Call the WHite HOuse to Thank Bush for CFR!!!

[Maceman]

For what good it will do, I just called the White House switchboard (202-456-1111) and conveyed my extreme outrage at Bush for not vetoing CFR when he had the chance.

I hope you all will do the same.

BTW, the operator told me "you are not alone."

Let's shut down the WH switchboard with howls of protest.

If I wasn't still even more terrified of the Democrats than I am of the Republicans (albeit barely at this point), I would never support Bush in '04 after this.

[onyx]

How many conservative justices will a democrat president appoint (nominate) to the Supreme Court?

[My2Cents]

So, the exercise of free speech is dependent upon money? Well, I don't have any money to spend on getting my views out. I guess that little obstacle is violating my freedom to exercise my First Amendment rights.

[Lazamataz]

Hey, the courts have been eroding the Constitution for over 40 years at least.

Oh, that makes it better. We shouldn't have a "hissy fit" because it's been happening for a while.

Gee, I wonder if that defense would work with a rape defendent. "Your honor, I was nailin' her for 72 hours. Why'd she have such a hissy fit at the last hour???"

[Dan from Michigan]

Bush is simply dodging a Dimocrat campaign issue by signing it

He's being a gutless wonder being afraid of the media and rats. They hate his guts anyway.

[NittanyLion]

Well, I don't have any money to spend on getting my views out. I guess that little obstacle is violating my freedom to exercise my First Amendment rights.

Then go earn some. It isn't my problem you don't have the ability to voice your views. But don't try to limit mine as a result.

[hellinahandcart]

Bump from another one of the cracked.

I never dreamed I'd be "you people" around here, did you?

[Wolfstar]

There is no reason for me to vote for Bush in 2004.

Hmmmm...let's do a quick tally sheet:

• President Bush signed the Partial Birth Abortion Ban, the first significant roll-back of abortion rights on demand since Roe v. Wade.
• President Bush gave us a significant roll-back in the tax increases signed into law by his own father and Clinton.
• He has provided bold, courageous foreign policy leadership in this post 9/11 era. He overthrew the Taliban and Saddam Hussein.
• He is the first U. S. president to essentially tell the United Nations to go pound sand.
• He withdrew Clinton's signature on the International Criminal Court Treaty.
• He pulled the U.S. out of the Kyoto global warming accords.
• He has told our make-believe "allies," France, Russia, Germany, and Canada to go pound sand as regards Iraq.
• He has put the safety and security of the American people above all other issues on the too-crowded presidential plate. Although most experts say it is a matter of when, not if we will be hit again here at home, thanks to this president's leadership, we have not experienced another 9/11 or anthrax attack.
• Although not well-reported, his administration has made some significant improvements regarding immigration in areas where he doesn't need to go hat-in-hand to Congress. Among the improvements is a very large cut in H1B visas. (Yes, I am among those who would essentially like to see the border sealed and would even like a moritorium on legal immigration. Nevertheless, this administration has toughened immigration regs where it could under current law.)
• Despite all the Leftist caterwauling about the economy, and despite the terrible hit we all took on 9/11/01, this president has held steady in his economic policies. As a result, the economy looks on the verge of roaring back in '04.

Are there issues where I disagree with the Bush administration? Of course. No two human beings on the planet agree 100% of the time. Am I disappointed by today's campaign finance ruling and the fact that the president signed that bill into law. You bet.

But on balance, this is a terrific president. And there isn't a Leftist/Dem out there who is fit to shine his shoes, in my opinion. "No reason to vote for Bush in '04?!" Anyone who genuinely counts themselves on the Right side of the political spectrum could not possibly look at this president's overall record and still say there is no reason to vote for him.

[Lazamataz]

So, the exercise of free speech is dependent upon money?

Absolutely, if you wish to get your views out to the vast masses.

Well, I don't have any money to spend on getting my views out. I guess that little obstacle is violating my freedom to exercise my First Amendment rights.

You are able to exercise a very limited amount of free speech right now. You cannot communicate to Joe Schlub, though. If you wish to do that, you would earn a little extra money and donate to a group with views similar to yours. Then, in that way, you'd be able to speak freely to Joe Schlub.

Oh! Ha ha! I'm sorry! You can't do that any more!

Only Peter Jennings, Dan Rather, and Tom Brokaw will be able to speak freely to Joe Schlub, thanks to your George Bush.

[jwalsh07]

Let me put it in terms that you can understand.

George Soros can purchase all the ads he wants in whatever media as an indivdual and run them any time he wants. He has the money to do that and I would not restrict him from doing that.

If a bunch of us at Free Republic pool our money and try to buy ad time within 60 days of the election criticising a politician, we go to the hoosegow.

Another case for you:

Chris Mathews attacks President Bush within 60 days of the election on Hardball as he should be able to.

To counter that, a group of us band together to buy ad time on Hardball to call Mathews a liar and Dean a Marxist. We go to jail.

This is an Orwellian America now where some are more equal than others. You get it?

[truthandlife]

http://www.whitehouse.gov/webmail

[NittanyLion]

IOW, no matter what Bush does you'll find an excuse to support him. In fact poor leadership on his part is a signal that we need to reelect him.

To paraphrase...Down is up, black is white, war is peace, freedom is slavery...

[Dan from Michigan]

How, precisely, does the CFR "spit" on the Constitution?

It's called 30 days and 60 days.

[Lazamataz]

How many conservative justices will a democrat president appoint (nominate) to the Supreme Court?

How's it makin' a difference either way?

[jwalsh07]

I never dreamed I'd be "you people" around here, did you?

No, I've been a statist, a commie, a pro life nut, a pro gun nut, a moderate of the armadillo type and more but never one of "you people". I'll add it to my resume.:-}

[Lazamataz]

I believe even the majority of the Supreme Court today admitted they were limiting freedom of speech. They thought that was justified by the higher good of avoiding corruption and even the appearance of corruption

Same justification they will use to gut the Second Amendment. "We know we are violating the Second Amendment, but we are justified by the higher good of protecting children Yadda Yadda Yadda."

Ping.

[onyx]

How? Here's the difference, Laz.

Name the conservative justices serving on our Supreme Court who were appointed by a democrat president?

[Dan from Michigan]

If the dems wern't that much worse IMO. (As in Bush D, Dems running an F) I would have passed my breaking point a long time ago. It's between bad and worse.

If he signs the AW ban, I won't vote for him despite Soros, even if Kerry is the nominee.

[arasina]

Why don't you call for people to hound the justices on the Supreme Court? How about throwing water balloons at McCain and Feingold? Oh, and be sure to use LOTS!!!!! of exclamation points if you give your opinion in writing but particularly if you start lots of threads on the same subject!!!!

---retaining right to keep sarcasmometer in the ON position---