Posted on 10/03/2005 6:07:00 PM PDT by Phsstpok
"she is "known" to him."
Okay deborooski, here is an example of "known." John Haldeman and Nixon. Knew each other for decades. Nixon takes him to the whitehouse, was his chief of staff, nixon gave him orders, and Haldeman would blow him off believing he knew better instead (i wrote a graduate paper on this, i know). so much for being "known". you missed the point and the potential implications. no matter how much you polish a turd, it still smells like a turd.
That picture is truly a thing of beauty. Kudos to the artist!
I saw a bit of that this morning when the news first broke. Admittedly, I know very little about GWB's pick, so I wasn't sure what to think. I kind of got the feeling a lot of the people pushing the panic button don't know her either. Seems like a lot are just looking for an excuse to "lose it" or whatever.
For a few seconds there, that's kinda what it felt like too!!
They think they know, the armchair commanders....
That being said, lets see if we can get something communicated here. It will probably be more understandable to indicate the points we agree on.
If you need some help finding members of the "If Bush does it, it must be great" club just read some of the posts on the forum. The hint that you will need to spot them look for comments like "Bush knows her, so that is good enough for me", "If Bush rusts her so do I" etc.
There seems to be a real concern that we are being invaded by DU'rs, so much so that we may be stifling different points of view.
What is the use of a forum if we all agree on the same topics and disrespect anyone that does not agree?
As I posted, I can remember when expressing a difference of opinion was actually part of the reason to show up here.
GREAT REPOST!!!
I agree that the scumbag rat operatives are out in droves, and that is not at all surprising. But what is truly disappointing is to see so many enablers, especially around here, naively eating it up without the slightest idea that they are being played.
Regards,
LH
I totally agree with you. The amount of hysteria today was way beyond the normal hysteria. LOL!!!
Thanks for the link. Don't know how I missed the original posting. Of course, seeing it was the NYTimes, I probably would have guessed that they were betting on him to nominate the CEO of Haliburton or something. They got it right this time ... who could have predicted that to happen?
It's definitely relevant. People need to be reminded that this is how the left operates.
They're here doing it every day.
Up until the advent of TV(1950's) there were no nominee hearings.
The judicial candidates thought it beneath them to be grilled by Senators.
They may have had their own hearings but the nominees did not attend.
Since no one knows his nominee as well as he does I'm gonna stick with Bush until I learn otherwise. Maybe he's ahead of all of us, eh?
You replied to a post that was directed to someone else without really answering any of the questions that were presented or addressing the point of the post.
I replied to a post on a thread that I started which I read to imply, rightly I think, that my intent was to attack anyone who has concerns about this nominee. That is a false position. I addressed that explicit point by quoting the main statement from the original post.
That being said, lets see if we can get something communicated here. It will probably be more understandable to indicate the points we agree on.
"I dismiss as useless the position of anyone who has CONCLUSIONS at this point"
Good point, I agree, we probably will not know for sure for several years if President Bush did the right thing or not. I for one will give it until the 08 election since neither of my Senators are up for election in 06.
At least wait more than 12 hours. I understand fear, but irrational fear based only on hysterical rantings from folks with either no evidence or fraudulent evidence is dumb.
If you are suggesting that I, who started this thread, am saying "If Bush does it, it must be great" then you're very mistaken and I want more info on who, exactly, someone is who makes such a claim."
I am a man, I do not post suggestions to other people. If I have something to say I say it to the people that I want to read it. Since I did not post to you please understand that I am "suggesting" nothing to you.If you need some help finding members of the "If Bush does it, it must be great" club just read some of the posts on the forum. The hint that you will need to spot them look for comments like "Bush knows her, so that is good enough for me", "If Bush rusts her so do I" etc.
You posted openly in a forum. If you didn't want anyone else to react to or reply, make it a private freepmail to the party you were addressing. I read your post and disagree with your statement that you don't "suggest." You clearly do. And your suggestion is wrong.
"I'm saying very explicitely that there's not enough information and we need to wait to make up our minds and not be stampeded by some very obvious Trolls."
I agree completely, my point is that because someone has another point of view they are not necessarily a Troll.There seems to be a real concern that we are being invaded by DU'rs, so much so that we may be stifling different points of view.
What is the use of a forum if we all agree on the same topics and disrespect anyone that does not agree?
I did not say someone was a troll for having a different point of view. I did say that people who are reacting to trolls and making up their minds on what we both agree is insufficient evidence are being stampeded. That is the entire point of the thread. Not trolls as you say below.
I do not "disrespect anyone that does not agree." I do disrespect anyone who has been pushed into an ill considered positions within 12 hours of the President's nomination position based on false, misleading or downright dishonest postings by trolls.
"I really am open to discussing the issues"
I believe that the issue of this thread is a discussion about Trolls. My contribution to the discussion is to ask that we show some consideration to people that have "legitimate concerns" and not rush to judgment about who may or may not be a Troll.As I posted, I can remember when expressing a difference of opinion was actually part of the reason to show up here.
As stated above and in a separate post, folks who have made up their minds or calls anyone who hasn't a "kool aid drinker" are way short on reason and area acting like a herd of dumb cows. Slow down. Don't jump to conclusions. Don't make accusations you can't back up.
"Way too many newbies threatening to vote for Hillary,"
Anyone at this website who writes that they will vote for the beast should be zotted on sight.
I ain't part of your WE.
thank you for your personal insult, as opposed to the reasoned discussion that you asked for.
I guess you were lying when you said that you wanted to discuss.
'nuff said.
- 30 -
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.