Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: holdonnow
You're no different than the Clintonoids. Your arguments are personalized. You feel you have to attack those who disagree with you rather than simply argue your case. You are, in short, a jerk.

There is something very satisfying about having someone who's in the know come to the same conclusions I have, as far as those who back Bush no-matter-what.

I've had very serious questions about Bush since CFR -- well, before then, actually -- and have beem set-upon for even asking the questions by the exact circle of people who set upon you.

Nice reality-check. You and I think alike, inasmuch as it is important to try to hold Dubya's feet to the fire. I was hoping for another Reagan with GW, instead it looks like I got another GWH.

1,455 posted on 06/25/2002 2:45:01 AM PDT by Lazamataz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 565 | View Replies ]


To: Lazamataz
wow. 1455 posts

If you will take a deep breath, look at what GWB and his team have done,and compare them to Clinton. My God, can you imagine what Gore would have done with 9/11? Now, GWB has outlined a clear path for peace in the mideast. Why shouldn`t we support our President?

1,456 posted on 06/25/2002 2:58:33 AM PDT by bybybill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1455 | View Replies ]

To: Lazamataz
He backs Bush. He just doesn't agree with every decision Bush has made.
1,459 posted on 06/25/2002 3:52:05 AM PDT by Jim Robinson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1455 | View Replies ]

To: Lazamataz; holdonnow
I've had very serious questions about Bush since CFR -- well, before then, actually -- and have beem set-upon for even asking the questions by the exact circle of people who set upon you

LOL! It's a Bush cabal I tells you.

Anyway as you have your pity party, I will lay out the facts as I have debated them before about CFR.

Bush signed CFR so as not to give the the dems, mccain, and the press an issue. Bush signed the bill knowing it will go to court and the most vile part of CFR(the ad bans) being thrown out and actually a recent SCOTUS ruling bears that will happen.

SCOTUS ruled that an Ohio town's ban of door to door solicitation was unconstituional setting the precedent for SCOTUS to rule that the politcal ad ban is also unconstitutional, IMHO.

Nice reality-check. You and I think alike, inasmuch as it is important to try to hold Dubya's feet to the fire. I was hoping for another Reagan with GW, instead it looks like I got another GWH.

You both do think alike IMHO. You both are really full of themselves.

BTW, if you would look at the facts you will notice that W. has more cajones than Reagan when it comes to Social Security, the ABM treaty, the 2nd amendment and a whole host of other issues.

1,461 posted on 06/25/2002 4:10:33 AM PDT by Dane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1455 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson