Posted on 06/05/2002 1:20:54 PM PDT by Stand Watch Listen
Let me just say up front that I am not addressing you if you voted for George W. Bush in 2000 and regret it. The same goes for those of you who voted for Bush and insist on holding his feet to the fire on the important issues. If, however, you cast your vote for Bush, still believe he is the only hope for America and intend to support every move he makes without so much as a raised eyebrow, this is for you.
It has been nearly a year-and-a-half since George W. Bush, the savior of conservatism, descended from on high to begin his earthly reign in Washington, D.C. Republicans assured us that he would restore integrity to the White House and would be a marked improvement over the promiscuous Bill Clinton. Well, in all honesty, that could have been accomplished by electing a neutered chimp to the office of president.
During the 2000 presidential campaign, George W. Bush the man proved to be a nice break from Bill Clinton and Al Gore. Unlike Gore, Bush had a more likable...well, he actually had a personality. He also possessed the unique ability to address the American people without the smug and condescending vibe Clinton exuded. However, when it came to policy, George W. Bush the candidate failed to demonstrate that he would govern any differently than his Democrat counterparts.
Still, throughout the campaign, there was a loyal group of Bush supporters who would take offense at even the slightest implication that their candidate was anything but a staunch conservative. Even now, they continue to stand by their man, and I find this to be rather perplexing.
Perhaps those who have pledged their undying allegiance to President Bush could answer a few questions for me, in no particular order of course:
• How would you have reacted if Bill Clinton had signed the Patriot Act into law and given the government sweeping new surveillance powers?
• Would you have criticized a Democrat president for signing a $26 billion education-spending bill?
• Did you feel betrayed when Bush signed Campaign Finance Reform into law?
• What do you think about Bush's position on granting amnesty to hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants?
• Would you have tolerated a Democrat proposal for federally funded faith-based initiatives?
• What would your reaction have been if a Democrat had said, "No one should have to pay more than a third of their income to the federal government"?
• What do you think about the president's granting of Permanent Most Favored Nation status to China?
• What's the difference between Bush and the Democrats on the issue of farm subsidies?
• How would you react if a Democrat president sent a $2.13 trillion budget to Congress?
• Would you have stood for a Democrat saying "No!" to arming airline pilots?
• What would your reaction have been if a Democrat had pushed for the federalization of airport security?
• Are you willing to stand by and let the Bush administration cater to the environmentalists on the global warming issue?
• What do you think about Bush's call for a Patient's Bill of Rights?
• What one thing has Bush done that sets him apart from the Democrats?
• It's been a year-and-a-half since Bush took office. When do we start to see a decrease in the size and scope of government? For that matter, when do we start to see even a remote indication that this administration will think about doing anything to try to limit the federal government?
This list is by no means exhaustive, but I would really be interested in some answers. Perhaps it would help shed some light on the mindset of modern compassionate conservatives.
The fact that a Republican president is governing like a Democrat isn't surprising. What's amazing to me is that there are a few select Bush supporters out there who cannot—or will not—utter one word of criticism against their president for any reason. In their minds this man is the epitome of conservatism, and to question his actions would be to question their own beliefs and cause them to wonder why they supported him in the first place.
The way I see it there can only be two explanations for this: 1) these people really and truly believe in what Bush is doing, or 2) they do not wish to face up to the real reason they voted for him — he was simply a slightly more palatable choice than Al Gore.
Yep. It's evident that you prefer personal attacks to substantive discussion of issues. We've already covered that.
Fulani is a damn communist.
Yes she is. And since you're a self-proclaimed "openly conservative and proud black man", I'll take you at your word that your word that your rant is strictly based on Fulani's communist ideologies. However, it's been my experience on this forum that Ms. Fulani's name has been superficially and derogatorily brandished about that one could perceive the use as having racist overtones. It is subtle and sometimes difficult to distinguish from her communist views, but it is there. (The same kind of "code" language is often used with labor "unions")
Perhaps you are truly naive to this despicable political reality, but should you ever wish to discuss issues again, I would hope you'd be more sensitive to its existance. By engaging in the same name-calling and superficial guilt-by-association tactics that have been employed by others, you truly do lower yourself into a slimey cesspool. I would hope you'd see some value in addressing issues instead.
