Posted on 02/21/2006 12:32:20 PM PST by Brian Mosely
ABOARD AIR FORCE ONE (AP) — President Bush says the deal allowing an Arab company to take over six major U.S. seaports should go forward and he will veto any bill that would stop it.
No, I can't imagine gathering together with some of you.
No offense. Just can't imagine it.
Well, evidently it's one of those posts where the poster just throws something out and hopes it will smear somebody, then says "I don't want to go any further because I'm such a swell guy..."
Of course, it's been 50 posts, he's replied to others, so I'm assuming he doesn't have the guts to answer.
Whatever helps you sleep.
I'm sure hundreds of posters have chimed in, but, FR used to be the premier place for researching actual facts. Now, it's just the same as DU without swear words.
Scamper off please!
A) You don't know a thing about Alan Keyes' relationship with his daughter. You know only what hostile leftist haters with an agenda have said about it in the left-wing press, and that's it.
B) You have railed on those who made snarky comments about people's families in the past. Rightly so, in fact, in one instance I seem to remember.
So, once again you show yourself to be a hypocrite in the first degree.
There, you happy now? (As if you're ever 'happy'...)
Liz Taylor gives me the creepy-crawlies.
Nobody asked you if you could imagine and given your posts here, I seriously doubt you'd fit in.
No worries. Some folks aren't fit to leave the confines of their trailors. (Sorry, couldn't resist)
Yeah, well, at least reparateions isn't THE issue that separates the conservative from the liberal, or Reagan would've been in trouble. ;-)
Ok sink. I know Christianity stems from Catholocism.
The point here is that the America is taking a step in the wrong direction, and all you can do is wave your poms for Team Bush.
LOL! I wish I;d said that.
I don't buy any of your faulty logic. An economy built on corruption should indeed fall.
LOL! That's certainly true! :)
Speaking of hypocrites, it took you 82 posts and that's all you could come up with?
And I see you have now deemed it politically expedient for you and Keyes to declare a statement of fact as a snarky comment.
Good to know.
That would be news to the Orthodox Church.
Neither did I.
That was purely representative of McCain's vendetta against GWB, and job security for his Sunday morning appearances.
Yep.
The two made a backroom deal and Dubya caved.
Not quite. Everyone save nine Senators caved. Had the President VETO'd the defense bill with this amendment, the Senate by 2/3rd's margin would have overridden the VETO. Under the circumstances at very least the signing statement gave a questionable "out" to the legislation that would not have been present if he merely VETO'd the bill. Obviously it will head to the Courts eventually, I only hope not until another Justice or two is gone. Under the circumstances I support the administrations move on this, though I did share your view prior to learning of the signing statement. Absent that move, I would and di agre a VETO was the only responsible step even given a guarenteed 2/3rd's override.
By the way, Bush's veto threat over Port-gate doesn't encourage the rational discussion you would like to see, does it? He's already signalled our views are pointless.
Was it you, or another, I responded to on that point? No matter, I'll repeat it again. Asserting the port deal will be killed by whatever means necessary by several legislators is what prompted the VETO threat. HE didn't instigate this foolishness the precludes rational debate. I certainly don't think the admin has gone well about making their case for the deal, but reject your statement here given the context you omitted.
Conservatives call for the veto when the legislation is socialist. What's flip-floppish about that?
In otherwords, when it serves to end a policy you are in disagreement about it is acceptable. You are right. In that instance it is not flip floppish. It is hypocritical.
You can either be in favor of the VETO, or against. One or the other. Attempting to decry use of it on a deal you are against while throwing up arms he doesn't use when you demand? You can't honestly expect respect for this position? By same token I suppose we must decry filibusters when a Judge like brown is before us, but embrace them when Ginsberg is before us? For a partisan that position is logical. For any other it is wrong.
For good or for ill I stand against use of filibusters against Judges in either a Liberal or conservative admin, and I stand in favor of the VETO whether or not I favor the legislation it is used against.
Good, I'll stick to Conservative gatherings. I prefer Patriots and other assorted Conservatives.
My entire family is campaigning for the guy. He's got it.
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.