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?
was I posting to you? nope this was a converstation between me and CA guy...
What? do you think we were refering to you?
Nope we were talking about farts...
What if libertarians what to light them up to smoke them? Egads!
Nope. Not a single article other than this one explaining why you don't trust Bush. But of course, I don't have access to Nexis. I'm sure Bill Buckley or some other noted deep thinker has written about your personal hangups. Perhaps those articles will resurface now that you have published your actual thoughts on this widely pondered topic.
AWB says please see post 55 again...
But I digress....
As long as it does not violate the laws of the land so be it... it is harm to them and them alone.. :)
But if libertarians light them up (in the name of the Constitution), how is that not affecting others?
The cost to employers in liability, the cost to families and to society in general seems substantial.
>> a topic of discussion that has been beaten to death for well over a week on FreeRepublic <<
>> I don't have access to Nexis. <<
Nice try. Of course, you don't need Nexis to search Free Republic archives, so what the hell does Nexis have to do with it? You made a ridiculous, false assertion, and now you can't back it up. End of story.
What assertion are you talking about?
Your arguments here are valid, the cost could be substantial all they way around. But I question as to where do we draw the line on government being big brother in this case and let personal responsibility take its course. :)
you are sad...sad and angry... admin is there anywhere we can get him a hug?
Well if you agree with me that the cost (to others) would be substantial, then there would be no personal responsibility happening, just personal irresponsibility, right?
WTF is that supposed to mean?
>> If they had 53 certain votes then why didn't they simply have the vote? You're writing about not trusting the President's judgment but you take the gang of 7's word? If they were serious about the issue they would have addressed it right then...instead they created a little gang in the middle to sign off on the President's nominees and keep the civility of their club intact. <<
I consider motives when I decide to trust someone. The gag of seven claim to be concerned with resorting to contentious rulings. I suspect they may have been cowardly, and wanted to solve the problem (end filibusters) without the political war. What are you suggesting, that they would actually support a filibuster? Chaffee and Specter, maybe. Graham? Warner?
Keep in mind, I'm not doubting anyone's word. It's just that Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, Reagan, and Bush, Sr. all took gambles on "stealth" candidates, and, with the exception of Clarece Thomas, they lost every time. Is it too much to ask for an openly conservative nominee, now that we have more Senators than at any time since the 1920s?
OK, that's just plain wierd. Some guy just walked into my apartment, announced he was with Free Republic, and gave me a hug, and then left.
Well, he was a Marlon Brando Look-Alike, now that you mention it. Is there something wrong with that?
Ponderous!!!!! Ah the crux of society and democracy....all the freedom you could ever want or have, yet the responsibility to exercise that freedom responsibly so as to not impinge upon another's freedom. You are correct it would be personal irresponsibility occurring.
(I just saw an hysterically funny "South Park" rerun, featuring the National Association of Marlon Brando Look-Alikes.)
dang that was quick!
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.