Free Republic

newspeak

I knew what you meant -just didn't know how Pres. Bush was going to make it better.

Boy we disagree on school choice - but that can wait for another time and another day.

Running for office on a local level will do nothing for the border situation and I don't think we can wait.

The tolerance I was speaking of was toward the ME people - I got very, very tired of hearing about it - don't know how that fits in.

Right now Bush is our only hope, and because so many are clinging to that straw, that makes it even more imperative that we watch what he does.

Goodness - do you feel better now?

I happen to agree with you.

The ones saying they won't vote for Pres. Bush if he doesn't do something about the borders are constantly told 'you will get a Democrat'. Well, they are probably right - so we vote for Bush. We get more and more illegals. We will get Fox more and more involved in this country's workings. Our schools will be completely broke - our children not even getting the marginal education they are getting now. Many will loose their homes because they can't pay the taxes to keep up these illegals. As hospitals raise the costs to the paying people - our health care premiums will go up and soon more and more will not be able to afford it. Our auto insurance will be so expensive due to the damage by illegals with no insurance, we will not be able to afford insurance and will either cut down to one vehicle - buyer older junkers and carry liability only. We will have to have bars on our doors and windows if we live in an areas where they are very concentrated - because the police are not going to help you. More and more Americans will be out of work due to their influx. Now when we know that is the horror that faces us with President Bush unless he does something substantive and does it quickly - we are supposed to shake in our boots that a Democrat might get elected.

I personally hope TAncredo runs, he will get my vote and what little money I can send. I don't think he has a chance- but he will bring the issue to the public and and both parties will no longer be able to coordinate the silence on this subject.

If the President lacks leadership nothing gets accomplished. Lack of leadership was part of Clinton's problem. I consider leadership one of the most important attributes of anyone who holds an executive position.

Leadership? As in the leader of the government - I agree. But do people need a leader - I am not a follower - I don't understand that. I think it is probably a matter of having different interpretations for words. A leader to me is someone you follow - I don't need that. Do you think we do?

LOVE has a myriad of meanings in English. I can love pizza, love reading a good book, love a friend, love my children, love my husband, and love my President, and they all mean different things.

Now you are going to lecture me on love - hmmmm? I don't love pizza - I like and enjoy pizza. I don't love reading a good book - I like and enjoy reading a good book. I love a friend - both as a friend and as a human being. I love my children unconditionally and completely in every way. I love my husband unconditionally and completely in every way. I love all mankind - I don't 'love' the President. I truly do not understand that.

It's subtle, but some day you might think deeply enough to understand this complexity, and not be so confused and offended by the LOVE that so many of us (both male and female) share for our President..............even if we don't agree with his immigration policy.

I already think deeply enough and I realize that President Bush is a man, a politician. I love him as a human being - not as a President. I don't understand 'love' for a President. If you know him personally, then love as a friend - but as a President - no I don't understand it. I am, in no way offended by your love for the President - just completely puzzled by it.

But let me say, I am not sure I want to understand the 'complexity' that would allow one human being to say they 'love' a politician they don't know personally. You can like and admire his persona, his actions, his looks, his speech, - but love him - no I don't understand it and I have lived long enough to know love. I just don't use the word lightly.

Well, you were never at my house. My Dad gushed as much as it is possible for a grown man with a good head on his shoulders TO gush, and it was the same with a lot of men his age. And I think it was due to *sheer relief* that Carter was gone and somebody decent was in there lowering there damned taxes and telling them they weren't the devil for working hard and earning money and doing the things that men were supposed to do. Sound familiar?

We were all relieved and jubilant - no gushing. I guess we were raised differently. We were taught politicians were our employees and that to be a good employer, we should keep our eye on them. I have never felt any politician, President on down was worth of adoration, or love (except as a human being, one of God's creations) - perhaps I owe these people an apology - I just thought all conservatives and Republicans were like the ones I knew. Very tough taskmasters and very independent people.

Believe me when I tell you I thought the 'gushing' adoration, love, that was directed at Clinton was just Democratic nonsense. I really thought the Republicans were an aberration - that is amazing.

And Bush hasn't achieved Reagan status yet in terms of adoration. Sure, there are some women who gush. So what> Doesn't mean they're going to allow him to lead them into hell.

But are you sure? How long would it be before some people would begin asking questions? What do you think it would take to make them ask questions?

There's no way to compare then and now though, really, because forums like this did not exist then. Pity, they would have been extremely useful. Possibly we could have avoided Carter. And youknow-who.

Now that is a thought - but you are right, things are different and people are different. Do you think people who post on these forums are different from people who don't post here? I find that I am not that different from other REpublicans, or conservatives, I know. Is it a need to have a 'leader' or some such? I am asking for you thoughts - it isn't meant to be insulting - but I have never felt I needed a 'leader' - I certainly never felt I needed a President to be a leader - I wasn't raised that way.

