Replies

I think there is a substantial difference. My complete quote would make it clear I was referring to the president's performance on the immigration issue. I can not call him a traitor which has a substantially different and far more negative connotation and implies motives I can't prove or justify. In addition it was not clear who you were referring to and I took it to be the Freepers defending the amnesty plan. I am trying hard to stay away from calling folks names on this forum because I have observed that it shuts down intelligent debate and is a tactic used by those who irrationally support Bush in all cases even when he is wrong, specifically to attempt to limit the debate that will clearly (to me) reflect negatively on his performance. I won't continue an argument with you that is off topic but I would ask those who support Bush's (and the Senate's) Amnesty plan to come fairly debate its specifics. I don't believe it can be rationally supported. I am extremely disturbed by Bush's performance on several major issues and this one is a blunder that can not only seriously damage the Conservative cause but render serious permanent damage to our republic. I think the answer to the delimma is coming down very hard on those in Congress who are backing up this nonsense, not by calling them names, but but withholding funds and votes. Those are the only two things they seem to understand. In the meantime we need to educate as many voters as we can on the fallacies of this nonsense legislation that the Rats and RINOs have initiated under Bush's blessing.