See other All is Vanity Articles
Title: It Starts Good, Then A Turd Can Grow Into A Huge Pile Of Elephant Crap
Source:
Free Republic
URL Source: http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a37fd954b027c.htm
Published: Oct 7, 1999
Author: Jim Robinson
Post Date: 2008-02-01 05:54:13 by Uncle Bill
Keywords: The, Dungbot, Principle
Views: 556
Comments: 25
Free Republic Invaded By Kooks Against Bush To: Professional Bush is so clever that he's got all the right-wingers thinking he's a liberal. And this strategy is just to garner the swing voters who tend to be lefties. But there's more of them than there are right-wingers so it's a good gamble. Then after he wins the Presidency then he's gonna make a major swing back to the right (he is a conservative, after all), laugh at his liberal supporters and welcome the right-wing back into his compassionate conservative fold. He's so clever that he's just about the first guy on the planet to manage fooling all the people all the time. 23 Posted on 10/08/1999 00:24:27 PDT by Jim Robinson (jimrob@psnw.com) To: Yellow Rose of Texas Nothing personal. I am opposed to a second Bush presidency for several reasons. The most important are that I do not feel that Bush will properly defend the Constitution and that he will take the country further to the left. Second, I do not believe that it is wise to elect the son of a prior president. I believe that it is dangerous to have so much power wrapped up in one family. 51 Posted on 10/08/1999 00:50:59 PDT by Jim Robinson (jimrob@psnw.com) To: aligyrl-02 Those are other people's words not mine. You have posted your last lie on this site. Go back to your filthy lying friends on AntiFreepers and have yourself a ball. To those who are interested, what I said was that the CIA (under George Bush as CIA Director, then VP then President) was complicit in drug running in Southeast Asia, Central and South America. Whether Bush knew about or not I do not care. Those who did know about were either complicit or they looked the other way. They've admitted to as much in their own reports which are posted on the CIA website. 69 Posted on 10/08/1999 01:04:29 PDT by Jim Robinson (jimrob@psnw.com) To: Professional "GW does seem genuinely more conservative & he tends to have genuinely conservative advisors, as well." I disagreed with this part of his post. Also, he seems to downplay the danger in having all the power concentrated in one family. I do not agree with him. 81 Posted on 10/08/1999 01:17:59 PDT by Jim Robinson (jimrob@psnw.com) To: Professional I think you are confused. You seem to agree that it's dangerous to have one family with all the political power, yet because the GOP (which is really nothing more than one super-sized political family with concentrated power) wants him, then you are willing to go along. BTW: stay or go. That's your choice. The poster who said that this is an anti-Bush site is wrong. This is a pro-constitution site. I'd say that over half the participants here are in favor of Bush. It's only the right-wing nuts (like me) who are opposed. My opinions are simply my own. I do not speak for anyone else and no one speaks for me. Your opinions carry as much weight as anyone else. 98 Posted on 10/08/1999 01:31:34 PDT by Jim Robinson (jimrob@psnw.com) To: gutsyme What do you mean the higher ups don't approve of it? They're still doing it and the higher ups are still approving it. The CIA is still working with known drug runners, this time in Kosovo. The KLA is a drug running and terrorist group and our government including the President, the CIA and the Congress all approve of it. Working with gangsters and drug runners has been government policy for the last forty years or more. 161 Posted on 10/08/1999 02:37:26 PDT by Jim Robinson (jimrob@psnw.com) To: L.N. Smithee Well, I do not believe that G W Bush became Governor of Texas and his brother Governor of Florida by accident. And I do not believe that they did it solely on their own merits. Their father and his backers are among the most powerful men on this earth and they are responsible for cleaning up young Bush, borning him again, and moving him into the Statehouse. Young Bush had absolutely no experience and no reason to be Governor of Texas except to prime him for a run on the Presidency. If you don't think Bush II won't simply be a continuence of Bush I (same people, same policies) then you're crazy. And follow that with Bush III. No thanks. Our forefathers rebelled against a Royal Family two centuries ago. I don't think we should be so anxious to usher in another. 181 Posted on 10/08/1999 02:53:18 PDT by Jim Robinson (jimrob@psnw.com) To: gutsyme Well just a few moments ago you denied that they (the CIA and our government) were running drugs and now you admit it, but say it is justified. Tell me, just where in the Constitution is the clause that gives our President the power to use criminal gangs to covertly or overtly bring down foreign governments? 