Posted on 06/21/2002 6:46:21 PM PDT by dts32041
You're darn tootin!!
Really? Haven't been paying much attention to the news since about 1992,have you? Besides,do your REALLY think the Dims would complain and make a public stink about Bubba-2 covering for the crimes and coverups they comitted under Bubba-1?
Know of any real ones running for office?
so our President may get some of his agenda passed.
Si,Senor.
People can wish all they want. They will not be prosecuted in this lifetime. It's not going to happen. Scary to think this is probably the least-corrupt political system in the world.
Remember Mena? The Bush family knows that the Clinton's know where all of the bodies are buried from the CIA drug deals during the GHW Bush's administration and when he was CIA director. Call it MAD (mutually assured destruction).
Rooster, 'The FBI was completely politicized by the klintoons, top-to-middle-management, and is now an arm of the DNC. There are many good field agents, but if they speak-out, they get the very-living-shit kicked out of them!
I may have said it wrong. It's my opinion that the FBI is compromised, and is now operating on the orders of the DNC.
Robert Meuller is a perfect example of the 'Peter-Principle'. Louis Freeh was a klintoon agent, and we will never see his so-called report.
I accept the fact that I've been bamboozled by this bunch of bastards, but I've been fooled before!(nice alliteration, huh?)
.
"...Hope that they're biting. .."
Pal, if I had had a pointy-stick last week, I coulda got dinner off my dock-to-be! Stay well armed and vigilant, kids..............FRegards
There are people on Death Row, with a lot less circumstancial
evidence. We have trials in order to let people draw reasonable
inferences from the evidence. This nonsence that we must prove
Quid Pro Quo is just that, nonsense. Barring a confession along
with three expert psycological opinions that the confession is
not coerced, nor fabricated, we will never prosecute these crooks.
One thing for sure if Justice drags there feet long enough, then
the statute of limitations kicks in and they are home free.
My reply was about all this argument is worth at this point which is: ridicule.
Your 'points of contention' have been raised, debated and often refuted too many times to count on FR but the anti-Bush people just keep putting the same 'points' up over and over and then try to claim that if one specific member doesn't waste his time debating the whole gang then this somehow 'proves' the anti-Bush gang victorious and correct in every assertion they care to make as they attack our President.
Wrong, but clever in a smarmy, Clintonian way.
Of course people will make judgements. In fact, they already have. President Bush has 75% of the American people that are satisfied with his performance, an unheard of number in modern politics. Bush has near total support from registered Republicans, like me. You can say what you wish and complain until 2004 for all anyone really cares, but you are part of a distinct, whiny minority that never liked, wanted or accepted G.W. Bush as President, just like the liberals. No matter what the man does, you would still whine and name-call. That's crystal clear from the debating we see on these Bush-specific threads.
I'm totally out front with the fact that I'm pro-Bush, pro-Republican. I have reservations about some policies and programs Bush has pushed or bills he's signed, sure, but I also do not expect any politician to follow my personal agenda 100%, as you clearly do. That's naive.
I - and many others - can comprehend that politics is the art of the compromise as well as a ton of PR in this day and age. It's also gamesmanship, which G.W. Bush has proven to be very, very good at. The political 'purity' you demand from Bush or any politician will never, ever arrive. Get over it. That you insist on having this perfect president, always pleasing you 100% is absurd but then to insist that anyone who doesn't share your personal worldview is beneath you somehow is just ego-fed arrogance and often a cloak for someone who is really anti-everything and a sourpuss about life, in this case translated to politics.
Go for it, sport, but don't think you can post this junk on FR and get away clean with the never-ending anti-Bush rants. As I stated in my original post on this thread - ignored by you but what the thread was about - the O'Reilly 'story' was simply slander with no basis in fact and you use it as a club to beat the man you love to hate, President Bush. You should be above this but clearly are not. So be it.
Yes, let the readers decide, indeed.
I never mentioned the Senate but since you've shown your lack of comprehension of national politics by having brought it up; yes, President Bush does have a 75% job-approval rating (down from 90% a few months ago, darn it) and Senator Tom Daschle of sparsely populated South Dakota is the Senate Majority Leader and in his position he has the power to hold back debate on legislation, stop up bills he doesn't like in committees, threaten Democrat Senators with crappy committee assignments and/or undesirable office space if they fight him and many other powers invisible to the general public. The state he resides in has zero to do with his powers as Majority Leader. Duh.
The reason Republicans want the Senate leadership (and a majority, of course) so badly is because it means the political power to get things passed and accomplished. This is now difficult for Bush to do, but the anti-Bush people always, always either ignore or dismiss that very real fact of political life and have a hundred reasons why Bush should have no trouble getting whatever he wants in the Congress. That's absurd on it's face and either shows true ignorance of the Washington political process or a disingeneous attitute that pretends the President is all-powerful when in fact, Bush just barely got elected, has an extremely hostile congress to deal with and of course a hostile and negative media tearing him down every chance they get.
