Posted on 07/08/2002 6:02:41 AM PDT by nicmarlo
My dear friend send me this article via e-mail....she is trying to convert me to the Rat side.....and knows I regularly partake of FR and she laughlingly said that some call us FReepers (as if this was an insult). She is a Christian, with many similar values. She just can't quite understand, however, why I don't hate Ashcroft, despise Bush, love the Clintons, ad nauseum. I think the day she sent this to me was the day after my continued expressed devotion to the conservative political cause made her to want to "pull out her last three hairs." I will probably never win her over to the "right" side, but this article embodies many of our disagreements.....Helen Thomas aside. Now, how to refute Thomas' absurd and moronic statements and keep my friend.....(I know, sometimes you just can't make someone "see the light," but I'd like to try). Any help here from my FReeper friends?
Note to Helen: Preventing a theft is not the same as stealing, honey.
As do I......on that my friend and I also agree...
Roosevelt and Churchill wanted to kill the German leader during WWII but I guess that's lost on the craggy Ms Thomas.
I find utter amazement in your ridicule of President Bush. You are the same writer that swooned at the previous President that set a new standard of law breaking and deviance while in office.
You forgot to mention that President Clinton is one of the people that is being protected by Presidential Records Act.
In terms of taking out Saddam Hussien, this is a goal Republicans and Democrats and many World leaders seem to agree with. Your heroric President Clinton bombed innocent people to protect him against the Monica Lewinsky scandal, and in many ways used the same tactic to go after Slovadin Milosevic (sp).
Janet Reno abused the Justice Dept. at record levels to cover for President Clinton. Her job was to support the Independent Council not hinder it. Reno also ignored her own commissions recommendations for Campaign Finance Reform hearings!
Finally, it has been proven by every normal standard of law that Bush won Florida without the Supreme Court. Despite the Network and Media calling Florida and other states early to hinder Bush turnout (even Democrat pollsters internal polling data said that Bush lost over a net 8-10 thousand votes in Western Florida by the media's false call for the state), Bush still would have won.
Everyone is entitled to their opinions, however the hypocricy of your beliefs is somewhat breathtaking.
Yeah, I know....I think lots of things are lost on her....perhaps the difference there was war was declared by Congress.....and she always seems to come to the defense of the Middle Eastern leaders.....and it's no secret that Clinton courted Arafat, so, obviously, it's "wrong" for Bush not to.
Isn't it though? That is what I thought, too, when I read this article. She quickly throws stones at President Bush, who's done nothing close to the abuses of the Clintons.
I'm having trouble reconciling these two sentences. They seem mutually exclusive.
Oh.......if only Clinton had limited himself to this.........
I have a fear of that occurring. One thing leads to another. I have the disconcerting feeling that, in the wrong hands, government could intrude into my personal affairs, in the name of the patriot act. On the flip side, I understand the need to allow the government to look into people's personal affairs for security reasons (i.e., those who are suspects). It just kind of is reminiscent of Orwell's 1984..... frightening to me, but becoming more realistic.
My thought, verbatim.
Don't be too hard on them ... after all, it's not easy finding something that will give you victim's status.
"If it weren't for bad luck, I'd have no luck at all."
It confuses me, as well. However, there are many Christians who are not Republicans.....that confuses me, too, as it seems to me that the Rats do not embody any kind of Christian morals in their foundations.
Helen, you're clearly well into your dotage. Read Ann Coulter's Slander, notably pages 76-90, for enlightenment. Ignorance needn't be invincible, dearie.
Don't mistake my concerns for wanting victim's status. I have a Christian understanding of government intrusion into our lives....i.e., the "mark of the beast," where no one can purchase anything unless he has conformed to the government's requirement that each person has some kind of mark on them that allows them to participate in society (to buy food, for example). Some have speculated that the "mark" is a chip, placed underneath the skin as a scanning device. The chip will allow cash to disappear from usage......and also allow monitoring of every person. Some have speculated that the number is the Social Security number...which is now required for infants. This requirement has only occurred during our lifetimes. It's a progressive thing. That is what concerns me.
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.