183 Posted on 10/08/1999 02:57:36 PDT by Jim Robinson (jimrob@psnw.com) And finally, just to make sure that I piss off all of the Republicans who can see no evil, I do be-lieve that the CIA trafficked in drugs in South East Asia and in South America. And I believe that George Bush was involved, first at the CIA and then later as VP and President. Or in the very least, it happened during his watch, which ultimately makes him responsible. Posted on 05/19/99 20:07:34 PDT by Jim Robinson (jimrob@psnw.com) To: DonMorgan His involvement was that he was the man in charge. First at the CIA. Then as VP he was in charge of Iran Contra. Then as President he was in charge of the entire shooting match. You people are the ones claiming I said he was a drug dealer. I never said that, because I do not believe it, yet you and your friends continue to lie about. Now you've earned your banishment as well. 244 Posted on 10/08/1999 09:49:09 PDT by Jim Robinson (jimrob@psnw.com) To: OrphanAnnie What I'm saying is our government through the CIA was complicit in running drugs. This is a fact. Their own reports on their own website do not deny this, in fact, they are full of situations where they were working with known drug runners and criminals and looking the other way. They even had the laws changed so that they did not have to report it. This is now standard operating procedure for our government. The policy is justified (they say) as long as the criminal group is helping us overthrow another government that the President has targeted. The people at the top are responsible for these policies. George Bush was at the top of the CIA, then as VP with Iran/Contra, then as President. The policy was continued under Clinton. And now they want to put Young Bush in to continue the policy. The policy is unconstitutional and just plain wrong! The Constitution does not give the President the authority to run this kind of an operation. 252 Posted on 10/08/1999 10:27:18 PDT by Jim Robinson (jimrob@psnw.com) "Free Republic has been rallying in support of President Bush. Therefore, we wholeheartedly support the Bush Doctrine." 
Jim Robinson - Free Republic
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 25.
#1. To: christine, Jethro Tull (#0)
I know, I know, but I was bored.
Thanks for these pearls, UB. Trips to FReepervillr will are fun again, I was over there l/n and I can't believe the meltdown over McCain the presumptive nominee. Many are saying they won't be voting for him (as if it matters), but for the life of me I don't get their animosity. He's for perpetual war and has been blessed by the Mother Country, so what's the bitch? The best I can tell is that he'd bring back the Fairness Doctrine, thus putting Limbaugh/Hannity on the radio "no-fly list." But most surprising was that there seemed to be genuine anger at what the GOP'ers have become. A few are actually getting a clue, but it's too little too late.
I also don't understand why the numbskulls at Free Republic who worship Bush have so much hatred for McCain. The two are almost identical, especially on their most important issue: the war on terror. Maybe there are some Bible thumpers who can't forgive McCain for calling Falwell and Robertson "evil and intolerant people." Or maybe there are some nutjobs who think that the US military and government torturing "terrorist suspects" is the best thing since sliced bread, and hate McCain for speaking out against it (the one decent thing he's ever done, as far as I'm concerned) A few of the FR dimbulbs may have caught on to the problem of amnesty and open borders, but there again, Bush and McCain sing the same song. So why do they love Shrub but hate Mac? I don't get it.
It's FReeping mystery to me. I understand Ann Coulter is going to vote *and campaign* for Hillary when McCain is ordained.
Just goes to show that whether we get Hillary or McCain, it will be no different from having another 4 years of Bush in the White House.
Yep, i hold no hope for any meaningful change with the current batch of politicians, save for RP who has been written out of the script by the elite.
One thing that Bush, Hillary, and McCain have in common is an attitude that they are somehow entitled to the Presidency. When Bush was campaigning in 2000, he had the smug attitude that he was going to be coronated, not elected. Hillary has the exact same attitude.
There are no replies to Comment # 25. End Trace Mode for Comment # 25.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#14. To: Uncle Bill (#1)
#17. To: Jethro Tull (#14)
(Edited)
#19. To: Rupert_Pupkin (#17)
So why do they love Shrub but hate Mac? I don't get it.
#22. To: Jethro Tull (#19)
#24. To: Rupert_Pupkin (#22)
#25. To: Jethro Tull (#24)
Replies to Comment # 25.