Posted on 10/14/2005 10:21:47 PM PDT by dangus
Did you ever have to tell a friend "That’s not funny. No, I mean it; that’s seriously not funny"? Then there’s that awkward moment when you’re both just sort of embarrassed? When it’s kind of painful to be friends, but you have to do something because you *are* friends. Now imagine your friend is the most powerful man in the world.
Bush may have thought that the liberals who so much hate Alberto Gonzalez were the butt of his jokes when he purposely made coy suggestions that he would nominate Gonzalez to the Supreme Court. His problem is that serious Christians and conservatives were witnessing him, too, and were horrified at the prospect of Justice Gonzalez; people who are more about the lives of tens of millions of unborn babies that tweaking the liberal press corps.
Now, Bush says, “trust me.” How can we? We still don’t know that he was joking about Alberto Gonzalez.
Gonzalez is worse than your typical, garden-variety professor-type liberal. He’s a political liberal who’s willing to slander other people to feign moderateness. He’s a God-damned liar.
You know that case in Texas where he claimed he didn’t really vote pro-abortion; he just refused to be an activist judge and read into the law what he wished it said? He lied. And he slandered his conservative colleagues, ruining their hopes of going to the Supreme Court.
Gonzalez claims the parental consent law was flawed, and so he had to strike it down, being the strict constructionist that he was. I sharply disagree; Gonzalez had to define the parental-consent law in the narrowest possible terms, and other laws in the widest possible terms to come to that conclusion. That makes him a liberal, but it doesn’t make him a liar.
What makes him a liar is that the dissent wasn’t even over whether the law should be interpreted widely or narrowly; it was that his court had no basis to hear the case. Appeals courts decide matters of law, not matters of fact. Gonzalez’ majority had to throw out a finding of a matter of fact by the trial judge to make the matter of law an issue in the case, a bizarre motion of extremist activism which the dissent noted overturned a century of jurisprudence in Texas. They were too kind; it threw out a millennium of jurisprudence in the Anglosphere. (Oh, I’m sorry... We follow the laws of the “Hispanosphere” now, don’t we?)
And to keep the case from becoming moot, Gonzalez’ majority had to authorize an unprecedented middle-of-the-night ruling to ensure that woman had the opportunity to murder her baby immediately. How can he say he believes abortion is legal murder when he twisted the law to let a woman get an abortion?
No, Mr. President, we're not calling YOU a liar; we do not trust your JUDGMENT if you could trust a man such as Gonzalez.
He looked deep into the soul of Vladimir Putin, and found a soulmate.
He thought he could win over the French, – The French ! The French, who sponsored the genocide in Rwanda, announced their kinship with the Chicoms, and plotted to divide the world in two, the Francophiles (including Iran, Al-Qaeda, China and Russia) against the Anglophiles. Those French. He thought he could win them over by appealing to their higher nature.
He thought he could trust Turkey. He thought he could trust the United Nations. He seems to still think so.
But it’s funny that while he trusts these people, he doesn’t trust “his own.”
He doesn’t trust the free markets, but instead embraced big government and spending that would Bill Clinton rejoice at being able to get away with.
He doesn’t trust American society to integrate immigrants, but instead has enforced Bill Lann Lee’s policy of mandating that any organization which receives a dime in federal funds must provide free interpretation and translation services into whatever language the illegal alien at his desk demands. (I’m referring to Executive Order 13166, issued in August 2000 by Bill Clinton. The underlying court case, Sandoval v. Alexander, was shot down by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2001, before Clinton could implement it, but Bush’s “Justice” Department brought it back from the grave. Get ready, America, for highway signs in 29 languages!)
He doesn’t trust those of us who are concerned about terrorism and illegal immigration. Instead, he presumes the Minutemen to be vigilantes. Mr. President, that’s an accusation of criminality; it’s LEGAL SLANDER. You should be ashamed of permitting your staff to commit such a misdemeanor of your office.
And he doesn’t trust that conservatives are concerned about Ms. Miers for legitimate reasons. Instead, he has his wife call us all a bunch of sexists.
We fought for you, Mr. Bush. We worked the polls; we debated liberals; we exposed their lies; we waited in line for hours to vote. We have stood by our man.
There was an article in the Washington Post about whether mixed marriages (conservatives and liberals) can work. The conclusion was that individual policy disagreements don’t break up marriages; but fundamentally different world views do. Well, conservatives have always trusted George W. Bush’s integrity, but now maybe we are starting to realize it’s the world view that makes this marriage simply not work.
He promised to be a conservative, and he has overseen the most massive increase in federal spending in history. I’m not talking funding for the war. His first instinct is always to spend money. When New Orleans destroys itself with corruption and graft, he wants to give the millionaires responsible TWO HUNDRED BILLION DOLLARS of our money. He throws trillions of dollars of extra health care spending like it’s nothing.
I used to call myself a “bleeding-heart conservative.” By that, I meant that I cared about all the issues that liberals exploit to get bleeding hearts to vote for them, but I simply did not believe that liberalism did anything but make the problems worse. Benefits to single parents, for instance, wind up simply being paying people to shack up outside of marriage.
