Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Bush will talk on Iraq -- when he should talk about eminent domain (that's more threat to freedom)
churchillbuff

Posted on 06/27/2005 1:58:30 PM PDT by churchillbuff

Do I feel safer because we've spent $300,000 ousting a tinpot dictator from a country that didn't threaten American freedom? No --- but I feel a h-ll of a lot less safe in my home because the Supreme Court says it's ok for government to seize it and give it to some politically connected friends of politicians.

Has Bush said ANYTHING about the Supreme Court's outrageous eminent domain decision last week? I want to hear about THAT, not another speech about the mess in Iraq.


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: bushequalsclinton; bushisaliberal; bushisarino; chamberlainbuff; dulovesu; getlostneville; goawayneville; hero2du; lookatme; neville; nevillebuff; offmymedstoday; onmysleeve; pointlessvanity; remember911; takeahikeneville; thinkimcool; troll; uselessvanity; wardchurchill; whalepoop; yaaaaaaaaawn; zot
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140141-160 next last
To: Lazamataz
I've supported Bush since the beginning.

Oh please. You have ranted against the President for ages. Remember when you were calling him a Nazi and posting pictures of Hitler and Nazi propaganda posters?

121 posted on 06/27/2005 3:42:08 PM PDT by COEXERJ145 (Just Blame President Bush For Everything, It Is Easier Than Using Your Brain)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: loveitor..
I have a joke about Pierre, a Canadian lumberjack. However,........................
122 posted on 06/27/2005 3:45:47 PM PDT by verity (Big Dick Durbin is still a POS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse

Brownshirts don't let brownshirts post and drive. Get the point?


123 posted on 06/27/2005 3:50:18 PM PDT by Admin Moderator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: churchillbuff

no with chemical weapons and car bombs in the middle of NYC....

you apparently havent been paying ANY attention...


124 posted on 06/27/2005 3:52:25 PM PDT by MikefromOhio (DAMNED KIDS!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale

but do you take that chance?

the man was/is unstable.


125 posted on 06/27/2005 3:54:04 PM PDT by MikefromOhio (DAMNED KIDS!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: loveitor..
Is he really a Canadian? Why is he so involved in American politics. You would think he had to pay taxes here...
126 posted on 06/27/2005 4:41:16 PM PDT by marmar (Even though I may look different then you...my blood runs red, white and blue.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: MikeinIraq
His military judgement is suspect. That he would jump off three years before his main weapon, the nuke, would be available, and under no pressure from neighboring countries, shows that clearly enough.

Iran is worrisome for that same reason. They are NOT jumping off prematurely.

127 posted on 06/27/2005 4:55:51 PM PDT by RightWhale (withdraw from the 1967 UN Outer Space Treaty)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: Echo Talon; Lazamataz
Bush supported New London.

http://washingtontimes.com/commentary/20041220-083613-1804r.htm

128 posted on 06/27/2005 5:01:25 PM PDT by Fatalist (60 in 06)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: Fatalist
But for reasons unfathomable to President Bush's core constituency, the administration is seriously considering filing a brief opposing property rights.

Says Clint Bolick

129 posted on 06/27/2005 5:06:42 PM PDT by Echo Talon (http://echotalon.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: Echo Talon

http://baltimorechronicle.com/012105SheldonRichman.shtml

Sheldon Richman quotes from the Wall Street Journal here.


130 posted on 06/27/2005 5:40:21 PM PDT by Fatalist (60 in 06)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: COEXERJ145
Oh please. You have ranted against the President for ages.

During CFR, I was sure against his actions. When he failed to enforce border controls, I was against that as well. I publicly stated that only his failure to campaign for the reintroduction of the Assault Weapons Ban would permit me to vote for him.

He did, and I voted for him.

Remember when you were calling him a Nazi and posting pictures of Hitler and Nazi propaganda posters?

I cannot remember that which did not occur. You are an outright liar. Prove this comment or retract your bullshit lie.

Liar.

