Fred Stone wrote:

"turk" <turk96@comcast.net> wrote in
news:cJadnTl3V8wOKm_cRVn-2A@comcast.com:

http://www.reformer.com/Stories/0,1413,102~8854~2667809,00.html

Another long four years

Did anyone notice the irony during President Bush's inaugural
address on Thursday that as Bush talked about freedom, security
personnel were dragging away peaceful protesters?
Does this mean that the president's words -- "when you stand for

your

liberty, we will stand with you" -- do not apply to those who

oppose

him?

Those weren't "peaceful" protestors who tore down that fence.

Yes, republicans prefer the "inactive" protestors, right, Freddy?

President Bush used the word "freedom" 27 times in his speech and
"liberty" 15 times. It's not a surprise that the words "war,"
"Iraq," "Iran" and "terror" were not used at all. Then again, the
hallmark of the Bush administration has been high-minded rhetoric
and sordid deeds.

Sordid deeds like disposing of tyrannical dictators, as opposed to

the

high-minded rhetoric and total inaction of the Left?

Well, we don't want to tear down fences, that's for sure. So, how
many Iraqis did you kill today, Freddy? I'm sure your writing this
from Iraq, since no republican would be so "inactive" to stay home and
post on newsgroups while there is a war to be won, right?

The president said that "it is the policy of the United States to
seek and support the growth of democratic movements and
institutions in every nation." Does this mean we'll see free and
fair elections in Saudi Arabia, our second-largest oil supplier? Or
in China, the country that now is the United States' biggest
creditor?

Which part of "Seek and support" did you fail to understand?

Which part of "invade a sovereign nation" did you miss? Or better
yet, which part of "preemptive strike" did you fail to understand?

The president said, "We will widen retirement savings and health
insurance." Does this mean he will drop his insane idea to
privatize Social Security and perhaps consider universal health
care for all Americans?

We want *less* socialism, not *more*.

Unless it's to benefit big business? GW has created more social
programs,not less...they just go for business not humans.

The president said that he believes in "the durable wisdom of the
Constitution." Does this mean he will dismantle the Patriot Act and
stop appointing judges who want to roll back our civil liberties?

We know the answers to these questions: He won't.

President Bush has no intention of living up to his rhetoric. He
won't "make our society more just and equal" -- not when he just
spent more than $40 million on an opulent inauguration.

Oh whiine, complaaain, about how he didn't waste it on the UN.

That was a coherent argument. But your imagination must run dry after
so much Disney-like creations as your last answers.

He won't use America's influence "competently in freedom's cause."
Not when our nation's blood and treasure is being sucked away by a
needless war in Iraq.

As for his noble words that "life is fragile, and evil is real, and
courage triumphs," we know that our nation has been fed a steady
diet of fear and paranoia.

Yeah, when do you think you'll stop?

Four years? Just a guess...

If courage really triumphs, the president
wouldn't have to hide behind phalanxes of soldiers, cops and Secret
Service agents and our capitol would not have to be transformed
into an armed camp.

There's a difference between courage and foolishness. John Kennedy
was the last President to ignore security measures.

And he still never invaded another nation.

No, Thursday's inaugural address was just the latest in a long line
of empty words coming from the lips of an empty man. It's going to
be a long four years for America and the rest of the world.

Made even longer if we have to listen to four more years of leftist
defeatism.

Are you still here? Enlist already, you pathetic hypocrite. It is
YOUR war. Don't come back until you have the head of an Iraqi child
on your wall to prove your compassionate conservatism.

Les Hellawell <myshredder@leswell.freeuk.com> wrote in
news:alg5v0pv7hdtufns1ec5hvfjj7nlc7n4bm@4ax.com:

On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 14:29:09 -0600, "turk" <turk96@comcast.net> wrote:

http://www.reformer.com/Stories/0,1413,102~8854~2667809,00.html

Another long four years

Did anyone notice the irony during President Bush's inaugural address
on Thursday that as Bush talked about freedom, security personnel were
dragging away peaceful protesters?
Does this mean that the president's words -- "when you stand for your
liberty, we will stand with you" -- do not apply to those who oppose
him?

President Bush used the word "freedom" 27 times in his speech and
"liberty" 15 times. It's not a surprise that the words "war," "Iraq,"
"Iran" and "terror" were not used at all. Then again, the hallmark of
the Bush administration has been high-minded rhetoric and sordid
deeds.

The president said that "it is the policy of the United States to seek
and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in
every nation." Does this mean we'll see free and fair elections in
Saudi Arabia, our second-largest oil supplier? Or in China, the
country that now is the United States' biggest creditor?

What happened to the war against terrorism? Is that war now over?

Which part of "Seek and support" did you misinterpret as "impose and
dominate?"