First, I think you sell the influence of this forum short. But if you are right, then why worry about those who Bush supporters say are being unfair in criticizing Bush ... and vice versa? Then this is just "entertainment".
If you want to complain to the President or to the GOP you should write directly to them.
Do you think I haven't? You want to know the number of times, for example, I have called the Whitehouse, GOP and RNC about the Riady Non-Refund. They just nod their heads, act nice, and ignore the issue. They've even said they'd call me back but never did. And as far as I'm concerned, those people who try and shove this topic away by impuning that it is MY FAULT because I might not have made the administration aware of this .... are being dishonest. If you think for one minute that the Whitehouse and GOP are unaware of these concerns then you must think the administration and GOP incompetent ... and that is something I don't believe for one minute.
Second, I hope this is not your way of excusing the FACT that the self-proclaimed Republicans on this site are willfully ignoring the fact that serious laws were broken and their party is ignoring those offenses. I don't hear you or anyone else disagreeing with the challenges I made. Therefore I will assume you agree that serious laws were broken during the Clinton administration. Serious ones that threaten the very foundation of our government. And unless you can provide some indication to the contrary, I think I am justified in suggesting that those crimes are now being ignored by those who have assumed office under the GOP. So, is your silence on those points and my concern a tacit admission that you feel that it is ok?
Are you involved in the GOP in your area?
Do you imagine that my words here, which may reach many thousands and persist in archives for a time, will have less effect than ANYTHING I can do at the local level? You have to be kidding.
Do you think I haven't approached the local GOP offices about this concern? Well I have and they dismissed me as readily as the vocal Bush supporters on this thread are doing. They simply do not want to hear that their party is doing ANYthing wrong. It is considered unpatriotic to even suggest it ... just like it is here. And let me tell you, that doesn't bode well for the GOP.
I see very little value in worrying about what others think about Bush.
That's not the point. I don't worry what others think about Bush ... I worry what Bush thinks about the Constitution and the LAW.
The rest of the effect was probably the realization that Clinton's personal power to interfere with such reports had seriously declined.
Certainly. And don't you think it even more likely mainstream media wouldn't be able to keep the lid on stories if the Bush administration is SERIOUSLY investigating, prosecuting and publicizing the crimes?
The reason that it will be difficult to see more such stories is that the Demoncrats are on the ropes and will expend much of their capital to prevent a drubbing in November.
I don't follow your logic. You don't think they considered Pardongate serious? Hah! And again ... what can they do to stop honest investigations and the American people from learning the results of those investigations. Even trying would taint not only those directly involved in the Clinton scandals but everyone in the democRAT party and the media. No ... they will do what politicians do best ... spin, distance and cut their losses by letting those who committed crimes hang. Some will even join in on the destruction of those people because they will know that is the ONLY thing to do when the charges are treason and murder.
Fox news has grown enough that they are probably concerned that they cannot keep up the pace without encouraging even more "fair and balanced" reporting which includes ridiculous liberal viewpoints.
I have no problem with democRATS going on FOX to bury themselves even deeper. They generally don't fair very well on the network, do they. Precisely because they get asked questions they can't answer. Which is exactly what happened in Pardongate and which is what would happen in Chinagate, Filegate, Riadygate, the death of Brown, etc.
You were copied on my post #1115 to Jim Robinson
Ah! Grasshopper! You sit at the edge of understanding, but your eyes are still wide shut...
Find that answer, and find enlightment.
He stopped that by not funding any new stem cell research.
"I guess he thinks that ill-gotten gains are fine."
I guess we should have just thrown the ones already being used in an incinerator.
As far as not posting anything, ever again...fat chance kid.
Name them.
"Not just that, he refuses to uphold the Constitutional prerogatives for enforcing immigration laws because he wants to get the Mexican vote."
Which laws is he not he not enforcing?
Oh really? Then let me refresh your obviously impaired memory.
*******
From thread titled: "Conservatives Question Dubya's Direction" on 5/29/02 at URL: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/691352/posts where you clearly responded to the following post I made to Reagan Man.
BeAChooser to: Reagan Man
As for prosecuting Clinton and CO., thats always been a dead issue. President Bush said, he had no desire to go down that road and after three different IC`s had little success, its was politically stupid to attempt any investigations. That would only waste the taxpayers money and besides, American's wanted Bush to move on.
You are wrong. Most American's don't have a clue of the scope and seriousness of the crimes Clinton and company committed. That information was kept from them by the liberal media. For example, most of the media didn't even bother to tell the public about the alleged rapes. They didn't mention Sid Blumenthal lying under oath in an impeachment trial about lying under oath. I doubt 5 percent of the public are aware of the nefarious circumstances surrounding the death of Ron Brown. It is not that the public is lazy or would want our government to move-on in such serious matters as election tampering, blackmail of Congress, treason and murder. It is that this information was DELIBERATELY kept from them. And this information is STILL being deliberately kept from them ... but this time by the GOP.
... snip the rest of this post ...
171 posted on 6/1/02 5:22 PM Pacific by BeAChooser
*********
RedBloodedAmerican made the following post to me 2 posts later. Notice that it is his first post on the thread and he quotes from the post to Reagan Man I cited above.
********
To: BeAChooser
That information was kept from them by the liberal media
It wasn't released to the media. Man you are so full of BS. Gonna call you "BSChooser" from here on. Chit. Would you qucking fuit and go BACK to DU where you came from?
173 posted on 6/1/02 7:36 PM Pacific by RedBloodedAmerican
******
So we see that RedBloodedAmerican DID indeed make reference to something having to do with Broaddrick and Blumenthal ... and recently. Does this make you a proven liar, RedBloodedAmerican, or should we all give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you just forgot about this little spat 5 DAYS AGO? Furthermore, let me point out that told ANOTHER untruth in that response by suggesting the media didn't know about those stories I mentioned to Reagan Man. Here was my response addressing that very point to you ... which went unanswered, of course.
*********
To: RedBloodedAmerican
It wasn't released to the media. Man you are so full of BS.
And you are a foul mouthed, lying move-on'er. Every single one of the items I mentioned was indeed available to the mainstream media.
All of us here at FreeRepublic were aware of the rape and assault allegations. It was NBC that investigated the story but delayed showing it until AFTER the impeachment vote and even then they only showed it ONCE following demonstrations outside NBC studies by Freepers. To this day most of the other mainstream TV news organizations have not even mentioned the rape of Broaddrick. Most of the major papers have never even mentioned it. In fact, the LA Times recently went so far as to unilaterally edit an article by George Wills to eliminate any reference to the alleged rape and abuse of women by Clinton. Don't try to tell us the mainstream press didn't know about this story. Many of us were calling them daily about why they weren't reporting it.
Don't try and tell us they didn't know about Sid Blumenthals lies either. During the impeachment trial, CSPAN showed the House Managers catch him lying under oath yet NOT ONE mainstream news organization or paper reported it. They knew about it and your a LIAR to suggest they didn't.
And as far as Ron Brown is concerned, you are LYING here too. If we here at FreeRepublic knew about the accusations of the military whistleblowers you can be sure the mainstream media did too. Some of those whistleblowers were even doing interviews on select radio programs. It is disingenious to suggest that the media didn't hear about the story since many of us were calling them about it. In fact, either ABC or NBC (I don't remember which) did a special on the internet and made a point of linking the "crazies" at UFO sites to those suggesting a conspiracy regarding Ron Brown's death. But they didn't ever tell their viewing audience what that conspiracy was about ... like what the military pathologists were saying. Their story was done to discredit the story and for no other reason.
And like I said, the RNC website didn't even bother to mention the Riady Non-Refund disclosure, a blockbuster issue if there ever was one, but the story was out there for anyone in the media to report. As far as I know only Fox News ever reported it. ABC, NBC and all the rest of the TV "news" networks, the LATimes and dozens of major papers all sat on the story. They DELIBERATELY hid it from the public. You are a LIAR to even suggest it wasn't released to the media.
Now since I was prevented from replying to your last comment to me on the other Bush thread because it was deleted because of the type of foul mouth language you seem to like to use, I'm going to do so now. You wrote:
What does Weisbergs comments about Klayman have to do with Bush?
Because recently we seen some of those self-proclaimed conservatives who are defending Bush (you and Howlin, for instance) putting forth the ludicrous notion that Jacob Weisberg, a strident Bush hater, is a source that is "accurate" and worth believing at FreeRepublic. And we saw Howlin, who first introduced Weisberg as a credible source, and whom you chimed in to defend when I asked her to cite a source for a claim she made, say the Washington Post and Slate are credible sources too. Now these don't seem the sort of sources that conservatives like you claim to be would cite as authoratative, do they? So it makes one wonder when you attack the notion that Bush is violating his oath of office and the Constitution by not investigating the crimes that Clinton and his democRAT supporters committed the last 9 years whether you aren't infact a democRAT defending Clinton.
What does Klaymans comments about Clinton/Brown have to do with Weisbergs comments not being accurate on Klayman?
You misunderstood. It's your belief in the accuracy of Weisberg as a source that is the issue. Since you believe that, perhaps you aren't very credible when it comes to what you say about Klayman or the failure of Bush to investigate the many Clinton era crimes. And since you mention Brown, perhaps you might explain some of the incriminating facts in the case ... why the government has simply ignored its own expert pathologists who say Brown might have been shot and should have been autopsied; how the original of the x-ray and photos which seem to back up those pathologists' concern disappeared from a locked safe at AFIP; why AFIP management lied about the case and destroyed the careers of the military whistleblowers rather than simply tell them why they were mistaken; why Brown's plane simultaneously lost both transponder and radio contact when it was still 8 miles from the crash site; who the identity of the 2nd survivor mentioned in Ira Sockowitz's report to State is; how the mechanic in charge of the missing beacon, which disappeared just before the crash and which some suggest could have been used to spoof the plane into crashing into a mountainside like it did, really died? Or perhaps you can explain why Howlin says it wasn't murder but refuses to provide her reasons (other than to cite democRATS, a bogus Clinton era report, someone who had nothing to say about the Brown case and unnamed "others").
Seems to me, from Bush's point of view (and Republicans), Klayman and Weisberg are on the same side of the fence. In fact, maybe in bed together. You don't know Larry. He is a liberal, protecting them. Add it up.
Reality check. Weisberg slams Klayman, BIG TIME. Weisberg slams Bush, BIG TIME. Weisberg does not slam democRATS. Klayman went after Clinton much worse than he EVER has gone after Bush. And Klayman, despite what you say, is still targeting certain Clinton and democRAT 'improprieties'. So how do you come to the conclusion Klayman is a liberal and in bed with Weisberg? Don't be ridiculous. He may be an opportunist or he may be independent. But whichever, he certainly isn't a "liberal". But those, like you, who use him as an excuse to dismiss the crimes that Clinton and the democRATS committed or excuse Bush's failure to investigate those crimes, might be. Add it up.
Let me tell you this: You either ARE Klayman (in which case, f*_k you), or you work for him.
UNTRUE on BOTH accounts ... and just the sort of foul language and non-fact-filled response we've come to expect from move-on'ers who are doing everything in their power to make sure that calls for Bush to investigate the crimes the Clintons and democRATS committed the last nine years get no traction on this forum. Isn't it odd they also happen to be some of Bush's biggest cheerleaders on this forum too?
179 posted on 6/1/02 10:04 PM Pacific by BeAChooser
*******
I trust the Admin moderator will excuse my being forced to quote a post that now uses the banned term "move-on'er".
Now on to the rest of your post, RedBloodedAmerican:
You are a disgrace to FR and in my opinion, nothing more than a liberal disruptor that should be banned, we have seen your type on here before.
Really? I don't mind if Jim Robinson or moderators compare our posting habits and pick one of us to throw off this forum. But I don't need to silence you. I want you around because people like you only make my case stronger through your own dishonesty and avoidance of anything factual.
Pings to other than you are to bring your continuing harassing comments to myself and others on FR to their attention.
Oh I don't mind you proving to them your own dishonesty. And may I point out to them that you posted me FIRST on this thread and your post was nothing but harassment. It did not deal in ANY specific way with the post that you were commenting on ... which by the way, wasn't even addressed to you.
Also have to remember that thanks to clinton/gore, there was not a real transition. Then clinton's GSA guy wouldn't release funds even after the SCOTUS Ruling for the transition until after the Electoral College had voted. Everything possible was done to torpedo a smooth start of this Administration by the clintonites! Always was in the back of my mind if they didn't do this all on purpose to make sure that the Bush Administration had no time for anything clinton!
Sum up what? I'm not sure which of my points you are trying to counter. Is that the reason you are giving for the Bush DOJ for 8 months not investigating? If so, I don't buy it. You can't blame the failure to investigate the Riady non-refund on this since Ashcroft was confirmed by the time that disclosure occurred and they had 5 months after that to do SOMETHING. They did NOTHING. And that is true time and time again. IMO, you are spinning to dismiss facing the truth.
Please REMOVE me from your ping list IMMEDIATELY.
Oh good. The PROVEN LIAR arrives to lend his support to the other Bush supporters. Folks, this guy continues to claim that Ron Brown was autopsied despite a mountain of evidence to the contrary ... including quotes from EVERYONE who was at the examination of Brown's body.
And, VA Advogado, why don't you post ONE instance where Klayman or JW published something untrue about Chinagate, Filegate, Emailgate, the death of Brown or the Riady Non-Refund. If he so non-credible it should be easy.
Your feeble attempts at slamming all of us with your annoying keyboard diarreah only makes people sick of you, and your petty, tin-foil theories.
Like it or not, and what everyone on the face of this earth other than you knows (and that includes Klayman), is that it's never going to happen. The political fallout of spending the greatest part of any president's term in attempting to prosecute his predecesor would be too costly, and would in the end, simply be viewed as a witch hunt.
I think you know this, and I think that your job is to maintain Clinton in the spotlight. There's nothing that would please Clinton more than to be able to be on national TV, day in and day out, pontificating about his innocence (no one will ever pin anything on him, we had our chance and we let him slip away), and promoting Hillary for President.
Waste another four years on Bill?
You go ahead son, and good luck to you.
Me? I want to forget that we had a president from 1993 to 2001.
As usual, you're confused. President Bush isn't about to seek out your opinion for his SC nominees. LMAO And actually the list didn't come from the WH, it came from an outside source, if that really matters to you. Don't try and fool anyone, no matter who Bush may nominate, you'll be against his picks, for one reason or another.
I don't give a rats ass, what you discussed with "colorado tanker" in your post at RE:#577. I took exception to an outrageous remark you slipped in and tried to pass off as the truth.
In that remark you said the following:
But, it is a mute point, because Bush Jr will not be sending conservative justices to the Senate.
This remark shows how intellectually lazy you are and I called it for what it was, "... a bold face lie!"
I then proceeded to lay out the facts and clear the air concerning this distortion you presented. I gave you concrete evidence of President Bushes actual political stance, on who he might consider for his nominees to the Supreme Court (RE:#592). I then followed it up with a list of nominees (RE:#601) that appeared in, "Jurist: The Legal Education Network" in early 2001.
You also said the following at RE:#577, "The solid conservative justices in this country are the likes of Luttig, Posner, Easterbrook, et. al. I can bet with you right now, they won't be nominated, nor anyone who closely resembles them".
Again, this simply isn't the truth. As President Bush stated on MTP, he would consider nominees who are in the mold of Antoin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. And if you look at the latest list of possible Bush nominees to the USSC, you find Luttig, Easterbrook and Posner.
In the future, get you facts straight. Better yet, just shut up!
Please REMOVE me from your ping list IMMEDIATELY.
I don't have you on any ping list. I cc'd you my post to RedBloodedAmerican because he posted you falsely accusing me of a lie. Also, my response to him contains mention of statements you have made so I consider it only a courtesy to notify you anytime such mention occurs. I expect the same. Sorry ... but them is the "rules" as I believe you pointedly told someone else who we both know.
Let's see how plain I can make it: Please do NOT ping me again for any reason; and please do NOT discuss me again. I'm not interested in being in your paranoid rants.
The bank robber (illegal) gets a trial (hearing) to find out if he's guilty or not guilty.
The illegal gets a hearing (trial) to find out if he can stay or has to go.
Nice bit of nonsense, that.
The application process for a Section 245(i) Amnesty is in no way analogous to a trial. In a trial, the bank robber is charged with a crime. In an Amnesty, the charges are never filed.
What you have here is a fallacy of false analogy. Not at all surprising.
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.