Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

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

Posted on 12/10/2003 1:09:18 PM PST by 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.


TOPICS: Activism/Chapters; Constitution/Conservatism; Government; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: cfr
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160161-180181-200 ... 441-455 next last
To: Lazamataz
What, no pictures of you going off in a huff? Sorry to lose you to the other side, Laz.
161 posted on 12/10/2003 4:42:17 PM PST by arasina (What will YOU do when Howard Dean or Hillary Clinton is president?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: Wolfstar
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1037968/posts
"The bottom line is, as a country we have to come to grips with the presence of 8 to 12 million illegals, afford them some kind of legal status some way, but also as a country decide what our immigration policy is and then enforce it," Ridge said at a town hall meeting at Miami-Dade Community College.

I'm not saying the CFR decision, Ridge's pro-amnesty statement, or the administration's hopefully meaningless reaction to Taiwan's plans for a referendum are changing my vote, since the Democrat candidates are worse and would probably appoint awful judges, but the news combination today is disappointing. :(

162 posted on 12/10/2003 4:43:48 PM PST by heleny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

Comment #163 Removed by Moderator

To: arasina
What, no pictures of you going off in a huff? Sorry to lose you to the other side, Laz.

I'm not going over to the other side. I've just given up on thinking this side is going to uphold the Constitution.

Thusly I see no point in working for them.

164 posted on 12/10/2003 4:44:10 PM PST by Lazamataz (Hillary Clinton is a CLINQUANT without the LINQA.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: Veracruz
Name one conservative member of the SCOTUS who was appointed by a democrat president?

Hmmmmmmmm?

You think I like this ruling? I do not. But bashing Bush is hardly the solution, but you're not interested in solutions, are you? A 62 seat GOP majority in the US Senate will solve a whole lot of problems. I say 62, because I can think of two we cannot now count on.

165 posted on 12/10/2003 4:44:15 PM PST by onyx
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: Happy2BMe
Ronald Reagan was the last good President.

Oh well. We had a good run as a nation. It's running down now, but it was good while it lasted.

166 posted on 12/10/2003 4:45:38 PM PST by Lazamataz (Hillary Clinton is a CLINQUANT without the LINQA.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]

Comment #167 Removed by Moderator

To: Veracruz
September is before November.
168 posted on 12/10/2003 4:46:32 PM PST by Dan from Michigan ("if you wanna run cool, you got to run, on heavy heavy fuel" - Dire Straits)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
"It's running down now, but it was good while it lasted."

Dubya has not been faithful to the party IMHO.

Or is it that the party has not been faithful to itself?

169 posted on 12/10/2003 4:47:34 PM PST by Happy2BMe (2004 - Who WILL the TERRORISTS vote for? - - Not George W. Bush, THAT'S for sure!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 166 | View Replies]

To: heleny
I did a search on Yahoo News for any article on Ridge's remarks. Here's what I found — it's an AP article. Please note that Ridge's remarks had to do with finding a way to legalize them, as in providing work visas. He was not talking about amnesty. Also, the article makes clear that Ridge was not speaking for the president and this is not administration policy:

WASHINGTON - Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge's expression of support for giving legal status to immigrants drew congressional criticism Wednesday but heartened advocates.

At a town hall meeting in Miami, Ridge said the country needs to "come to grips" with an estimated 8 million to 12 million illegal immigrants and "determine how you can legalize their presence." He also said during a visit to Florida on Tuesday that the immigrants should not be rewarded citizenship.

Asa Hutchinson, undersecretary for border and transportation security, said Wednesday in Miami that Ridge's comments simply reflected the debate in Congress on immigration.

"Secretary Ridge addressed it very honestly yesterday, engaged in that debate, but clearly this administration has not taken a firm policy position on that and the debate continues," Hutchinson said.

But Rep. J.D. Hayworth, R-Ariz., said it was "inconceivable to me that Secretary Ridge is speaking for the Bush administration when he unilaterally and offhandedly suggests such a radical policy reversal that is guaranteed to encounter strong opposition in Congress."

The attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, slowed talks about whether to legalize millions of illegal immigrants in the country.

Ridge's words excited immigration advocates and one of Hayworth's House colleague, Rep. Jeff Flake, who is sponsoring legislation that would give legal residency to illegal immigrants through work.

"Those who are working here illegally need to be here under a legal framework. Secretary Ridge also understands that this needs to be coupled with serious workplace enforcement," said Flake, R-Ariz.

