CNN Breaking News(Ben Bernanke to succeed Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan)

CNN ^ | 10-24-05 | Staff: CNN

[no dems]

President Bush to nominate Ben Bernanke, his top economic adviser, to succeed Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, CNN confirms.

[ohioWfan]

You're right j. It's just that a very loud and ignorant minority post on every thread on this forum to puff themselves up and make it look like there are more of them than there are.

I'm sure this tiny minority are the darlings of DU, though........

The majority of us are with the President.......because there is good reason to be.

[skr]

Has she called him a janitor yet? ⁹⁹

[ohioWfan]

Poppycock!

He's always been his own man, and nothing has changed that.

I've read that silliness on this forum since he was elected over four years ago, and it wasn't any more true then than it is now.

Of course, you wouldn't know that, since you just recently joined us......

[jveritas]

Some news for you: “F*** NRO”. These idiots are Beltway elitists who think they are smarter than anyone and who believe that all conservatives and Republicans must follow their analysis and predictions. I will not forget NRO despicable behavior on Election Day when their idiotic writers threw down the towel and told us it will be a Kerry landslide victory.

Again “F*** NRO”.

[Leonine]

"...make it look like there are more of them than there are."

Have you read any Free Republic polls lately?

[RegulatorCountry]

"Of course, you wouldn't know that, since you just recently joined us..."

LOL. The DU card. I've posted about 2,600 replies. I suggest you look at a few of them, before jumping on the simplistic name-calling bandwagon again.

[tfecw]

"We just have to toughen up our hearts to be able to step over those weak, hurt, and totally unable to do anything about it. "

You might want to get that bleeding heart looked at. As much as you would like to paint "true conversatives" as "able to step over those weak, hurt, and totally unable to do anything about it." you'll find that the vast majority chose to volunteer time, donate food, donate money through charity organizations and the church. We don't need the federal government to do that. Of course I would expect a rational person to come to that line of thinking, i see others need help getting to that conclusion.

[ClancyJ]

Now just how much of that would be passed through this congress?

How come our traitor congressmen get no hate - just our President who is dependent on them?

And, how do you suggest solving the immigration problem? What do you do about the children that are American citizens by birth? Do you break up their family and send them to Mexico? What about their rights as a citizens? How does a "family values" president set about destroying families? And, realistically, how do you get re-elected with all the Hispanic population voting against your party? Where does that leave the country in the following presidential election? With a democrat - that is where. And you full well know it too.

Government spending has exploded - a historically unique, dramatic increase.

Just how would you pay for the 9/11 attack, the ensuing war in Afghanistan and Iraq? How would you pay for the total devastation of thousands on our own shores due to unusual hurricanes? How would you pay for all the reorganization of government required due to 9/11?

Of course we are paying more. No other president had to pay for all those events.

The emphasis should be on the misallocation of funds in New Orleans that was not used to protect their citizens, the pork voted in by the senators to buy their votes, the perks each gets, the waste in spending in all government programs. But, the congress has to do that and they get absolutely very little complaint. All complaint is at Bush who has no control over any of that. Of course, you don't have to think of those things - all you have to do is criticize because one president does not have a way to effectively solve those problems, in addition to running a war, handling natural catastrophes and just generally running the country while under constant attack.

[A CA Guy]

Drudge escorted her in NY one day when she went in The View TV show, but it has been reported she is currently dating a young famous athletic person of some sort who is also a known liberal.

It was so memorable that I can't remember the guy's name right now either. LOL

[jveritas]

It is an NRO analysis, so it must be true. (Sarcasm beyond belief).

[ohioWfan]

Yes. All of them. The anti-Bush crowd is the minority, even on this very conservative forum.

The rest of the Republican party supports the President very strongly.

The bashers, as represented by this very noisy, nasty band of buddies here, are a small minority.

That's probably why they're mad all the time.....

[skr]

A very good saying.

[rwfromkansas]

The markets disagree. Check out the Dow.

[ClancyJ]

We are not one iota more energy independent - one of the central security challenges of our time - than when he took office. Not a whit.

What about his Energy Bill? Who voted against that? Not President Bush. What about his efforts to drill in Anwar? It is the Congress, the RINO's representing us and the powerful liberals that are the cause of no energy iniatives - not the President.

[ohioWfan]

I said absolutely nothing about DU. Paranoid, are we?

You could have posted a million posts, but that doesn't make what you said valid.

Maybe if you typed a little bit less, you could engage your brain a little bit more....

[thoughtomator]

And, how do you suggest solving the immigration problem? What do you do about the children that are American citizens by birth? Do you break up their family and send them to Mexico? What about their rights as a citizens? How does a "family values" president set about destroying families? And, realistically, how do you get re-elected with all the Hispanic population voting against your party? Where does that leave the country in the following presidential election? With a democrat - that is where. And you full well know it too.

Okay, now we know that you are not really a conservative, which explains your support of a President that is not a conservative either. Every single sentence in that paragraph is factually incorrect, which you can educate yourself about on any number of immigration threads here.

Just how would you pay for the 9/11 attack, the ensuing war in Afghanistan and Iraq? How would you pay for the total devastation of thousands on our own shores due to unusual hurricanes? How would you pay for all the reorganization of government required due to 9/11?

Believe it or not, all that is less expensive than the trillion-dollar entitlement that this President brought in with him (larger than any new entitlement since Lyndon Johnson!) Defense-as-reckless-spending is a Democrat line, I'm surprised to see you pushing it here.

If this is the best defense of the case you can make, it's no wonder that the ship is going down in flames.

[jveritas]

Did you notice that they act in "wolf pack" style. They always ping each others every time there is a Bush Bash thread. However I came up with a nice poster for them:

BASH BUSH

[livius]

The Democrats, like al Qaeda, respond to weakness in pretty much the same way

Well said.

[AmericaUnited]

I was spoofing at the moment of posting, but with the recent past as a guide, it will not be a spoof in a day or two.

[thoughtomator]

The President has powers designed to enable him to influence Congress. Can you explain why he has not used the foremost of them - the veto - a single time? Do you think that he could not get them to do some of what he wants to do with the threat of a veto?