When then–Governor Bush announced he was a “compassionate conservative,” I thought he meant what I meant. I’m starting to believe that he’s just simply soooo liberal in his world views, he thinks that “compassionate” is an adjective that moderates how conservative he is. Bernie Goldberg was right: real liberals never understand that they are liberals. A real conservative understands that conservativism IS compassionate; only someone who buys whole-heartedly the ad-hominem lies of the left could think otherwise.
Yes, George Bush is a liberal. A patriotic liberal. Maybe even an honest liberal. And in a way, I’m glad to know that there can exist honest, patriotic liberals. But hey, in 2008, what say we let the DEMOCRATS nominate one?
Good vanity. Some may flame you but I fail to see how they could refute you.
Ah, such rhetorical skills:
"Well he is breaking something but I wouldn't call it news." -- Texasforever
"Fevered brain is right." -- unsycophant
(I take it your name is meant ironically?)
"You don't trust his judgment but you vote for him? Never understood that logic." -- Americanwolfsbrother
"brain fart" -- texasforever
"Until conservatives establish that credibility, the GOP isn't going to take very kindly to their recent tirades, and all of us will continue to suffer." -- Kryptonite
"also titled....."Babble babble babble, ramble ramble ramble"" -- Rokke
"LOL! I have not read one original thought yet. Just same old, same old. Heck, I just scan the crap now, if at all." -- onyx (also missing the irony of his comments
"You are the weakest link." -- Kryptonite
"black sheep Children of the Corn Conservatives ... pathologically gargantuan egos and large amounts of hubris ... O unhinged ones." -- Neville72
Non-sequitor award goes to:
"'He thought he could win over the French...He thought he could trust Turkey. He thought he could trust the United Nations. He seems to still think so.' Hehe...you don't really believe that do you? It is a strange type of liberal that thinks reducing taxes will help the economy recover and increase tax revenues."
Hell I was being kind. Your "skills" as a writer make you qualified for any burger flipping gig in the country.
Does there need to be a discussion of the Constitutionality of a fart in breaking news and whether that is a living fart or a strictly constructed fart?
You're taking this much too personal.
This whole HANG HARRIET is bombastic hyperbole.
I trust President Bush.
If I were you I wouldn't be calling anyone stupid. How many filibusters do you need to witness before you understand that the Republicans couldn't break them and then the gang of 14 hijacked the entire process?
>> yeah you could, but thats not what you said. <<
Um, actually I did. If I say a criticism among people who know what is laudatory about a man, do I have to specifically name each laudatory thing? Can I not just name the biggest? Or do you not think honesty and patriotism are all that important?
Say what you want, I've tired of your drivel. Yours must be a sorry lonely life.AWB
brain farts... regular farts... lets not go the diversity route on this.. a fart, is a fart, is a fart... a fart by any other name smells the same.
Does there need to be a discussion of the Constitutionality of a fart in breaking news and whether that is a living fart or a strictly constructed fart?
I think we approach the fart like our founding farters did. it is a living fart and each age should interpret that fart as it applies to their epoch in time as to whether it is a breaking news fart or not.
It takes only 50 votes to rule a filibuster out of order. And none of the seven took the "nuclear option" off the table if the Democrats tried to filibuster. In fact, only two need to vote for the nuclear option, and four explicitly backed it. As did one Democrat. So that's 53 certain votes.
You want rhetorical skills? To misquote a famous movie line "You can't handle rhetoric." Posting a rambling jumble of poorly connected thoughts that offer nothing new or enlightening to a topic of discussion that has been beaten to death for well over a week on FreeRepublic, doesn't merit a rhetorical response.
What do we do if a libertarian comes along and wants to just fart all the time all over the place in the name of freedom and then posts all of it everywhere as breaking wind...I mean news?
>> thoughts that offer nothing new or enlightening to a topic of discussion that has been beaten to death for well over a week <<
Here's a thesis statement:
I trust Bush's integrity, but his public flirting with Gonzalez makes me question his judgment.
You show me the article that contains that statement.
Excuse me... Us Libertarians are smarter than that.AWB
Oh. I see. The enlightenment we've been provided is why "dangus" questions Bush's judgment. Well let me tell you, questions about that issue have been looming over this site like an elephant in the livingroom. Fevered Freepmails have been flying behind the scenes with unenlightened Freepers speculating wildly on why "dangus" questions Bush's judgment. And then tonight...ENLIGHTENMENT. Thank you dangus. And what took you so long?
AWB's comment aside about libertarians being smarter then that... I full support the libertarians striving to have the breaking news floated all over the place if in a private forum i think the need to abide by the rules of that forums owner, or by the simply majority of that forums populous. in a public forum or public spaces I think they need to be guided by the norms of society and keep their breaking news to themselves..
Nice dodging the issue. Beneath all the hystericak ranting, your post boils down to this:
Couldn't find one, could you?
>> i think the need to abide by the rules of that forums owner, <<
For the record, so do I. I never did post it in "Breaking news" because I agree that it is not. I posted it into such categories as "vanity," "commentary," "constitution," and "poltics," but not "breaking news."
Are you sad.... you personal attacks on people make me think that you are a sad person... do you need a hug?
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.