Replies

I appreciate your comments. I believe there are grounds for us to agree on a number of issues. There are others we'll just have to disagre on. Take care.

Thanks. You too.

(Forgive me for not responding to your entire post, my FRiend, but my eyes are not good and your font is light so I'm having trouble reading it).

You do know that I disagree with some of the things that Bush did (just as I disagree with some of the things Reagan did). I'm an educator who really hoped that RR would fulfill his campaign promise to get rid of the DoE. Haven't changed my mind on its value since the department was created. (i.e. NONE).

I think perhaps one of the problems with communication here is that, if we opposed the mindless, childish, angry bashing of President Bush (not accusing you - but others for sure), it was interpreted as being in agreement with everything he did. Not so.

Many, many, many of us disagreed on specific issues (spending, immigration, etc.) but fought against the vile, infantile hate-filled spamming of threads that went on so often around here (and has happened even on this very thread, btw).

I am PROUD of my unflagging support of this man of impeccable integrity, and as I watch him in his post-presidency, I continue to be impressed with his love for others, his support of our military, his support of freedom, his love of country and his love of his Lord.

No disagreement on any issue is going to change my understanding, having watched him carefully for 10 years, of who this man really is. As I have observed others commenting on FR, I can truly say that I am more consistently conservative than almost anyone else (though not as angry as some), and that the people who hate the President most are, by and large, not across the board conservatives. Conservatism - the real thing - requires rational thought, and people who think rationally do not hate this man.

I am very, very happy to see the recognition of his strength, the compliments from people who were very critical, and the understanding of almost every conservative that he provided the strength that America needed when we needed it most.

Jehovah Jireh. And at the time of our direst need, HE provided George W. Bush.

The world knows, Americans know .. and sane FReepers know that our freedom from another attack after 9/11 is due to the resolve, focus, programs and devotion to Mission #1 by President Bush, and relentless pursued and executed by our incredible intel pros and awesome military.

The program President Bush authorized to decimate Al Queda and the beasts in the terrorist networks DIRECTLY underlays the entire trail of clues that absolutely led to the successful takedown of OBL from this earth, thank God, with BHO's correct decision and the breathtaking skill of the Seals.

SINCE THE ENTIRE ARTICLE IS EXACTLY ABOUT PRES. BUSH'S POLICIES BEING VINDICATED BY OBL'S RECENT SEA CRUISE, those who refuse to stay on topic and admit that obvious fact like standup Americans .. and look at the many laughable twirpings of the clot of naysayers here .. are clearly so terminally infected with BDS or .. possibly .. just plain willfully IGnorant .. but assuredly acting out like petulant children.

Since most seem to be able to string more than two words together, it appears they have a brain-wide, raging, oozing, chronic mental disorder that totally blocks clear thinking on the subject.

It's almost comical, if it weren't so sick and such a distortion of reality .. they can't even stay on the topic of the article and thread without their disease robotically detouring them and devouring their logic!

I think that's how one knows it is an undeniable mental disorder .. their comments are thoughtless, kneejerk and overreactive responses ... all done in the face of proven and documented reality.

Recovery is simple: REALITY .. but they persist in choosing this insane and nonsensical delusion.

They have now sequestered themselves here to the isolation ward of inane wackos, bumbling fools, and most certainly: THE ASH HEAP OF HISTORY.

I appreciate your comments. I believe there are grounds for us to agree on a number of issues. There are others we'll just have to disagre on. Take care.

Thanks. You too. (Forgive me for not responding to your entire post, my FRiend, but my eyes are not good and your font is light so I'm having trouble reading it).

My light font is merely a repeat of your post, paragraph by paragraph. If you can't read it, take your mouse and highlight it. It will be reversed on screen, and it will be a lot easier to read.

You do know that I disagree with some of the things that Bush did (just as I disagree with some of the things Reagan did). I'm an educator who really hoped that RR would fulfill his campaign promise to get rid of the DoE. Haven't changed my mind on its value since the department was created. (i.e. NONE).

That issue hasn't been on my radar, but if your reasoning were made clear, I might join you. I'm not a big fan of Presidential Departments as a general rule.

