Posted on 07/07/2007 7:34:22 AM PDT by Sub-Driver
President Bush deserves our thanks and respect for many issues. We can’t judge his whole presidency on this one issue. I’m still glad we have him rather than those morons Gore or Kerry.
I agree.
We must keep in mind as we are critical of Bush that he is far superior to any Democrat...
Ditto that! If we are to criticize the President, it would be nice to be specific, rather than the "You suck, Jorge" that typically shows up on DU.
We're better than that.
I haven’t decided either. Then only thing I know for certain is it won’t be a democrat.
Ditto!
True.
As for the prescription drug bill...I have heard that the AARP lobby has lost a lot of their oomph as a result of that legislation. Could it be that there is a method in that madness?
“We can’t really blame any of them if we keep giving them our tax money.”
It’s an honor system - give honor where honor is due.
My post was only 4 sentences long, yet you responded after reading only the first one.
The Rudy-bots as you namecall them, left over Free Speech. Whether I like him or not he has a certain number of people who support him and he is dead on on the War. He also has a charisma and not afraid to tweek the press. He is pro-abortion which is why I can’t vote for him, but that doesn’t make those who do liberals.
The people that support him are conservative and perhaps they weren’t as civil as say the immigration folks, but they had passion. How do you decide something as big as President w/o Freedom of Speech or open discussion.
We are not Dems who decide what the poll tells them. We see who is closest to our thinking and for many it was Rudy.
That was simply one of the worst decisions Jim has made and he is obviously paying the price for running off so many.
Pray for W and Our Troops
However, a bill will most likely be passed before the next election...at least I hope so since the longer we wait the more difficult it gets.
But I didn't actually mention another problem which your idea would result in. If you cut off all Federal funds to those cities, the problems would only be more entrenched since there would be no federal oversight at all.
My very next sentence after the one you quoted was: The money just doesn't show up.
It was a very short post and that was the third sentence. I thought it was pretty straight forward and self evident.
People will break laws and authorities often don't enforce laws. However, funds that are cut off don't show up. To break that law, the perps would have to go and physically confiscate money from... whom? how? duh.
First, I only used the term later in my post, and I rarely used the term at all during the time all this went down. If it offends you,I apologize.
Second, it was partly about free speech, but not entirely, and not for the most part
. It was the decision of the management to not permit the promotion of someone whose positions were contrary to the mission statement of this forum. That was Jim's call.
We are not Dems who decide what the poll tells them.
And we are? If so, we'd have all jumped on the bandwagon.
We see who is closest to our thinking and for many it was Rudy.
And many, including the owner, disagreed with you.
That was simply one of the worst decisions Jim has made and he is obviously paying the price for running off so many.
How so?
bttt
So very well said.
I need to reply to a few others individually, when I have a little more time.
There are so many excellent posts to read that it will take me a bit to read and respond.
Amen!
Many so-called "RINO's" have been promoted in the past on FR. And their positions were debated thoroughly.
As for promoting RINO's...even Fred Thompson pushed McCain for Pres. at one time. LOL.
“the Democratci Senate killed it twice this year (so far). “
CORRECTION: Senate Republicans *IN* the Democratic Senate stopped it this year on a cloture vote. Most Republicans voted against cloture (including in the end the minority leader), while most Democrats voted for moving the bill forward.
The real reason the bill died was grassroots conservative opposition, which found resonannce among people across the country. We called the Senate enough to shut the system down and make Senate staffers go crazy.
Without that strong grassroots response, the elites would have pushed it through and the GOP Senate lemmings would have marched off the cliff behind Bush.
In the end, this is good news. Bush may have been in favor of amnesty for many years, but it never was acceptable to the rank and file. No other republican President would follow that folly, and if a pro-amnesty Democrat takes the White House (Hillary or Obama), they will probaby to their dirty work piecemeal and nto in a ‘comprehensive’ fashion, in order not to wake the sleeping giant of public opposition to this.
I think the right approach is this.
There’s not sense in bashing Bush the man or President.
He is what he is.
What needs to be attacked and criticized are those policies that are wrong which he supports. The days of ‘trusting’ Bush on an issue are long gone.
“And he has tried to push amensty for illegals now 3 times since 2006. Recall that it died in the late spring of this year. Who pushed to revive it? The White House, when GWBush made a special, unprecedented trip to Capitol Hill to push it and sent his posse back to Capitol Hill to arm-twist the week of the final vote.”
I am just thankful and grateful to all the fellow activists who wrote, called and emailed to stop this travesty.
“So, yah, he deserves the criticism because who did he blame in this radio address? The Democrats.”
I consider such partisan recriminations icing on the cake.
Pity he wont ‘blame’ his own base, who really stopped this.
But, Bush is right to highlight the utter incompetence and stpuidty of the Democrat leaders in Congress.
Worst. Congress. Ever.
Of *course* the Democrats will turn around and blame republicans and then they will both look bad ... cant hurt us in 2008 to have Democrats in Congress discredited and in blame-excuse mode.
I was merely trying my best to explain what happened.
I think we know what happened.
As far as banning people with a different point of view...
Well, the leader of a forum can do as he pleases.
But the result is that FR is not the popular forum it was in the past partly as a result of that decision.
As I stated earlier, I am neither a Fred nor a Rudy supporter at this early date. However, I prefer seeing both viewpoints debated as this is what FR has been about for years.
Yeah, that's what I said. Is it your assertion that the majority of Americans believe the Bush's policies in the WOT are correctly imagined and executed? I'd even settle for 40%. Heck, 35% would probably be a good start. He has not led the nation in this area.
Yes, he has enacted policies which are being followed (or something like that). He has not lead the country intellectually in the War on Terror. He has not convinced a majority of the people that the policies he is enacting are 1) effective and 2) necessary. Leadership is not just enacting policies. It's also getting the people you're leading to believe in them.
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.