A Few Questions For Die-Hard Bush Supporters

Toogood Reports ^ | June 5, 2002 | Lee R. Shelton IV

[ruoflaw]

pssst! you are out of your depth on your #436

[Jorge]

Could you find a better way to designate other people's quotes when you paste them in your post?

Like maybe use italicized text or quotation marks?

I don't mean to be nit-picky...but when I read your posts sometimes it's hard to tell the quotes you are responding to from your own words.
I often have to backtrack to the posts from the person you are responding to be sure which parts of your post is their quote.

It would just make it easier if you used italicized text or quotation marks. OK?

[Howlin]

because they are not Conservative Repubs.!

I have NO idea. They SAY they are. I have a feeling a lot of them are still getting over the big fight that they had during "their" convention at the Reform Party shindig!

[Cultural Jihad]

You are absolutely right. A lot of these people on here claiming to be the "true conservatives" are some of the biggest liars on the planet. I don't consider such blatant dishonesty to be a conservative virtue.

And also the ideologues embrace moral-liberalism, not unlike the Democratic, Greens, and Trotskyite ideologues, and that makes them far from conservatives.

[ArneFufkin]

The next election is going to be a real toss up, just like the last one.

Thanks Kreskin.

Friday's Dow Index could go up or down. Hey, this is fun!

[Luis Gonzalez]

Hey, just a little quote I found from an abscure Republican who supported a farm bill, amnesty for illegals, increased Federal spending...you know, what these guys call a socialist.

"When I began entering into the give and take of legislative bargaining in Sacramento, a lot of the most radical conservatives who had supported me during the election didn't like it. "Compromise" was a dirty word to them and they wouldn't face the fact that we couldn't get all of what we wanted today. They wanted all or nothing and they wanted it all at once. If you don't get it all, some said, don't take anything. I'd learned while negotiating union contracts that you seldom got everything you asked for. And I agreed with FDR, who said in 1933: 'I have no expectations of making a hit every time I come to bat. What I seek is the highest possible batting average.'

"If you got seventy-five or eighty percent of what you were asking for", I say, "you take it and fight for the rest later", and that's what I told these radical conservatives who never got used to it.

Ronald Reagan, from his autobiography, An American Life.

[rdavis84]

"Just a little sick of seeing so many FReepers getting banned for not agreeing with our President. I thought this was a conservative discussion forum, not a republican probaganda website." "

It'll get worse closer to the election, just like it did when Bush jr. was annointed.

[NittanyLion]

I see, you post a bogus "proof" and then discard that and change the subject. Very weak debate.

You must be reading the wrong post, friend. The text is right there. Bush says he'll veto unconstitutional legislation. Very weak debate.

[Jhoffa_]

pssst! you are out of your depth on your #436

Apologies.

[ruoflaw]

your points must not have made an impact on me...maybe they aren't as important as you think they are.

[Howlin]

I suppose Bush has principles, they are just not the ones I thought he had

Well, perhaps next time you'll pay closer attention.

[WRhine]

Signing Executive Orders which prevented government agencies from acting as though the Kyoto Treaty on Global Warming had been ratified is "trivial" to you?!

You apparently glossed over where I prefaced "trivial" with "For the Most Part". I do consider Bush's axing of the Kyoto Treaty to be a VERY significant and positive action. BTW, do you have any response to points I made showing how many times Mr. Bush has strayed off the conservative ranch?

[RaceBannon]

It did get bad, but I was never in Bush's pocket and openly said so, but I was never banned or anything.

[NittanyLion]

The "bogus proof" in question:

George Will: do you think a president - and we've got a lot of non-lawyer presidents - has a duty to make an independent judgment of what is and is not constitutional, and veto bills that, in his judgment, he thinks are unconstitutional?

Governor Bush: I do.

Seems pretty clear to me.

[PhiKapMom]

Let's put it this way -- I put up a post on Pres Bush keeping his conservative base by 90% and within a few posts the bashers has showed up big time. And continued on non-stop until some of us had finally had it. It go so bad they pulled the thread which IMO was the intent of the disruptors. They had lies, innuendoes, called people names and generally baited Bush supporters.

Some Bush supporters fired back because what went on was so unbelieveable. I personally believe it is being done on purpose to split different groups out. I even posted an article warning that was going to happen and it looks like some of that is happening on here!

When is the last time you saw people on here quoting the NY Times, WP, or LA Times for their sources or Salon? Does make you wonder -- at least it makes me wonder!

[Texasforever]

Bush, during the interview, said he'd veto unconstitutional legislation that came his way. Yet Bush signed CFR even though he knew it to be unconstitutional. Therefore, his final action was not consistent with this campaign message. One could argue that Bush's view evolved, and that would be a legit stance. But one cannot argue that there WAS no change. See where I'm coming from?

There was only ONE 1st amendment question regarding CFR. That was the issue ad ban. That was a poison pill placed there as veto bait by the Senate democrats. They were convinced Bush would veto the bill because it was obviously un-constitutional. They then had a 2002 campaign issue that Bush and the GOP were anti reform and at the same time they kept their original cash cow in soft money in tact.

Do you think for one moment that the Democrats would vote for a Campaign bill that actually works against them if they thought the president would actually sign it? Hell NO!. They got cute and placed an undeniable 1st amendment violation in the bill, Bush signed it, that portion will be struck down and the democrats have NO issue to go with their own agreement to cut off the soft money they rely on.

[Jorge]

ll get worse closer to the election, just like it did when Bush jr. was annointed.

"annointed'???

Are you one of those who believe Bush is not a legitimately elected president?

[Jhoffa_]

"Could you find a better way to designate other people's quotes when you paste them in your post?"

"Like maybe use italicized text or quotation marks?"

APOLOGIES

[Luis Gonzalez]

"BTW, do you have any response to points I made showing how many times Mr. Bush has strayed off the conservative ranch?"

Try #526.

[ruoflaw]

I disagree with ArneFufkin reguarding your vote...I do believe that every vote counts...at least you voted!