I think perhaps one of the problems with communication here is that, if we opposed the mindless, childish, angry bashing of President Bush (not accusing you - but others for sure), it was interpreted as being in agreement with everything he did. Not so.

In some cases I agree with you. In others I do think we can safely say nothing negative is acceptable. I've seen way to much evidence of that not to recognize it for what it is. People are going to do what they think is best. You can't convince them it isn't productive. It's not my cup of tea so I avoid it the vast majority of the time. And no, I'm not directing this to you either.

Many, many, many of us disagreed on specific issues (spending, immigration, etc.) but fought against the vile, infantile hate-filled spamming of threads that went on so often around here (and has happened even on this very thread, btw).

I do think there is frustration on both sides. I think this causes both to overplay their hand to a certain degree. I'm not going to address it more than that.

I am PROUD of my unflagging support of this man of impeccable integrity, and as I watch him in his post-presidency, I continue to be impressed with his love for others, his support of our military, his support of freedom, his love of country and his love of his Lord.

I want you to know something. In private life, I'm not going to take Bush to task for things I was compelled to take him to task for when he was president. Unless he makes a policy statement backing something I disagree with, his love of people and his relationship with God is his business. I respect that. Unfortunately, when you're the CIC, you can't rule by always granting the opposition a GP rating no matter what they do. Sadly, in many instances, they truly don't mean well, and you have to go after them. The Left does not play by Hoyle rules.

No disagreement on any issue is going to change my understanding, having watched him carefully for 10 years, of who this man really is. As I have observed others commenting on FR, I can truly say that I am more consistently conservative than almost anyone else (though not as angry as some), and that the people who hate the President most are, by and large, not across the board conservatives. Conservatism - the real thing - requires rational thought, and people who think rationally do not hate this man.

I do think there is some misconception on by sides here. You state that a lot of Bush supporters really do get the border and spending thing. Honestly, I haven't seen that. When I took him to task on those issues, I got plenty of guff for it. Some of the people who take Bush to task, are convinced they are going to get attacked for doing it, so they don't mince words and it seems like they hate him far more than they do, if they do at all. There are also people who go a long way back with Bush, and they never saw him the way you do. They knew he was going to do certain things they couldn't sign on to, and regretted him getting elected from day one. While you can reasonably disagree with that take, I am not convinced they are any more unreasoned than you are due to their take on things. You folks just see things differently.

I am very, very happy to see the recognition of his strength, the compliments from people who were very critical, and the understanding of almost every conservative that he provided the strength that America needed when we needed it most.

As I said eariler to you, or perhaps someone else, if you step into a thread where most people won't allow anything negative to be said about Bush without going for the throat, are you going to jump into that thread and make glorious rosy comments that have already been made five to twenty times, or are you going to voice the objection you would like to see addressed? If these threads were not so incredibly lop-sided in favor of Bush, and for some things that are certainly deserving, I think you would see a lot more people joining you to make the occassional favorable comment about him. It would be mixed in with comments that were about 50/50 favorable and unfavorable on policy. I doubt you'll agree with the ratio, but I do think there are legitmate questions to be raised. I don't see that as negative though.

It has always been my premise, that it would be very healthy for Bush to see some reasoned objections to some of his policies, and why those objections made sense to people

It could have helped him avoid making some mistakes. It works both ways too. A healthy pro/con environment can help him see the issues broken down in a reasoned manner.

Good presidents don't want yes men around. They want team players, but people who can think outside the box and at least present alternative ideas, even if they are over-ruled in the long run. That's the way I've always seen objections here, as long as they were reasoned and could be debated reasonably. I do admit that this doesn't always work due to problem people on both sides. I've actually gotten worked up at times and not argued productively. Hey, it happens.

Jehovah Jireh. And at the time of our direst need, HE provided George W. Bush.

While I don't have a problem with that in concept, it has been my experience in life that when we want something very bad, we often think it's God's will for that to take place. I'm not trying to give you grief over Bush on this topic, because I don't want to make those types of arguments regarding him. God's will is not always as easy to see as we would like to think it is, and I don't want to speak for Him regarind this man. It's not an argument that I think men should argue definitively on a person that has good and bad traits. That's just my take on it.

Hey, thanks for the response. I appreciate the exchange.