Indefinite Dictatorial Power

[Baptist in Richmond]

Originally posted by OldRegular:
A better question might be: When will Bush Haters stop posting the lies of the leftist democrats on this Forum?

Please provide an example of what you claim....

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

Originally posted by Bunyon:
If Bush had sex with a 19 yo in our oval office and played dirty games with a cigar. If he lied about it refering to "that woman" and if he went so far as to put the vice president and the Sec. of State on the camera to lie to the whole nation, I would hound him out of office.

Fair enough: you answered my honest question.

You can take that to the bank.

Exactly what was the reason for this seemingly caustic response? What exactly does this add to what you posted above? It certainly doesn't reinforce anything you mentioned.

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year,
BiR

 

[Bunyon]

It serves two purposes. It shows that I would be consistent with democrat or republican who acted like this. And it highlights my contention that most of the folks who are so worried about this Bush situation were apologist for Clinton and would not be and are not consistent. They are mostly political when it comes to Bush. I bet they would not care if it were Clinton. Bush is acting in our best interest and has been completely honest. Clinton was as dishonest, manipulative, self serving as a president ever was. But I feel confident most of those now attacking Bush, not so zealous over Clinton's selfish dishonesty's. However, in contrast, I would be acting just the same if it were Clinton.

 

[fromtheright]

Ken, why the insistence on treating the threat of terrorist attack as a law enforcement issue and not a matter of national defense? We're talking about combatting a non-national organization and preventing attacks on our country, not a street thug about to knock over a convenience store. This is an enemy who has made war against the United States. They didn't simply blow up a car on a street, they killed thousands of Americans in a coordinated attack.

 

[KenH]

All I am asking is for the executive branch to follow the law. If it has been, fine. If it hasn't, then it needs to be called on the carpet for it.

 

[fromtheright]

I understand and appreciate your point but: (1) I don't think it's clear that he has broken the law (as indicated in OR's post on the last page) and (2) I'm willing to cut the guy some slack when it comes to defending the country from attack.

 

[KenH]

We'll let Congress sort it out when it comes back into session in 2006.

 

[fromtheright]

I've got a question I'm about to post in another thread that I look forward to your answer on.

 

[carpro]

I believe it is a constitutional issue and Congress has no authority to "sort it out" except by the power of the purse. A risky proposition.

 

[NiteShift]

Originally posted by Baptist in Richmond:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />

Two points worth noting:
1. I asked an honest question, and did not make any observation that you mention above.
2. You didn't answer my question, despite the fact that I did not make any observation that you mention above.

Regards anyway - hope you had a Merry Christmas,
BiR </font>[/QUOTE]BiR, you asked a question and I honestly answered it. You asked what it would take for those of us who support President Bush to be critical of him. I answered that with so many outrageous accusations being thrown at him, we feel compelled to defend him. I didn't say that you called Bush a facist or a phoney Christian, only that those are things he has been called on this board. And I hope you had a Merry Christmas also