Meanwhile, folks like you on the far right are snarling and waving your arms all the time while accusing Bush of being a liberal-in-disguise and screwing over conservatives. Geeze.
Look, you dislike Bush and see everything he does as anti-conservative and near-evil in it's intent. I think he's just a moderate compromising politician doing a good job in a hostile, difficult political environment. I don't think he's perfect. I hated CFR and the lame education bill but the anti-Bush crowd sees everything he does as flat-out wrong or some conspiracy to deprive you of some right. I find these broad-brush attacks on Bush pointless and frustrating. I'm also sick of being called a 'cheerleader' becuse I simply support my president. That's getting old and offensive. You want to believe George W. Bush is evil, bad, trying to destroy America or whatever fantasy you buy into, fine. I think otherwise, obviously and so does most of the United States. You're wrong about Bush but that like telling a Jehovah Witness he's wrong about his religion. I don't expect you to accept it, you like where you are. Stay there, in that phone booth with the other anti-Bush, 'He's really a a liberal' crowd and have your little meetings, throwing darts at a photo of Bush.
I won't debate this continuously, I have a life to attend to. Want the last word? Go for it. Nothing changes. I'm for Bush, you're not. Fine. This is Free Republic, this is what we do here, but don't expect a lot of high-fives here when you endlessly and gleefully slam a good man doing a good job who doesn't suit you.
If this be true, Mr. Bush is just as guilty as the Klintoons. But this ought to make all the R'pub politial lemmings happy. Anything Mr. Bush does makes them happy.
"Over the edge, mates. Let's go for a swim."
Thanks for the support.
Yes, it's frustrating to have to contend with this delusional anti-Bush tripe all the time on FR but I ignore the bulk of it or I couldn't enjoy the forum at all. As I said in my origianl post on this thread, the O'Reilly story was pure slander with no basis in fact. Just a smear and the anti-Bush people ate it up, as you might expect.
I would remind you - as I remind myself when seeing this kind of blather here on FR - that these hysterical, angry and sometimes just plain loony anti-Bush folks are a tiny minority compared to the vast majority of average Americans who support President Bush. His enemies are on the left and the far, far right but unfortunately, the left has the media to trumpet it's bile and lots of well-placed politicians like Tom Daschle to obstruct Bush administration policies. The far, far right has FR.
In a nice touch of irony, the anti-Bush people swear that the pro-Bush forces are 'taking over' Free Republic when we feel just the opposite. As I said, ironic and almost amusing.
When your blood pressure goes up with these I-hate-Bush rants remember that you're seeing the outer fringe of American politics. For what little it's worth, they really believe a lot of the nonsense about Bushs' secret agenda and all that fantasy-land stuff. To some of them, the world is a vast conspiracy out to destroy them (and the Free World) but they have caught on to it (they read a book that explained it all to them) and they won't be fooled, no siree. Sigh.
The arrogance and self-satisfaction is also evident with the typical name-calling and sneering broadsides at anyone who dares to (a): support President Bush and (b): tell them they might be wrong about something. Of course, both camps engage in this behavior to a point but the snarling name-calling from the anti-Bush people can be vicious. Fortunately, Jim Robinson installed a moderator system on FR and you can see why.
Of course to these conspiracy-is-everywhere types G.W. Bush is just red meat. From a wealthy, politically-connected eastern family, Yale-educated and to the left of Pat Buchanan automatically makes George W. Bush 'a pawn' in the great scheme of elitist plots to destroy America and usurp our precious bodily fluids or some such delusion. It's sad, but these types have been around forever, only the names change with the decades and the object of scorn changes as a new president is elected. Republican presidents are a special target, even Ronald Reagan was never quite 'conservative' enough for some, back in the eighties. That far right criticism has been mostly forgotten now, which is typical.
Rational debate is pretty much impossible with the anti-Bush folks, as you've already noticed. It quickly degenerates into loony charges, long lists of Bush 'crimes' you are demanded to respond to (for the thousandth time) and name-calling as soon as you push back a bit. Not very rewarding. Still, my feeling is that we have to make some response to these folks or they just keep it up and it does infuriate me to see lies and nutty statements posted about the President with no rebuttal forthcoming, so I give it a shot once in awhile.
No one ever 'wins' or 'loses' as no one ever changes position in these 'debates'. So be it. The exchanges are still useful to the newbies and who knows that some misguided soul might actually be persuaded by something you or I may post?
Thanks again for your support. Made my day.
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.