131 posted on 06/27/2005 6:03:16 PM PDT by Lazamataz (Looks like the Supreme Court wants to play Cowboys and Homeowners.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: COEXERJ145
Furthermore, let me clarify something for you. I have 'ranted' against this President as he disappointed this conservative over and over again. But not until this tacit endorsement of the SCOTUSLANDGRAB have I felt like I was in active opposition to him.

Look, I cannot help it if there is absolutely no level of tyrannical usurpation of our rights that will bother you. Some people are just born to be subjects.

132 posted on 06/27/2005 6:19:24 PM PDT by Lazamataz (Looks like the Supreme Court wants to play Cowboys and Homeowners.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: Fatalist
i would be very surprised if Bush is in agreement with the liberal judges on this.
133 posted on 06/27/2005 6:25:27 PM PDT by Echo Talon (http://echotalon.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: Fatalist; Lazamataz; churchillbuff; Echo Talon
According to the good folks at Reason, if it hadn't been for the pressure laid on by the Wall Street Journal and other publications, plus the grass-roots efforts of Eminent Domain Watch, the Bush Justice Department might have filed a brief for what turned out to be the winning -- albeit unpopular with constitutional conservatives -- side.

Better that they stayed out of it entirely than be tarred with this decision, I suppose.

Better still, they could have filed a brief supporting Kelo.

134 posted on 06/27/2005 6:32:56 PM PDT by logician2u
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: in hoc signo vinces
Well...even a bad institution can have good resolutions.

I wasn't criticizing the resolution itself. I was criticizing the legitimacy that it confers on the UN when it's stated, as Bush said very clearly to the General Assembly during the run-up to the war, that UN resolutions must be enforced.

The U.N. is not without it's purpose...remember keep your enemies close?

I've heard that said before around here, and it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. The idea is that keeping them close means we can keep an eye on them, right? But that's assuming they'd consider it a disadvantage to themselves if we kept an eye on them. But if they did, then they wouldn't be there in the UN. So I don't know what it's really enabling us to do that we couldn't do otherwise.

To the extent that it functions as a conduit in relaying a message to the nations of the world...it may be have usefulness.

We can relay messages just fine without the UN. Nonetheless, if all it was was a diplomatic forum, with no kind of assumed legal powers, then I'd have no problem with it in principle.

A point John Kerry knew, or cared, little about...he should have remembered George Washinton's farewell address.

Well, true. I personally think both parties could stand to look it over from time to time.

135 posted on 06/27/2005 6:43:32 PM PDT by inquest (FTAA delenda est)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: Echo Talon
i would be very surprised if Bush is in agreement with the liberal judges on this.

If you look at the links logician4u provided, he is.

Thusly, my comment.

Bush isn't a conservative. He's an elitist. Anything that helps his elite wins his approval. He's only played 'conservative' long enough to get elected, and now the real Bush seems to be shining through.

I'm angriest at myself, for being fooled.

136 posted on 06/27/2005 6:51:38 PM PDT by Lazamataz (Looks like the Supreme Court wants to play Cowboys and Homeowners.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
ehh not believing it.
137 posted on 06/27/2005 7:11:42 PM PDT by Echo Talon (http://echotalon.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: Echo Talon

I'm sure the homeowners who used to live on the 13 acres of land that was seized to build a new stadium for the Texas Rangers would have no trouble believing it.

http://espn.go.com/mlb/bush/saturday.html


138 posted on 06/27/2005 7:28:39 PM PDT by Fatalist (60 in 06)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: Fatalist
Thursday, November 9?
139 posted on 06/27/2005 8:17:05 PM PDT by Echo Talon (http://echotalon.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: churchillbuff
and had sanctions on him

Big whoop.

Ever heard of oil-for-food?

Koffe Annan?

Jaques Chirac?

Vladamir Putin?

Ever see the pictures of Saddam's brand new billion dollar palaces, along side photos of children who had no water?

Sanctions my butt, you dum dum.

140 posted on 06/27/2005 8:21:02 PM PDT by teenyelliott (Soylent green should be made outta liberals...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140141-160 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson