OK.......let's analyze this based on the fact that the speech had not yet been given, and that Minus_the_Bear's idiotic 'read my lips' post was pure negative speculation, shall we?
Had you already concluded that the speculation was accurate?
Had you already concluded that you as 'the base' would be dissatisfied with the speech?
Had you already concluded that there would be no 'red meat' in the President's words?
Had you already concluded that this would be a 'read my lips' betrayal by the President, thus agreeing with Minus' silly post?
You can be honest even though it might be embarrassing now that you know what the President actually said.
Why don't you tell me what you meant by this non-condemnation.....
No.
Had you already concluded that you as 'the base' would be dissatisfied with the speech?
Yes, I would have been dissatisfied with the speech, if he had said something like what Minus_The_Bear posted. (which he, the President, did not say anything like that) I must ask though, if he had said something like that, then what true conservative wouldn't be dissatisfied with the speech?
Had you already concluded that there would be no 'red meat' in the President's words?
No.
Had you already concluded that this would be a 'read my lips' betrayal by the President, thus agreeing with Minus' silly post?
I would have agreed with that assessment, if the President had said something like what Minus_The_Bear posted. And please remember, that this wasn't some made up headline. The headline as Minus_The_Bear posted is what ABC News was reporting at the time, although now of course, they have changed it to reflect the actual content of the President's speech. The original story was based on "inside sources" (that were obviously wrong), but, despite the blunders the media have made lately, they do get some "inside scoops" right sometimes. And indeed, my post was not implying either opinion. (see below)
You can be honest even though it might be embarrassing now that you know what the President actually said. Why don't you tell me what you meant by this non-condemnation.....
I already told you in Post 784. Quote from me, "That if it were true, then the base wouldn't like it at all." Emphasis added for clarity.
As I said in that post, if one gives the benefit of the doubt to the poster in question (me), and doesn't automatically assume someone on a conservative site is a leftist with an agenda (which you appear to be assuming), then that implication is clear.
There's nothing in the sentence, "Hmm, not exactly the red meat the base was looking for." that says it is definitely what the President would say. At most, it's only a comment that, IF he said it, it would "not be the red meat the base was looking for".
That is, unless one assumes that the poster in question (me)is a leftist. But I don't think, in the nearly 5 years I've been on this site, that I've given any indication, to a non-biased person, that I'm a leftist. I'm not a leftist. I voted for Bush twice. I believe in limited government and taxes. Social security should be reformed. The government has no business in education, nor in universal healthcare. Sure I disagree with the President on some issues (and I'm allowed to disagree with him, and still be a conservative), but the WOT is not one of them.
I don't expect anyone here to know me well enough to know these facts about me offhand, but a look at my history over even the last month should show that. Or, as I've stated all along, simply assuming that someone on a conservative website is actually a conservative, instead of a leftist troll, would probably be a good idea too.
I can guarantee you though, you're on a witch hunt here, and I'm no witch. I honestly don't see how, if one takes the time to at least research my posting history, how one can continue to assume that my comment was meant to be anything derogatory. In fact, since the President didn't say anything like the post I was commenting on, there's no way my post was derogatory. If anything is to be read into my original post at all (and I'm not saying that anything should be read into it, in fact, nothing should, but if one must), it was a criticism of Minus_The_Bear's post, the implication being that Bush would never say anything like that. You do realize that that's a potential interpetation of my post too, don't you?
Now if you must, run with that "potential interpretation" phrase. Say I've "admitted that your interpretation of my post is a potential interpretation too", and that will be "proof" of me being a liberal plant or something. Like I implied earlier, look for witches elsewhere, there aren't any here.