Like you, most liberals I know are as shallow as the thickness of your average loose leaf paper page. They do not reason, they scream their emotions and when confonted with facts and reason, they scream their emotional nonsense even louder. You are nothing different. All you did here was scream louder.

A one hour meeting is too short for the brain washing the lefties think is going on. Although, these very same lefties never failed to echo-chamber Clinton White House talking points, and they still do to this day.

The left is intellectually dishonest and projects that dishonesty on all those who broadcast the truth.

Don’t the Dem’s wish!! I know you meant 2009 JRob.

It’s always funny to hear big government liberals charge Republicans with tyranny. They can only do so with the incorrect accusations about losing our civil liberties because we can’t talk to Al Qaeda on the phone… boy that outrages me now that I think about it.

I may disagree with him but at least public policy isn’t fabricated by what the legacy drive by media pumps into the public view anymore.

I remember the drum beat of the legacy drive by media who drummed into the American people’s conscience that we have to do something in Yugoslavia. I’m not sure if it came from the Clinton administration or if the administration realized they need to act in Yugoslavia because the people thought this way due to the media…. whatever the case it would not have happened given the drum beat was against action because Bill was not a leader. Period.

The above commentary does not say whether or not the “safe” (safe because we stayed above 15,000 feet) action in Yugoslavia was warranted or needed for America’s national security or other national interests.

They think everything is being coordinated by Karl Rove. I tell you, if Rove really had the power that the left continues to say he does, he’d be the King of Earth by now.

Tell me that Clinton didn’t meet with people on the left to talk with them. I know he didn’t meet with liberal talk radio hosts, because they don’t exist (wonder why that is?), but I’m fairly certain he met with quite a few liberal media people to discuss things.

We can argue later about whether the president of the United States “has an obligation to bow to the will of the people.” But … did you never hear of King Charles I?

First off…  any spambots reading this should immediately go here, here, here,  and here.  Die spambots, die!  And now…  here are all the links submitted by members of the Watcher’s Council for this week’s vote. Council li…

“1. If he heeded criticism from CONSERVATIVES;
2. TERRORISTS would believe he could be bullied.

In other words, listening to criticism from the Americans who elected him would be morally equivalent to acceding to the demands of Al Qaeda.

The syllogism could not be clearer.”

That’s total nonsense. The President did not compare the Minutemen nor their supporters to terrorists. There is no clear ‘syllogism’ except perhaps to you.

“Your hypothetical “what if” has nothing to do with the comparison that Bush actually implied.”

My hypothetical had everything to do with what the issue was about, what you made it about anyway, and that is that the President supposedly has an obligation to bow to the will of the people. I’ll ask my hypothetical one more time:

What if, for example, a majority of the American people didn’t want the President to order the invasion of Afghanistan after 9-11?

You made it a point to post that the President was ignoring the will of the American people, as if that were a grave sin. My question had everything to do with that. If you want to backtrack from it, fine, but don’t act like my hypothetical didn’t address what you yourself were asserting.

“But since we are playing the hypothetical game: What if the president had equated pro-lifers with terrorists?”

He should be called to the carpet for it. So far, he hasn’t said any such thing, nor has he done so with the Minutemen and their supporters. No matter how much you want to believe it, putting the two in the same sentence does not equal to equating them.

“I heard Rush Limbaugh today, too, and he’s not talking about me. I have no desire to teach anyone a lesson.”

Then what was the point behind mentioning a possible impeachment initiated by Conyers with the warning about what the President has said coming back to haunt him?

“I am saying quite simply that there are such thing as a single-issue voter. There is such a thing as a Republican coalition. And some conservatives are serious enough in their opposition to the president’s amnesty plan that such a remark as the one cited here — it was from Michael Medved’s blog — is, as previously stated, “politically tone-deaf.”"

Well apparently those conservatives can’t think for themselves, because there is enough motivation sitting in Iraq and Afghanistan for this conservative to be able to understand that whether or not the President is “politically tone-deaf” on the immigration issue, he’s definitely not so on the war in Iraq. And some conservatives can actually disagree passionately with the President on his immigration plan and still support Republicans in the fall. Especially considering it’s the Republican HOUSE that wants the tougher plan. The President isn’t running for office anymore – the House, however, is up for grabs, if the latest polls are any indication.

“It doesn’t matter what your position is on immigration,”

To one issue voters, it apparently does, otherwise you wouldn’t have brought it up.

“or whether you want to “teach ‘em a lesson.”"

Oh that matters very much, because teaching Republicans a “lesson” this fall would be disastrous, yet I know there are conservatives who are considering doing just that. I refuse to be a part of that. If you think it’s hard enough getting meaningful legislation on illegal immigration passed now, it’ll be almost impossible to do so if we have a Democratic Congress.

“What matters is that the White House apparently has no clue about how to keep the conservative coalition united and motivated.”

Yeah, if they’d just cave on their stance on immigration, that would all change, though, wouldn’t it?

“To compare Tom Tancredo to Osama bin Laden?”

That didn’t happen, and you continuing to repeat it doesn’t make it true.

“El hombre está loco. Muy loco.”

I think your position, quite frankly, is muy loco.

BTW, I accidentally deleted a short comment you made earlier in this thread after your last one. Sorry about that.