Jeb Bush Detractors can leave their apologies here.

[Pukin Dog]

If the moderators will allow this thread, I would like to hear from those with courage enough to admit their mistakes in attacking Governor Jeb Bush, "suggesting that blood would be on his hands", calling him a murderer and worse with no evidence to back up their assaults.

While today is a great day, I would like to know how many people are willing to stand up and admit their wrongs?

Some may think it unnecessary, but I think a pound of flesh is in order, in a single place were we can all see and read about it. Please remove if this is out of bounds, but in all the congradulatory threads, I dont see too many folks willing to suck it up.

[Leatherneck_MT]

"Uh Hello!!"

Nice response. Typical of so many people on the net these days when they think they are being cute.

You fail to get my point or to even try to understand where I'm coming from. I see no sense in continuing to discuss something with someone who reacts that way.

Have a nice day

[Pukin Dog]

Laws be damned, the woman was dying and sometimes the law IS wrong and should be broken.

You are out of line, Marine.

There is a difference you are leaving out of your King George comparison in your defense of law breaking.

Due Process.

""I DO SOLEMNLY SWEAR (OR AFFIRM) THAT I WILL SUPPORT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES AGAINST ALL ENEMIES, FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC; THAT I WILL BEAR TRUE FAITH AND ALLEGIANCE TO THE SAME; AND THAT I WILL OBEY THE ORDERS OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE ORDERS OF THE OFFICERS APPOINTED OVER ME, ACCORDING TO REGULATIONS AND THE UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE. SO HELP ME GOD."

Have you forgotten so soon, Marine?

Yours is not to question why, yours is but to do.....

I think you know the rest. You may question any law you wish. To suggest disobedience of ANY of them, is to disgrace yourself in the eyes of those with whom you served.

[BSunday]

right....right....quick thinking. Nice recovery. ;)

[Leatherneck_MT]

Then you obviously do not know your own country's history.

Call names and flames all you want, I could care less.

When the law is wrong the law is wrong and if a Life hangs in the balance (Like this one did), then the people have the responsibility to change the law by whatever means necessary. That includes by force of arms.

If that is not the case, then please explain to me the reasons behind our own revolution?

Seems there is a lack of moral courage on these boards as well.

"It's against the law so we can't do it."

What happens when guns are against the law?

What happens when free speech is against the law?

What happens when forced euthanasia IS the law?

What then?

Is the law still the law?

Will you ignore those laws? Will you fight to change them or shrug your shoulders like most sheep and say "But it's the law."

I have a suggestion for you. Go read a book titled "The Law"

Good book and it has alot of information in it that alleged conservatives NEED to know.

[been_lurking]

so I wish they would go there, and leave this place to reasonable people.

You appear to be exposing a little "leftist elitism" with your closing thought.

[hchutch]

But Jeb Bush DID fight to change the law, and once the law was changed, he acted.

[Pukin Dog]

I've got a copy of The Law on my bookshelf. It does NOT support what you say. The law must be changed by legal means, or you have no society. The reasons behind our revolution were due to the lack of due process, and the imposition of taxation without representation. In other words, laws were being created by fiat, and not by legally judicated procedures.

You go on and on about moral courage mister, but you are guilty of a selective interpretation of events in support of your argument. Basquiat would not approve of your interpretation. How about a morally courageous adherance to the historical facts? Why dont we start there?

[been_lurking]

Being an elected official, means you uphold the law, all the laws, not just the laws you happen to find convienant.

True, but he wasn't talking about "elected officials", he was talking about a "leader".

[Pukin Dog]

Could be.

[been_lurking]

You see, he follows, rightly or wrongly, by the 'ruling law', as opposed to those who would follow, rightly or wrongly, by 'feelings' only.

My kind of conservative.

If Terri died in the mean time, your take on waiting for the 'ruling law' would be what?

[been_lurking]

Did you want Terri to live or die.

Live, of course. But that is no excuse for breaking the law.

Do you even read your own posts?

The truth is, the "law" is far too often the "excuse" for not doing the right thing.

[Poohbah]

Then you obviously do not know your own country's history.

Actually, I do.

Call names and flames all you want, I could care less.

When the law is wrong the law is wrong and if a Life hangs in the balance (Like this one did), then the people have the responsibility to change the law by whatever means necessary. That includes by force of arms.

Once you do that, you're permanently outside the law, and you had better win.

If that is not the case, then please explain to me the reasons behind our own revolution?

Revolt against tyranny is a divinely-granted right.

However, revolutions are not made around but one single unjust law, because revolutions undo the entire structure of government.

Seems there is a lack of moral courage on these boards as well.

I see you spouting off about how everyone who disagrees with you lacks moral courage.

I find that the true lack of moral courage is when someone loudly proclaims to know what is right, claims to support that right at any and all costs, including insurrection...and then does N-O-T-H-I-N-G to actually implement his claimed superior morality.

The bottom line: you are a coward.

"It's against the law so we can't do it."

And that law got changed. What a concept.

Before you castigate someone who has actually sworn to uphold all of the laws of the state, including the ones he doesn't agree with, for not violently overthrowing one of those laws, you develop your moral courage to the point where you, who are not so constrained by a freely-given oath, can lead by example (as opposed to leading by invective).

What happens when guns are against the law?

I know that you will not walk the walk to match your brave talk.

What happens when free speech is against the law?

I know that you will not walk the walk to match your brave talk.

What happens when forced euthanasia IS the law?

I know that you will not walk the walk to match your brave talk.

What then?

Cowardly blowhards like you will posture and demand that a man on horseback make the trains run on time.

Is the law still the law?

Will you ignore those laws?

Will you fight to change them or shrug your shoulders like most sheep and say "But it's the law."

Where were you? I find your fascination with sheep to be very interesting from a forensic psychosexual viewpoint.

I have a suggestion for you.

I have a suggestion for you: walk the walk. Shut your pie hole and act on your beliefs instead of giving others hell for not doing what you're too cowardly to do yourself.

[been_lurking]

I've got a copy of The Law on my bookshelf. It does NOT support what you say.

The Law that we enjoy in this country (and you are so obsessed with) was actually earned by a bunch of "criminals" who broke the law and started a revolution.

Ponder that while you stroke your precious book.

[Poohbah]

The Law that we enjoy in this country (and you are so obsessed with) was actually earned by a bunch of "criminals" who broke the law and started a revolution.

You can't have a "little" armed revolution that undoes just one solitary law.

Are you sure you want what happens beyond that? The results may be less than pleasing.

[Pukin Dog]

The laws of this country are not to be enjoyed. They are to be obeyed. Ponder that, while you come up with a better argument.

[incindiary]

Perhaps it was the flood of calls/ email that made him move. Around this time last week, he was "sympathic" but said that the "ultimate decision was with the courts." Many became under the impression that he was going to strattle the fence. As of last Thursday, he seemed perfectly content with doing nothing. There wasn’t an announcement, interview, or article to make anyone doubt otherwise. Perhaps Bush’s people heard the calls or saw the News Max poll, which many said that his lack of action adversely affected their opinion of him. Perhaps his people were reading threads on FR? Perhaps they got nervous, that they were alienating their core base (while not making him any friends on the left) so he decide to act. So before you go around asking for apologies, please consider that perhaps it was these comments that got Bush in motion

I agree with this post. I also agree with post 101 a few others. I didn't read the whole thread. I'm glad he finally did the right thing....but I just hope it wasn't too late and she isn't permanently damaged from what she went through.

I would like to thank God once again, for keeping her going through what happened. I think GOD deserves the praise. And also thank you to all the hardworking FReepers who worked around the clock and helped organize the campaign to save Terri. Thank you!!

[Pukin Dog]

Damn. I think he is going to need to put some ice on that, Poohbah. Nicely done.

[hchutch]

Dittos to that sentiment.

[lawdude]

"If Terri died in the mean time, your take on waiting for the 'ruling law' would be what?"

Well, ifs don't count. BUT as a Conservative I must go with the rule of law, even if the consequences are wrong. Such situations merely serve to point out the evil of the law needing change.

If we violated every law because we thought it to be wrong, there would be no law. That is called anarchy, right?

Callous as it might seem, SH*T HAPPENS!

[Leatherneck_MT]

Here's another nitwit trying to tell people what they should do.

Have a nice day your posts are so much drivel and not worth responding to.