunity and any like it that may follow, will define the whole of your Presidential legacy for the Ages. Upon this and any following nominations to the Supreme Court, you will either rise to the vault of the heavens or sink into utter ignominy and, in either case, Mr. President, know that none of your core supporters will do so much as raise a pinky finger to "tone it down."
The difference is that Latinos are the biggest majority now.
One hombre one vote.
Damn, how much do you think Hillary had to pay to buy that little of bit of air time? You just know she (Hillary) went all gooey inside when she heard it.
Now that you mention it, Laura--kinda reminiscent of Klinton pointing his finger at America through that nationwide camera....
ALLOWED? Do the women in your family seek permission to hold views? Who exactly in your family ALLOWS the women to hold opinions?
As it stands now, Roe V Wade IS the law of the land and as a strict Constructionist,must needs be upheld, until a case comes along, which enables the judges to change it. Elsewise, you have an ACTIVIST JUDGE, which is what, supposedly you don't want. You can't say that you want a strict Constructionist, unless, of course, something you want done, pops up.
And just WHO did she want to "tone down"...the president?
This whole VERY stupid Gonzales thing is a wedge that the damned Dems are driving. That so many here have fallen into their trap is what is truly reprehensible and utterly disgusting.
Touche.
You mentioned wisdom. It is often wise to take the opportunity not to put each brain fart into words as you have done here.
BINGO
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.