Posted on 05/04/2002 4:24:09 PM PDT by DAnconia55
What he said was, if he believed the bill to be unconstitutional he would veto it. At the time of signing, Bush laid out the unconstitutional portions of the bill.
but I'm sure if he veto'd it you and the other 2%rs would find a way to snivel about that too.
Actually, I'm a 48%er. I voted for Bush - what, you think the only people criticizing Bush are doing so out of petty politics? Better think again.
The bill is being challenged and the President welcomes the challenge because if the 1st ammendment violation parts are removed from the bill, it is definately a plus for republicans. With "Severability" writtin into this bill was the only way President Bush said he would sign it.
First off, severability itself may not be constitutional. Second, the President should have acted responsibly in the first place and vetoed the bill, instead of keeping his fingers crossed for a SCOTUS decision.
Will you still be crying over CFR if the bad portions are removed?
My opinion will remain unchanged, yes. Politicians have no business playing roulette with our rights, regardless of the potential political payoff.
I have seen the so called Bots get downright nasty and refuse to talk in any policy,issue or debate. They just post endless threads of pictures of the President. I am no Pat fan. I am just happy Clinton is gone but reserve the right to be concerned over pertinent issues.
Yeah they get upset that their boy is not doing so great. Bush is just not conservative enough for me. Yeah I like him a thousand times more than Clinton and Gore or any stinking demoncrat. However, I really must say that I do not like him telling Israel not to fight terrorism. I never liked Powell! Getting Arabfat (a terrorist) freed did not make much sense in my non-robot opinion. The shrub fans will call you names, attack your spelling. They will speculate about secret deals going on behind the scenes to justify stupidity. They are really no smarter than the idiots that stuck up for Clinton and Gore every single day. I could never understand how those losers could say how great Clinton was when he was a piece of crap. Now we have conservatives finding it difficult to be honest and fair as well. Dangerous!
First off, I would never vote for Gore or Nader. But I'm sure you knew that. I'd vote for Bush again because he's done a great job on foreign policy, but I'd be under no disillusions that I'd be getting a conservative in the White House. The 11% budget increase solidified my opinion on his handling of domestic policy, if CFR wasn't enough. The latest national ID support our of the WH only serves to support my opinion.
A couple once tried to convince me that Bush couldn't have done anything to prevent CFR from becoming law, because only Congress and SCOTUS have a say in legislation. I kid you not, they had never heard of veto powers.
I'll need a few years to accumulate the money. But don't worry...
I wonder if the two important "C" words= conservative and constituition have a chance anymore?
Where were you when all these things were talked about?
I am proud to be a Bush supporter, and if you want to call me a Bush-bot, well, so be it. I am not intimidated by the bully tactics of the anti-Bush crowd.
Enjoy your Saturday night of flaming. I have other things to do.
I hate to be the one to tell you, but none of US were counting on YOU to give us the vote to put us over the top. We kinda knew where you stood all along.
There is nothing ANY of us can say that will EVER make you like and/or agree and/or approve of George W. Bush.
And where is the drilling?
And where is the drilling?
One of us must be on the wrong thread. I thought this one was where I posted what he should do.
You never voted for him, and whatever we explained to you, you won't 1)like it, or 2) believe it.
You're a Bush hater and this is BAIT.
We must stop our dependence on foreign oil.
President Bush has said this over, and over, and over again. He has cleverly tied our dependency on foreign oil to the crisis in the Middle East, and the war on terror. Problem is, the Senate Democrats won't buy it because they cannot get past the environment. They have let this one issue pull them away from their 'unwavering support of the President in the war on terror', because they cannot abandon their one staple cause for the benefit of all Americans. For the Democrats to give up the environment would be the same as Republicans giving up taxes or the military. And these issues are allegedly too important to the party base to even consider putting the greater good of all over the vested interest of a few leftist tree huggers.
Arab nations are not hospitable to a relationship of peace and trade.
Well, this is a loaded question because you are generalizing that ALL Arab nations are inhospitable. I'm sure Turkey would disagree with your statement. Now, I will say (as I have said before) that I am getting a bit concerned with Bush's handling of the whole Israeli problem. But, in retrospect, I do think he has had to walk a tight rope because he has plans to attack Iraq, and the situation in Israel completely derailed those plans. There is no doubt that Cheney's visit to the Mideast was to basically tell the Arabs nations that an attack on Iraq was imminent. And then we had the whole homicide bombings. Now, you may be saying, 'neither has anything to do with the other.' But in the world of diplomacy, and particularly the use of military bases necessary in such an attack, the problems in Israel must be solved (or at least ceased for a time being) before any such action against Iraq can be taken. So, the pussyfooting that Bush is doing is more of a long-term strategy for a bigger plan- Iraq. Would I love to hear Bush tell the Arab world to take a flying leap? Sure I would. But it ain't ever, EVER going to happen. This leads directly back to your first question.
We can stop this by opening up all areas to oil exploration. This may affect the lives of a few animals, but it will save the lives of many soldiers and US citizens.
Again, this HAS been said by the President, just not a succinctly as you have said.
We will not needlessly kill animals, but we must save families.
Oy. It has been said. GOP talking points for weeks were stating that with today's technology, the environment and wildlife are at a very small risk. Sen. Breaux (D) from LA has gone on record time and again about this, and uses drilling in his home state as an example.
Democrats, led by Tom Daschle, are prohibiting us from exploring these areas for oil...
Implied a million times. But I would like to see a direct mention of names. Daschle has no problem saying , 'President Bush doesn't...' But, when Bush says 'The Senate', I think we all know the he is refering to one person, and one person only- Tom Daschle.
In closing, I think that we can all agree that no matter what any alleged 'Bush Bot' says, you are going to disagree with it. Clearly, the nature of your post and your replies already has shown that. What you choose to believe is your right. And I don't think anyone here is going to deny you that right. We may just may not see the same things. Such is life.
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.