Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Laura Bush We Don't Know
October 25, 2005 | Carey Roberts

Posted on 10/25/2005 5:50:18 PM PDT by CareyRoberts

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160161-167 next last
To: arasina
which side are you on?

After reading that you have to ask which 'side' he is on? That list of publications is the right's right. The author brings up some valid concerns about the President's wife. And when she stepped into the fray on this issue with ridiculous claims that sexism 'may' have something to do with a nominee who isn't qualified for the job, her and her opinions are fair game and should be scrutinized

121 posted on 10/26/2005 6:26:03 AM PDT by billbears (Deo Vindice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: DC Ripper
btw, the big advantage we 'Bushbots' have here is that we have been paying attention, and know what the First Lady has actually said and done.

Those of you who agree with this article, are clearly in the dark and ignorant of the facts.

Might I suggest that you get your information from somewhere other than the MSM?

122 posted on 10/26/2005 6:47:42 AM PDT by ohioWfan (Take comfort, Friend George, God is with thee!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: billbears
How much weight do these 'valid points' have when they are surrounded by factual errors and irrational jumps to illogical conclusions in a very poorly written article?

This author...........even if it actually is who you think it is, which I highly doubt........cannot be taken seriously.

123 posted on 10/26/2005 6:50:47 AM PDT by ohioWfan (Take comfort, Friend George, God is with thee!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: ohioWfan

It seems the piece was written almost as a conversation would occur. I like the style. Factual errors, it seems the author provided supporting evidence with urls for each argument.The woman, nor her husband, is a saint. They are not above reproach. As I said, if she's going to stick herself into the public form of discussion, she's fair game


124 posted on 10/26/2005 6:59:08 AM PDT by billbears (Deo Vindice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: billbears

You're absolutely right. That better? :o)


125 posted on 10/26/2005 7:01:59 AM PDT by arasina (So there.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: CareyRoberts
The First Lady recently weighed in on the faltering support for Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers. Asked on NBC’s Today show if sexism might be at the root of the criticisms of Miers’ legal qualifications, Mrs. Bush coyly replied, "I think that’s possible."

Funny, many of the people against Miers would be doing backflips if Janice Rogers Brown was the pick. I don't see how sexism or elitist-ism has anything to do with it here.

126 posted on 10/26/2005 7:07:06 AM PDT by pepperhead (Kennedy's float, Mary Jo's don't!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: billbears
I agree that she's fair game if people tell the truth about what she's said and done.

Why bring the "not a saint or above reproach" charge into the discussion, bill? There's not a person on this forum who believes that.......certainly not me....... but it is an argument used against our points repeatedly. It's not a valid argument under any circumstances, and yet it is a common weapon used against us.

And yes, there ARE factual errors in this article, which I have enumerated above. It is filled with misinformation and half truths, which amount to lies.

Besides which, it is extremely poorly written, and not likely the work of an experienced author. It's junk, and I am frankly surprised that a man as intelligent and well read as you are, is here defending it.

127 posted on 10/26/2005 7:20:38 AM PDT by ohioWfan (Take comfort, Friend George, God is with thee!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: CareyRoberts
Isn't Laura Bush a pro-abort?
128 posted on 10/26/2005 7:23:20 AM PDT by Stew Padasso ("That boy is nuttier than a squirrel turd.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Stew Padasso

No.


129 posted on 10/26/2005 7:24:48 AM PDT by ohioWfan (Take comfort, Friend George, God is with thee!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: Howlin

Look at the posting history on this one. She/he never responds. Just posts and runs.


130 posted on 10/26/2005 7:28:30 AM PDT by Republican Wildcat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Republican Wildcat; Howlin

Wow; you mean that literally, don't you? "Never" as in "not even once."

That's Classic Troll Behavior{tm}.

Dan


131 posted on 10/26/2005 7:31:09 AM PDT by BibChr ("...behold, they have rejected the word of the LORD, so what wisdom is in them?" [Jer. 8:9])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: ohioWfan

Is she Pro-Choice?


132 posted on 10/26/2005 7:31:11 AM PDT by Stew Padasso ("That boy is nuttier than a squirrel turd.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: Stew Padasso
Not according to HER. She recently said that she believes that life begins at conception and that she is pro-life as is her husband.

There is no reason to believe that the Lady is a liar.

133 posted on 10/26/2005 7:32:55 AM PDT by ohioWfan (Take comfort, Friend George, God is with thee!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: ohioWfan; billbears

I still think that they are out to DESTROY her.

The idea that they are being held back by some rule like...she's perfect and a saint, therefore immune from criticism...but oh dear, we'll stick our toe in that water anyway...is RIDICULOUS. They want to RUIN her. This is over the top, starting with the headline, and is clearly calculated to bring her down to zero in public (conservative) estimation if they possibly can.

So, bill, please don't try that "what is she, a saint?" line, ok? Not gonna cut it.


134 posted on 10/26/2005 7:35:17 AM PDT by txrangerette
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: ohioWfan

I'll have to check but I think she said that she supports her husband's opinion but does not subscribe to them??? Could be wrong but I also seem to recall her commenting on abortion (Roe v. Wade) during the 2000 election?


135 posted on 10/26/2005 7:36:40 AM PDT by Stew Padasso ("That boy is nuttier than a squirrel turd.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: txrangerette
That tactic is commonly used by people who can't back up their arguments with substance.

In this case, there IS no substance to their argument.

This article is a piece of junk...........and I tend to agree that it is an attempt to destroy Laura in order to destroy her husband.

The left will do anything to accomplish that end, and falsely accusing the First Lady is certainly not beneath these bottom dwellers....

136 posted on 10/26/2005 7:39:28 AM PDT by ohioWfan (Take comfort, Friend George, God is with thee!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: Stew Padasso
She made one comment about Roe v Wade when asked in 2000. She was asked if she thought it should be overturned and she said "No."

It was recently that she voiced very clearly that she was pro-life. She's not an activist obviously, and I disagree with her statement that Roe should not be overturned, but it does not follow that she is pro-abortion (people who think abortion is OK in the cases of rape or incest might well think that it should not be completely illegal).

Her direct statement that life begins at conception and that she is pro-life are better indicators of what she believes............unless one thinks she is a liar.

(For the record, stopping abortions is my primary issue).

137 posted on 10/26/2005 7:44:16 AM PDT by ohioWfan (Take comfort, Friend George, God is with thee!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: CareyRoberts

Great, objective article.


138 posted on 10/26/2005 7:54:50 AM PDT by Extremely Extreme Extremist (Harmful or Fatal if Swallowed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sauropod

mark


139 posted on 10/26/2005 7:57:05 AM PDT by sauropod ("Half the harm that is done in this world is due to people who want to feel important." - T.S. Eliot)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BibChr

Appears to always be his/her own essays as well.


140 posted on 10/26/2005 8:01:48 AM PDT by Republican Wildcat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160161-167 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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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