Posted on 06/03/2007 3:55:06 AM PDT by Alas Babylon!
[Who was the fashion designer that was murdered on his boat in Miami?]
Court TV just did a segment on the Versace murder to which you refer. 12:30 MDST Sunday.
Great site, Star..thanks
Hagel.
Thank you, Cindy!
:)
I do. And I share your shock,although I expected a much, from the way dems usually govern.
The only redeeming quality of a Democrat is that left to their own devices they usually self destruct just like their terrorist buddies.
Versace, thats it.
The way the networks were portraying this event was comical at best.
LOL
While I agree that he is the president and deserves our respect, I suggest that that is a 2 way street. I don't take kindly to being called names by him. We could also use your above statement to relate to Social Security reform. Why did he abandon that when the Democrats protested? Now when his base protests he calls us names.
what no dinner pics?
OK later
Well that is factually nonsense on two counts. He never called you any names. You merely don't like hearing what he had to say to you. Then there is the fact the President had not backed off on SS reform. The Congressional leadership told him they were not going to move it forward. There is nothing a President can do once his Congressional Leadership tells him they cannot muster the numbers for him.
Curious which activist group is sending out the blast email with this talking point? I keep hearing it all over the place on the 'Net. Factually it nonsense. Also, the President has used the same rhetoric against the Democrats over Iraq. I suppose like most Ultra Conservatives you were too busy calling him "Jorge El Busho" to hear him. Kind of funny for people who spent the last 6 years doing nothing but scream bile at the President demand he show them respect!
Yes, it is a two way street for for years now the Ultras have merely rushed from issue to issue to whine at the President. Small wonder he finally quit wasting his time catering to your egos since he never got anything for his troubles.
On Judges alone this President has done far more good for the future of the Conservative movement then all the screaming lunatics in the "Conservative" Media Establishment ever will. Yet the screaming voices coming out of the radio have gotten far more respect from the 100%ers in the Conservative movement then they EVER extended to this President.
Though I tend to agree regards edwards, do not be too sure as to the cake walk.
The rats vote en bloc, and will do so for angela davis, if she could get the nod.
No. But my son can and he works in construction. Here in California aliens, legal and illegal, are cutting into the construction trades in a big way and are certainly depressing overall earnings per hour in that industry. And all of them BTW are making more than the legal minimum wage.
Later
Have a good dinner
Hypocritical for “Conservatives” to object to the sorts of demagogic debate tactics the Left routinely uses, then turn right around and adopt the same taticics when it suits their political dogmas.
Demagogy is still demagoguery even when it comes from those the “correct” ideological affiliation.
And as for the term"Ultra" it short hand for Ultra Conservatives, or 100%ers or Purists or what ever term you ll want to apply to the people who are offering up these sorts of arguments.
To these people ONLY 100% of ONLY what they want is acceptable. Anything less is "treason". So if people DON'T like the term they can convince me they aren't 100%ers. So far I haven't see much that convinces me there is much rationality on the Antis sides. You were in Govt 36 years, you know full well the world doesn't work in these sorts of 100% utopia ways!
So what, if anything, are the Ultras willing to compromise on in order to get some serious border enforcement passed? So far everything I have read around here the answer is NOTHING. Very well make peace with the fact then that NOTHING is what you will get. Any in 2012 don't expect anyone to take your concerns about "Border Security" too seriously.
So sad for you all there are not enough of you 100%ers to elect either a President or a Congress who will pass your fantasy legislate that will magically turn the clock back to 1952 for you.
That's what I love about him. I love Mitt but he thinks too much. Fred feels it and says it plain and simple. That genuiness is extremely attractive and will appeal to many, even some outside conservative cirlces...at least that's my hope.
Her whiny tone of voice I find very unappealing.
Same is true of the President. He has been open about this from the beginning and I disagree with him, but I still appreciate his honesty and his work to defend Western Civilization and to defend the right to property (via tax cuts).
Saveliberty, you have raised an important point, one which I have seen expressed repeatedly in this thread and many others recently. You correctly state that President Bush, even when he was Candidate Bush, was upfront about his beliefs and positions on this issue. That is a fact. However, although it is "true", it is not "the Truth" because it is incomplete and misleading.
From the "fact" that he was up-front and open about his beliefs, you proceed to the assertion of his "honesty" (we'll leave the matter of his defending the right to property and Western Civilization for another discussion). It is in this assertion of the President's "honesty" that you run off the rails.
Honesty does not consist merely of saying what you believe - it also entails a concomitant responsibility for keeping your word, for integrity. This component of integrity is desirable and important in everyday life between ordinary people, but when it comes to the President of the United States it is not just desirable, it is necessary.
President Bush gave his word, he swore solemn oaths, twice, to uphold and defend the Constitution and to enforce the laws of the land. He has not done that.
Does anyone remember the spectacle of the confirmation hearings for former Attorney General John Ashcroft? Does anyone remember the smirking hypocrisy of Chuck Schumer taunting Ashcroft with words to the effect that "we're not certain you can be trusted to enforce those laws which conflict with your beliefs". (They were alluding to abortion laws.) Does anyone remember Ashcroft suffering the indignity of having to publicly reaffirm that "he would, of course, faithfully enforce the law whether or not he agreed with it"?
In that particular instance, that tactic was used as a vile, personal smear of Ashcroft, as anyone who knew him understood. However, the principle behind it was absolutely correct: our government officials, including the President, are not supposed to be above the law. They are still required to enforce the law, even if they disagree with it. They are free to publicly advocate changing the law and to explain their reasoning for doing so. While it is the law, however, they are supposed to obey and enforce it.
It does not matter how open or up-front President Bush was about his beliefs or his desire to legalize the millions of illegal aliens who have entered this country in violation of the law. His sworn duty was to enforce the laws as enacted until such time as he could persuade the American people and their elected representatives to change the law.
That would have been the honest way to do things... but instead he, and pretty much the rest of our soi-disant ruling class, took the route of subterfuge and deception. The ramifications of those attitudes and decisions, taken collectively, will extend far beyond the single issue of illegal aliens. That is merely the flash-point, although a tremendously serious one in and of itself.
Our leaders, including President Bush, have abrogated, by stealth, the social compact, the mutual consent agreement on the rule of law between the governed and the government which was derived from the Declaration of Independence and codified in the Constitution of the United States. These are not the actions of honest men.
We are now in uncharted territory, there are deadly shoals and rocks in our path, and I fear a terrible storm is almost upon us...
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.