Our schools will continue to teach revisionist history, newspeak and "sexual diversity". The individual be continue to be subjugated to the group, and those who cry most about rights will continue to remove yours, beginning with #1 for the sake of tolerance, and #2 for the sake of control and your "safety". The war on terror is not the only one being fought, and make no mistake, they are both life or death.

No doubt about it with the Democrats - but what is being done about revisionist history, newspeak (?)m and sexual diversity. I haven't seen anything come out of the WH to combat those things. Not saying there hasn't - just haven't seen it.

For the sake of tolerance - I don't believe I heard 'tolerance' used more times in one short span than I did from the WH and AG office post 9/11 - we are barraged with it daily and threatened if we weren't. AS for giving control for the sake of safety - I see far too much of that from this administration.

The PResident is doing some things about terrorism - some make no sense such as open borders, allowing more and more ME men into this country. In fact, Powell told a group of ME people that we were going to bring more and more in and educate them so they would love us. Forgive me, I just don't see it. I fervently hope you are right and I agree that right now, this is our only hope - but unless something is done about closing the borders, getting the support of the illegals off the backs of the American workers, telling Fox he doesn't run the US and doesn't make laws for us, cutting out the 'skilled labor' (which seems to include much more than just hi tech people, and doing something about our trade policies so Americans can get back to work - nothing will matter.

I realize there are a lot of things going on in this country and a lot of things need attention - but defense should be first - that includes manning the borders. Then cleaning the terrorists out of this country. Some things have been done along those lines - I don't know if it is enough - doesn't seem like it to me - but I admit I am not a very patient person. At the same time, he needs to do something about the economy. Once again, that includes manning the borders, cleaning the illegals out of the country, renegotiating trade deals, telling Mexico to get back to its own country and make it work- we can handle our own. I have seen very little done in these areas, other than the war and some arrests as I said/

We had the border problem when he took office - other than encourage it and push for amnesty - he did nothing. We had a problem with the economy - and other than refuse to do anything about the borders and push for amnesty - . I will give him the tax cut - but soon a tax cut will not 'trickle' down - except south to Mexico and east to China.

I don't see why it should frighten you. To me, it's not the support, but the object of it that matters. It's not People Liked Clinton + People Liked Bush = Bush is the Same as Clinton

No, No, No. That's not what I said or even near what I meant. But Pres. Bush is a politician - he has tremendous power - he has the power to do great things or terrible things. The rhetoric bothers me because I wonder should suddenly he begin to do bad things, would anyone question him? I think there are many who would not and that frightens me.

Now I just had a thought and I am very new to the give and take about politics on a national level. I admired Ronald Reagan - not because I think he did everything right - but because he made me and a lot of others feel that we were Americans again and that we were capable of doing for ourselves. He is the only President in my lifetime - Don't remember Roosevelt - but do remember Truman on - that I felt that way about, and a lot of other Americans did too. But I just did not see the gushing, adoration for him. I heard many nice things, many respectful things - but it seemed to me - it was respect and admiration only - and was kept in perspective. As I said, perhaps because I didn't communicate on a national level, and on sites like these.

My grandfather told of people talking that way about Roosevelt - and I saw it with Clinton - so I just assumed that was, forgive me, but the mindless following of Democrats - you know the ones they called 'yellow dog'. I have never, ever, in my life heard conservatives or Republicans speak in those, can't think of a better word, worshipful words - I just haven't. Now maybe that is the new way of speaking of political leaders and I just missed it - if so, I apologize - but I was really shocked when I first read Republicans uttering them. As I said, maybe my age is showing, maybe it is my naivete, or just my lack of knowledge about political thought on a national level.

We country people just always seemed to have a little healthy distrust of politicians - perhaps that is dead.

You are the last post - so I will post to you and the other 'fun' gang on here - I must - simply must get to work. I have to make money to pay for President Bush's illegals to have medical care, education and free food - duty calls you know.

Please make some sense.

That was cute - when you don't have anything to say - you insult. Really adult and will do a lot of good for this country.

I thought it was Molly Ivins that coined 'shrub' - not me either.

No - I am a Texas Lady - she definitely is not.

Many, many many Americans are thankful to a merciful and almighty God for giving us this man as our leader, to bring dignity, responsibility and honor back to America.......and they don't share your 'distaste' for him, even if they disagree with him on issues. As hard as it's going to be for you to deal with because you don't like the guy, you're going to have to live with the fact that a whole lot of thinking, Conservative, God-fearing people love and respect him.

