Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

BUSH BOT BAIT (Short Winded, but serious Vanity)
Total Vanity | Today | Me

Posted on 05/04/2002 4:24:09 PM PDT by DAnconia55

Bushbots :

Give me an intelligent reason that Bush cannot go on national TV today with the following agenda :

We must stop our dependence on foreign oil.
Arab nations are not hospitable to a relationship of peace and trade.
We can stop this by opening up all areas to oil exploration.
This may affect the lives of a few animals, but it will save the lives of many soldiers and US citizens.
We will not needlessly kill animals, but we must save families.
Democrats, led by Tom Daschle, are prohibiting us from exploring these areas for oil...


TOPICS: Miscellaneous
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-102 next last
To: MJY1288
If you want to wait I will post exactly what he said, but from memory he said during the campaign "In it's current form"

What he said was, if he believed the bill to be unconstitutional he would veto it. At the time of signing, Bush laid out the unconstitutional portions of the bill.

but I'm sure if he veto'd it you and the other 2%rs would find a way to snivel about that too.

Actually, I'm a 48%er. I voted for Bush - what, you think the only people criticizing Bush are doing so out of petty politics? Better think again.

The bill is being challenged and the President welcomes the challenge because if the 1st ammendment violation parts are removed from the bill, it is definately a plus for republicans. With "Severability" writtin into this bill was the only way President Bush said he would sign it.

First off, severability itself may not be constitutional. Second, the President should have acted responsibly in the first place and vetoed the bill, instead of keeping his fingers crossed for a SCOTUS decision.

Will you still be crying over CFR if the bad portions are removed?

My opinion will remain unchanged, yes. Politicians have no business playing roulette with our rights, regardless of the potential political payoff.

61 posted on 05/04/2002 5:14:55 PM PDT by NittanyLion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: NittanyLion
Would you vote for him right now? or would you vote for Gore or Nader?
62 posted on 05/04/2002 5:18:10 PM PDT by MJY1288
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: TaRaRaBoomDeAyGoreLostToday!
OMG! Did they call the Waaaaaambulance moderator.

I have seen the so called Bots get downright nasty and refuse to talk in any policy,issue or debate. They just post endless threads of pictures of the President. I am no Pat fan. I am just happy Clinton is gone but reserve the right to be concerned over pertinent issues.
 

Yeah they get upset that their boy is not doing so great. Bush is just not conservative enough for me. Yeah I like him a thousand times more than Clinton and Gore or any stinking demoncrat. However, I really must say that I do not like him telling Israel not to fight terrorism. I never liked Powell! Getting Arabfat (a terrorist) freed did not make much sense in my non-robot opinion. The shrub fans will call you names, attack your spelling. They will speculate about secret deals going on behind the scenes to justify stupidity. They are really no smarter than the idiots that stuck up for Clinton and Gore every single day. I could never understand how those losers could say how great Clinton was when he was a piece of crap. Now we have conservatives finding it difficult to be honest and fair as well. Dangerous!

63 posted on 05/04/2002 5:22:45 PM PDT by Democrats are liars
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: MJY1288
Would you vote for him right now? or would you vote for Gore or Nader?

First off, I would never vote for Gore or Nader. But I'm sure you knew that. I'd vote for Bush again because he's done a great job on foreign policy, but I'd be under no disillusions that I'd be getting a conservative in the White House. The 11% budget increase solidified my opinion on his handling of domestic policy, if CFR wasn't enough. The latest national ID support our of the WH only serves to support my opinion.

64 posted on 05/04/2002 5:24:03 PM PDT by NittanyLion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: TaRaRaBoomDeAyGoreLostToday!
refuse to talk in any policy,issue or debate.

A couple once tried to convince me that Bush couldn't have done anything to prevent CFR from becoming law, because only Congress and SCOTUS have a say in legislation. I kid you not, they had never heard of veto powers.

65 posted on 05/04/2002 5:29:14 PM PDT by NittanyLion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: MJY1288
push yourself away from the keyboard and start campaigning tough guy

I'll need a few years to accumulate the money. But don't worry...

66 posted on 05/04/2002 5:30:18 PM PDT by DAnconia55
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

Comment #67 Removed by Moderator

To: Democrats are liars
I voted for President Bush. We need another Reagan. Roe Vs. Wade still sits and I was excited that President Bush was going to promote adoption in our country and our yellow pages were going to have more adoption agencies then abortion clinics. He promised eliminating red tape on adoption.He has done nothing.

I wonder if the two important "C" words= conservative and constituition have a chance anymore?

68 posted on 05/04/2002 5:35:44 PM PDT by TaRaRaBoomDeAyGoreLostToday!
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: DAnconia55
The President has spoken about buying oil from regimes that don't like us, he has spoken about ANWR drilling being a matter of national security. he has discussed the obstructionism in the Senate, he has talked about being self-sufficient in energy.

Where were you when all these things were talked about?

I am proud to be a Bush supporter, and if you want to call me a Bush-bot, well, so be it. I am not intimidated by the bully tactics of the anti-Bush crowd.

Enjoy your Saturday night of flaming. I have other things to do.

69 posted on 05/04/2002 5:39:05 PM PDT by Miss Marple
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

Talk is cheap. Very cheap.
70 posted on 05/04/2002 5:41:24 PM PDT by Democrats are liars
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

Action is where it is at!
71 posted on 05/04/2002 5:42:49 PM PDT by Democrats are liars
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NittanyLion
A couple once tried to convince me that Bush couldn't have done anything to prevent CFR from becoming law, because only Congress and SCOTUS have a say in legislation. I kid you not, they had never heard of veto powers.