Judy Golub, senior policy and outreach director for American Immigration Lawyers Association, said she thought it was the first time that a top administration official had made "such a clear articulation of the fact that these folks are not threats and deserve some form of legal status."

Cecilia Munoz, vice president of policy for National Council of La Raza, said Ridge's comments broke two years of silence by the administration on the legalization issue.

170 posted on 12/10/2003 4:47:37 PM PST by Wolfstar (Ronald Reagan — Freedom Man)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
But there is no way he will do so with SCOTUS justices.

Jesus, Mary and Joseph, pray tell, what Bush has said or done that leads you to that faulty conclusion?

To the contrary, POTUS has stated many times that he aims to appoint "Constitutionalist's" --- naming Justice Scalia as his ideal justice. Geeeez, Laz.

171 posted on 12/10/2003 4:48:45 PM PST by onyx
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: onyx
You think I like this ruling? I do not. But bashing Bush is hardly the solution, but you're not interested in solutions, are you? A 62 seat GOP majority in the US Senate will solve a whole lot of problems. I say 62, because I can think of two we cannot now count on.

I appreciate your honesty, that you agree this ruling is horrifying. I also understand what you are trying to do vis-a-vis find solutions.

See, it is difficult for a person to embrace ennui. We yearn to hope. We reject hopelessness even when our senses show us it is the only possible conclusion.

The bar has been set and moved so many times. "If only we get a Republican House", and the 1994 Revolution happened. "If only we get the White House" and Dubya was elected. "If only we get the White House, the Senate, and the House", and we did.

The Constitution was still steadily whittled away.

Now, I am told "if only we get a 62 seat GOP majority in the senate".... I'm sorry, I just cannot buy it any more.

172 posted on 12/10/2003 4:50:11 PM PST by Lazamataz (Hillary Clinton is a CLINQUANT without the LINQA.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies]

To: My2Cents
I stated my case on the other thread. But, in summary, any law which stifles and suppresses political speech, regardless of when it is said, is unconstitutional. Period. I don't care what the SCOTUS have ruled. This law is wrong. And this ruling is wrong. Whoever gains politically is inconsequential. This law put politics over principle. And we, as individuals- or individuals part of a larger, common group, have lost.
173 posted on 12/10/2003 4:50:15 PM PST by rintense
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

Comment #174 Removed by Moderator

To: Lazamataz
well, your responses on this thread have hardly been examples of great wisdom. As I said before, have fun on the island...one less vote for the RATS.
175 posted on 12/10/2003 4:50:41 PM PST by BushisTheMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
It's all in how you look at things, We lost one today, but it's not the end of the world and it can be corrected. Plenty of bad bills have been passed with good aspects in them, and their have been plenty of good Bills passed with bad aspects within them. There is some very good parts of CFR and a few very bad parts of it also, If the bad parts are bad enough, they will be revisited and changed in another bill.

All this handwringing and the standard (Bush has lost my vote) reply by those who never voted for Bush to begin with is so predictable it's almost sad. How many times has Bush lost your vote?

176 posted on 12/10/2003 4:51:47 PM PST by MJY1288 (The Democrats Have Reached Rock Bottom and The Digging Continues)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: BushisTheMan
well, your responses on this thread have hardly been examples of great wisdom. As I said before, have fun on the island...one less vote for the RATS.

You have a head largely composed of bone. Where did I ever say I was going to vote for Rats?

You keep extending that right arm in salute to your Maximum Leader, and the hell with the Bill of Rights. Remember, "Work Makes You Free!"

177 posted on 12/10/2003 4:52:39 PM PST by Lazamataz (Hillary Clinton is a CLINQUANT without the LINQA.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 175 | View Replies]

To: rintense
It was Mitch McConnell who convinced Bush they could get the SCOTUS to kill the limited speech portion of this bill, BAD GAMBLE, Now it has to be corrected through Congress
178 posted on 12/10/2003 4:53:46 PM PST by MJY1288 (The Democrats Have Reached Rock Bottom and The Digging Continues)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
Here, Laz. Cayman Islands. No taxes.

My daughter manages it, and a another similar property.

http://www.TIcondos.com
179 posted on 12/10/2003 4:54:55 PM PST by onyx
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 172 | View Replies]

To: Veracruz
Yes I agree that unions have a right to support their candidate but NOT WHEN MANY OF THEIR MEMBERS HAVE NO SAY ABOUT WHERE AND HOW THEIR DUES ARE SPENT!
180 posted on 12/10/2003 4:55:42 PM PST by eleni121
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160161-180181-200 ... 441-455 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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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