Posted on 06/22/2002 9:46:05 AM PDT by quidnunc
Puh-leeeeazzze, my FRiend, JimRob's got no responsibility in steering FR's various factions to a Common Goal!! That's the beauty of this Forum, IMHO, it's a FRee-fer-All fer hashin' out our various conservative philosophies!! JimRob's got his personal opinion, but he's never been one to impose that upon the rest of us any more than necessary!! We can continue to argue for a more confrontational White House or one that folks consider more palatable to the unenlightened masses, but we needn't call on the founder of this wonderful website to referee our disagreements.
FReegards...MUD
You'll always have me, my FRiend...MUD
C'mon, when the Left says that Bush is an empty suit, controlled by Cheney, Rumsfield, and Powell, everyone here says that is a lot of hooey. Bush is his own man.
But we're supposed to believe that he's getting directive from other politicians on the domestic front?
I don't believe that either.
Seriously, FV, how can an individual who would vote for Gephardt for Speaker or D'Asshole for Majority Leader be a supporter of the Constitution?! Or was your statement entirely hypothetical?
FReegards...MUD
I was talking about you being the antichrist. And you are right, you are too insignificant for that.
How about the anti-intelligent? Yeah, that fits you.
You're the dumbest guy on FR, and that's saying plenty.
Other people feel that any non-conservative compromise is giving in to the enemy. I do not agree with this way of thinking. I understand that people hate to see long-cherished principles unsupported by the President, but I am looking at other goals, like winning the war and taking back the Senate.
It is quite possible that you are correct, and we are giving away too much. On the other hand, it is also possible that the course that the President has selected (and which I support) is correct.
The President did not campaign on jailing Bill Clinton, abolishing the departments of Education and HHS, or pulling us out of the UN. Gripes about those positions are ridiculous, as far as I am concerned. Becaue Bush is more conservative than Gore (which he is) it is unfair to gripe that he isn't taking the most extreme views of conservatives. He never said he would, and I did not expect him to do so. He campaigned as a uniter, not a divider.
Now, on certain issues I am less than thrilled...education for one. However, I look at the sum total of the President's work, and I also keep in mind what we could have had instead.
If you are worried about certain issues, call or write the White House. That is what I do. It gives them an idea of what the average person is thinking. However, I ask you to also keep in mind that when we have a democrat Senate, a popular vote minority, and a hostile media, President Bush has accomplished a lot in his first 18 months. Is it eveything we want? Of course not. But is it pretty good? I think so.
Do you write or call the White House to praise those things you agree with? Did you send a note of encouragement after we pulled out of the World Court? How about when he ditched Kyoto? How about when he pulled out of the ABM treaty? Those are things that would have NEVER happened with a dem as president.
In my opinion, those who are griping about domestic issues are allowing the media to set the agenda. Who in the heck would have really cared about that farm bill if Rush hadn't ranted about it for three days? Most people don't even know about it to this day. And most of the gripers don't ever dare mention that Reagan passed a farm bill as well, nor that Quayle was on Fox supporting the President, even though he had passed this dreaded bill.
That is where I stand on this. Those who think the country is in peril are correct...but it is not because of passage of CFR, the Farm Bill, or the Education Bill. We are in peril because we are at war, we have a fifth colummn in this country made up of non-Arabs as well as Muslims, and we have a hostile media.
LOL! Funny guy...
I've never seen Walter Williams post here (not disputing what you're saying - just letting you know I was not aware of it). I have not seen Thomas Sowell post here, either. If they are the sort of "learned" men what's-his-name was referring to, all he had to do was say so - but he had to be condescending and rude. To me, that says a lot about someone.
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.