They also seem not to have heard of the oath of office, which the Constitution mandates that the President (as well as other elected representatives and officers) take upon assuming office, which binds the President implicitly to reject that which violates the Constitution plainly enough, as the CFR package most certainly did; unless, of course, your couple might have missed where a certain amendment, that not everyone (left or right) finds convenient all the time, mandates that Congress shall make no law...abridging freedom of speech, or of the press.... It was therefore the President's duty to veto that package, on those very grounds, and not merely shrug and say, "Oh, well, the Supremes can shoot it down, it's their job, anyway."
72 posted on 05/04/2002 6:21:32 PM PDT by BluesDuke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: DAnconia55
You want your (next) chance at GOP control?

I hate to be the one to tell you, but none of US were counting on YOU to give us the vote to put us over the top. We kinda knew where you stood all along.

There is nothing ANY of us can say that will EVER make you like and/or agree and/or approve of George W. Bush.

73 posted on 05/04/2002 6:43:15 PM PDT by Howlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Democrats are liars
That's only because it hasn't been posted yet. Heh.
74 posted on 05/04/2002 7:04:20 PM PDT by rintense
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Miss Marple
Where were you when all these things were talked about?

And where is the drilling?

75 posted on 05/04/2002 7:14:16 PM PDT by DAnconia55
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: Miss Marple
Where were you when all these things were talked about?

And where is the drilling?

76 posted on 05/04/2002 7:14:17 PM PDT by DAnconia55
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: Howlin
There is nothing ANY of us can say that will EVER make you like and/or agree and/or approve of George W. Bush.

One of us must be on the wrong thread. I thought this one was where I posted what he should do.

77 posted on 05/04/2002 7:15:51 PM PDT by DAnconia55
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: DAnconia55
And it's the one where I pointed out you're setting up a strawman.

You never voted for him, and whatever we explained to you, you won't 1)like it, or 2) believe it.

You're a Bush hater and this is BAIT.

78 posted on 05/04/2002 7:19:02 PM PDT by Howlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: Howlin;DAnconia55
its a flame thread WITH A FLAME TITLE!
79 posted on 05/04/2002 7:35:33 PM PDT by TLBSHOW
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: DAnconia55
Well, since I'm sure many in the anti-Bush crowd consider me the queen of the Bush Bots, I thought maybe I should make a probably oh-so feeble attempt at answering your question. And let me just state, for the record, that I have stated many times on FR that I am losing patience with the way Bush is handling the Mideast situation. That said... on to the questions...

We must stop our dependence on foreign oil.

President Bush has said this over, and over, and over again. He has cleverly tied our dependency on foreign oil to the crisis in the Middle East, and the war on terror. Problem is, the Senate Democrats won't buy it because they cannot get past the environment. They have let this one issue pull them away from their 'unwavering support of the President in the war on terror', because they cannot abandon their one staple cause for the benefit of all Americans. For the Democrats to give up the environment would be the same as Republicans giving up taxes or the military. And these issues are allegedly too important to the party base to even consider putting the greater good of all over the vested interest of a few leftist tree huggers.

Arab nations are not hospitable to a relationship of peace and trade.

Well, this is a loaded question because you are generalizing that ALL Arab nations are inhospitable. I'm sure Turkey would disagree with your statement. Now, I will say (as I have said before) that I am getting a bit concerned with Bush's handling of the whole Israeli problem. But, in retrospect, I do think he has had to walk a tight rope because he has plans to attack Iraq, and the situation in Israel completely derailed those plans. There is no doubt that Cheney's visit to the Mideast was to basically tell the Arabs nations that an attack on Iraq was imminent. And then we had the whole homicide bombings. Now, you may be saying, 'neither has anything to do with the other.' But in the world of diplomacy, and particularly the use of military bases necessary in such an attack, the problems in Israel must be solved (or at least ceased for a time being) before any such action against Iraq can be taken. So, the pussyfooting that Bush is doing is more of a long-term strategy for a bigger plan- Iraq. Would I love to hear Bush tell the Arab world to take a flying leap? Sure I would. But it ain't ever, EVER going to happen. This leads directly back to your first question.

We can stop this by opening up all areas to oil exploration. This may affect the lives of a few animals, but it will save the lives of many soldiers and US citizens.

Again, this HAS been said by the President, just not a succinctly as you have said.

We will not needlessly kill animals, but we must save families.

Oy. It has been said. GOP talking points for weeks were stating that with today's technology, the environment and wildlife are at a very small risk. Sen. Breaux (D) from LA has gone on record time and again about this, and uses drilling in his home state as an example.

Democrats, led by Tom Daschle, are prohibiting us from exploring these areas for oil...

Implied a million times. But I would like to see a direct mention of names. Daschle has no problem saying , 'President Bush doesn't...' But, when Bush says 'The Senate', I think we all know the he is refering to one person, and one person only- Tom Daschle.

In closing, I think that we can all agree that no matter what any alleged 'Bush Bot' says, you are going to disagree with it. Clearly, the nature of your post and your replies already has shown that. What you choose to believe is your right. And I don't think anyone here is going to deny you that right. We may just may not see the same things. Such is life.

80 posted on 05/04/2002 7:36:40 PM PDT by rintense
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-102 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson