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

To: raybbr
Why are you so adamant about defending Bush on this?

For the luvofPete, stay on-point. Because the headline implicates him by association. I pointed this out from the beginning, and people kept needling me about "well what DO you call it?" -- and I kept responding, "no, you're missing the point. can't you see what the media's doing with this?"...and I guess you don't...

It's a non-freaking issue, is the point, that the media is using as another excuse to cast aspersions upon every last vestige of the Bush presidency.

43 posted on 12/29/2008 2:46:49 PM PST by the invisib1e hand (revolution is in the air.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies ]


To: the invisib1e hand
For the luvofPete, stay on-point. Because the headline implicates him by association. I pointed this out from the beginning, and people kept needling me about "well what DO you call it?" -- and I kept responding, "no, you're missing the point. can't you see what the media's doing with this?"...and I guess you don't...

Huh? I didn't see it that way. I saw the BRATS asking Bush to do something. After reading the story I don't see where Bush is implicated at all.

If the headline had read "Bush to seize land..." then you would've had a point. Or, even "Bush may seize land...". But, not the way it's written.

Like I said, some people see BDS even when it's not there.

44 posted on 12/29/2008 3:42:20 PM PST by raybbr (It's going to get a lot worse now that the anchor babies are voting!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies ]

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