Posted on 08/29/2002 1:00:30 PM PDT by feelin_poorly
Hope you've got on your asbestos suit. You're gonna need it on this thread.
Welcome aboard!!
I don't recall ever hearing of you before tonight.
And what are you doing to remedy the situation? Have you thought of becoming a teacher and teaching the Constitution as it should be taught?
Kinda liked that one myself. :) It seems to have flown under the radar screen of most. I'm glad you liked it!
Fitting.
You think thaey are our friends???
It's like this whole 'war with Iraq' business. Our leaders are talking, what is basically, pre-emptive strikes. You know, do unto others before they get the chance to do unto you. This is NOT grounded in ANY Constitutional ideology and, for that matter, flies directly in the face of everything that a true Constitutional Republic is supposed to stand for.
So we shouldn't make a pre-emptive strike??
...But the rest of us realists have to make the decisions to punch foreign dictators and tyrants in the mouth in order to keep our nation safe.
Nobody wants to preserve the Constitution more than me but the reality is that this country or World will never go back to 1776 so we're gonna have to make decisions that get the best results for our Nation right here, right now.
BRAVO, I couldn't agree more
I'm just asking for, well heck, I don't know why. But I've never understood how people can be so easily led. If 9/11 wouldn't have happened, maybe my opinion would be different. I don't know. I do know that the power grabs going on right now have nothing to do with safety, and have everything to do with insuring that we'll never see freedom again in our life times. And after the U.S. invades Iraq, I shudder to think what kind of "security" measures will be implemented for the "homeland" (what a horrible word, far too Teutonic IMO).
I guess I'm just amazed that people continue to line up so enthusiastically behind whatever leader is at the podium telling them to give up their liberties and lives.
1) Gingrich won in 1994 because he represented the values of the electorate. Less government, lower taxes, and more Freedom. It's the same reason Reagan won in 1980 and 1984; and the reason Bush Sr won in 1988 (he ran as Reagan III).
2) Bush duped conservatives into believing he was a real conservative (school vouchers and privatization of social security).
3) Most conservatives believed the polls (big mistake), and were convinced that Bush was the only candidate who could defeat Gore. Rather than voting "for" someone, they were voting "against" someone, and in so doing they selected the guy with the highest poll numbers.
No, we should not.
With the exception of Ron Paul there are no Republicans I would support for office. They're not only doing nothing to reverse the headlong rush toward bigger government, but are actively contributing to its growth. And while you may like to herald a $300 tax cut as some major victory, or point out that Republicans only want to expand government at 4% annually as opposed to the Democrats' 7%, both halves of the Incumbent Party are really working toward the same end -- bigger government.
That's just the burden some of carry for poor souls like you, coping in the day to day, while the libertarian pines and sucks his thumb about a "better time"
You carry no burden other than that which you have strapped on yourself. You'll continue doing what you've always done, and in twenty years when the federal budget is $5 trillion you'll tell me I should be thankful that Republicans kept it from growing to $6 trillion.
That is the only thing I can do, outside of talking to others and persuading them to my side of the political arena. I will NOT become involved with any NEA school, as I do not believe in public schools, not even slightly. I do what I can, with what I have. That's all any of us could hope for.
Well, I am a tit-for-tat kind of person...:-)
But as for my views on the Constitution and how our leaders throughout our history have used or misused it; let me just say (because I have to sign off shortly) that I do not believe that most (not all, but most) of them lacked in intelligence, wit, or sincere desire to uphold and defend the Constitution. They simply disagreed on its purpose and implementation. Even the Founding Fathers had disagreements over it--Jefferson, Madison, Adams, etc. There are lots of ideas that, if implemented (some of them already have been) could ruin this country, but those same ruinous ideas could (and have) also withstand Constitutional scrutiny. Just because something is a bad idea does not mean it's unconstitutional.
Sums up my feelings as well.
Dang you're right I did forget .. thanks
???
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.