I have no distaste for the President - read that - just for some of his actions or inactions. I don't like many of the things he does - I respect the office of the Presidency. Now other than love for another human being, I just never thought 'love' entered into the picture.

Why wouldn't the troops show respect for the President? What exactly does that have to do with anything? So no one should question what he does? What in the world are you trying to say?

Excuse me, but I spoke for myself. I am not dishonest, and thank you for once again proving my point.

YOu want to run that one by me again?

And I disagree with Bush on a number of issues, immigration and land rights being just the first two. But goodness, I hope my sense of proportion would prevent me from wanting to throw the baby out with the bathwater (the jury is still out on whether he'll handle those issues to my satisfaction anyway).

Fair enough - I am not quite ready - but if he doesn't do something about the borders and illegal immigration soon and I mean really soon - I don't know.

I do think you are giving this some thought and not just throwing out insults and I appreciate that.

The things I care about such as immigration, land use (which is very scary) and I was not pleased with his actions post 9/11 - but that remains to be seen - maybe it will work out right and he was doing what was best - just can't see it. I don't like some of the powers that are being even more concentrated in the federal government. I still don't know what John Ashcroft was doing here in Texas to kick of a Texas bill regarding no parole for gun crimes (whatever that might be). That should be strictly a state matter - nothing to do with WAshington. It would seem he had plenty to do in WAshington - why is he participating in a state matter?

The disagreements I have with President Bush are really biggies - they concern our very existance as free citizens, a free country, or even a sovereign nation at all. We can overcome the things Clinton did, I think. But if we loose the country and allow a foreign nation to dictate our laws and continue to destroy American citizens to support foreign citizens, leave our borders open for anything and anyone to come across - while we use precious manpower and resources to 'teach a lesson' to any citizen who would try to do something on their own - those things can't be fixed for generations to come.

As for land use, I either heard or read a statement from Pres. Bush saying kind things about the program that is setting aside land so it can't be developed and after a certain period of time will revert to some organization. I assume that is the nature conservancy - don't know for sure. If you take away our ability to own private property, (and taking it out of circulations, so to speak, does that) , especially land, we are no longer a free nation.

People are thrilled with Pres Bush because we won the war - I don't have an opinion whether we should have gone or not. That Hussein was a madman, I have no doubt. That the world is better off that he is out of there, I have no doubt. Just wish we knew where he is. But that we could win a war with Iraq never was a question in my mind. I just could not understand why you would go around the world to fight a madman that might/probably had some connection to Al Queda when we have ME men paying 35,000 to cross the American border and we aren't doing anything substantive about it.

As I said, my misgivings about PResident Bush are biggies. It is good he professes his faith, it is good he appears to be faithful to his wife, he won a war with Iraq. I know there have been some arrests here, haven't heard what is going on with them. They are making some foreigners register - I think they should make them all like they once did. I do like his stance on partial birth abortion - now that's a biggie. - but I want other big things taken care of - the things that are a threat and are eating away at us each and every day. That is what makes me wince when I see people not willing to question Pres. Bush on anything. It nice they think he is a good man, a family man, a Christian man - but this country has many of those - I want a man to have the backbone to be willing to take it on the chin to do what is right and cleaning out this country and allowing Americans to once again work is a big, big necessity if we are to survive.

One of the things that does frighten me is the rhetoric in support of Pres. Bush (yourself excluded) is almost a verbatim to the remarks made by Clinton supporters.

You know President Bush has people on here that just go ballistic at the faintest criticism - it makes Clinton's Intimidation Squard look like pikers.

As I said to the other's - good grief - get a grip. Read the sentence - it meant he had supporters, followers, whathave you - reread it - with the intent of seeing what it said - not what you want it to say or what you thought it said.

I stand by the entire statement-----

Okay...alright, are you one of the Dixie Chicks?

Sorta from Dixie (Texas), but definitely not a chick -

It did cause a discussion, didn't it? I think discussion is a good thing.

You are presuming there is a double standard.

No I am saying there is a double standard.

What has Bush done wrong thats been covered up, etc.?

I didn't say he had - I just said he wasn't being questioned as Clinton would have. Did I say he had covered anything up?

. I have an idea why you relentlessly regurgitate your talking point despite its baselessness

I have constantly had to 'regugitate' because no one seems to be answering that - it is been everything else.

Forgive me, - but to say that Clinton would not have been questioned based on one picture and would not have been royally raked over the coals is just a little disingenous. Since you are making your judgements based on the history of the two men - I will make my judgement of that statement based on the past history of how all of us felt about Clinton. It's nice to sit here and say - well if it was just one picture and we never found out that he got anything or did anything I wouldn't have said anything. Really? We both know that is not true - there would still be conspiracy threads going on today had that happened.