Posted on 12/10/2003 8:59:00 PM PST by BobbyK
Earth to nopardons! Come in nopardons!
The CWA was the deciding factor in the '94 elections. You're the first person I've heard say otherwise. I'll agree that it did a fat lot of good because Newt never had any intention of following up on it. But he did do a nice sales job (I voted straight GOP that year).
And if Bush 41 didn't deserve to lose that election, then no President ever did. When you sell out the basic principles of your party, then don't expect your party to support you. I really wonder if his son is paying attention.
Actually, it is your right to vote. Not to be nit-picky, but words matter.
I, too, support the war on terror. I have no problem commending the President when I agree with what he is doing. But, unlike many other posters here, if I see that he is way off the beaten path then I have no problem criticizing him over it. And when he's WAY off (as in this issue), then he's too far gone for me.
Do your homework and vote accordingly. I'll be doing the same. Glad to see someone your age this involved.
I am about fed up with these idiots. I am slightly ryled up right now and lucky for them I am out of their immediate reach.
There have been fewer Presidents better that Mr. Bush. (Who I still refer to as "SIR") Particularly under the current conditions and circumstances.
These "Arm Chair Quarterbacks" are quick to condemn him for just about everything. It is obvious that they know very little about his true nature but they are quick to point out his failures for things they know very little about.
Can anyone imagine what this country would be like with a Democrat (Howard Dean) in office? Especially with all the coming vacancies on the Supreme Court after 2005? The list is too upsetting to even continue.....
I simply say this; UNITED WE STAND, DIVIDED WE FALL!
There was far MORE, in the GOP wins of '94, than just the CONTRACT WITH AMERICA. You, obviously, will fall for a smooth talker, no matter WHAT is being " sold " and the devil take the high road. Consequently, with blinkers still firmly in place, you tune out/ignore everything else, which doesn't validate your own position. Shame on you.
Clinton and the Dems, which you either don't recall, didn't pay attention to at the time, refuse to even talk about, because it completely undoes your narrow position, had done so much to anger the populace, by the election of '94, that they, of course, took up the GOPers and the CONTRACT WITH AMERICA helped too, but was not, NOT , the sole, only, one reason that the GOPers won big in that election.
And, whilst we're at it, why don't you just admit that you're a fringer, don't 't like the GOP, and are debating from your own, dreary, little agenda, without being factual, temperate, cogent, and unemotional.
The problem since then has been that the GOP didn't follow through with the CWA, but too many voters have been afraid to withhold their votes from the R's because they are afraid of the D's, and so the R's have been allowed to slip ever more towards the center or even to the left of center. They are not afraid of what happened to Bush 41 happening to them, so they act in whatever manner pleases them rather than upholding the principles of the Repubican Party platform. If they did that, I would vote for them in a heartbeat. But they don't, so I won't.
It's not about claiming a moral victory. It's about convincing the politicians on the right that if they do not uphold the principles we sent them to Washington to fight for that we will let them lose the next election and replace them with someone else. It's about being willing to lose some battles in order to win the war.
And thank God you and I are not standing face to face right now! Particularly after that "discrace to my uniform" comment. You may as well splap my wife in the face in front of me!
As to not liking the GOP, I've been there. I was a city committee chairman for the GOP in a city of 100,000 people. I've seen how the "system" works (or more accurately does NOT work). My bet is that the "backroom deals" you think you know about, I have actually participated in. I'm not some unlearned, inexperienced know-nothing.
As to having "blinders" on, I would submit that continuing to support a party or its candidates for no other reason than they are slightly better than the other choices is a long-term recipe for disaster. You can't win if you play the game by their rules, np. And you are most definitely losing. Look at where the GOP has gone since Reagan left office and then say with a straight face that it is a "conservative" bunch.
The oath of office for the President states:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
When Bush signed this CFR bill into law, he made the statement that many of its provisions were un-Constitutional. And yet, he signed it anyway.
He knowingly signed into law a bill that he knew violated the Constitution.
Does that sound like "preserving, protecting, and defending" to you?
THAT is my validation. I defy you to refute it.
And thank God you and I are not standing face to face right now!
Who's the neanderthal now? Go on, Tarzan. Beat your chest a little more.
Your credibility as well as viewpoint has no substnce, as well as makes no sence what so ever, other than cutting your nose off to spite your face.
As long as your okay with 'someone else' selling ballistic missile technology to China, fine. 'Someone else' can wring his hands at malaise, ayatollahs, and U.S. hostages. I'm sure 'someone else' would have tried to understand why the terrorists hated us, and asked for a stern U.N. resolution for them to not do it again.
Like I said, you either vote against the bad guy, or you vote against the worse guy. This next election, you'll either vote against Bush, or against Dean. Having the guts to let the worse guy win only proves that his positions are more effective, and you'll be seeing more of them in the future from both parties.
Well I have swung from a few vines from time to time.
But just where does the CFR bill take away our rights to Free Speech? It merey places regulations on elections primarily because things were being abused. Our full Constitutional right to Free Speech is still in tact. You are not only not making sence, you exaggerate as well.
There are those here, me included, whose bona fides, in the political arena, make your's look like all you were, was the Senior class president of your high school. Get off that high horse of your's, stop looking down your nose at others because, in your mind, they aren't nearly as " good ", nor were they ever as " important ", as you imagine you were/are. Therein lies one of your continual, huge mistakes.
Unlike you, I don't pat myself on the back publicly, about my supposed " importance ", nor do I drop names. But, frankly, Bob, your political credentials/acumen, is far from impressive at all. And yes, mine actually ARE far superior to yours, which is just one reason why I know what I'm talking about, understand " backroom deals ", " get " politics, and can factually and reasonably debate this with you;which you are incapable of doing.
Where have YOU been, on the threads about the things that President Bush has done correctly ? Nowhere, or complaining about it all; that's where. Where have YOU been, in the debate, except carping, Clintonizing others' posts/words ? NOWHERE; that's where!
Do us all a favor, dear, go off to some other site ( where Bushbashing is not only the norm, but the ne plus ultra and their raison d'etre !), or post factually, without the personal attacks, lies, and misrepresentations here.
Are you serious? Get a life.
It says I can't combine some cash with my friends and run an ad supporting Pres. Bush in the newspaper within 30 days of an election.
But I guess idiots say that's okay if they don't like freedom of speech.
You're kidding, right?
It is now unlawful for a person or a group of people to take out an ad in the print or broadcast media within 30 or 60 days of a federal election that advocates for a particular candidate or against another. How does that strike you?
If political speech can be "regulated", then so can any other form of speech.
There is no exagerration on my part whatsoever. This law is a clear violation of the First Amendment, and all three branches of government have colluded to deny us one of our most fundamental rights.
WHAT debate?!? If you utter a dissenting word around here the Bush supporters are out in force calling you a traitor!
This is becoming a back-slapping party for those who enjoy seeing the Constitution gutted, and who voice their support for those doing that gutting.
But, hey, as long as he's after Osama and Saddam then whatever else he does it okay by you guys, right? I mean, it's not like our social programs are being overwhelmed with the illegal aliens he's inviting over the border. And there's no problem at all with the "assault weapons" ban, so let's just get that thing signed back into law. And we're not spending enough on MediCare already, so let's add a prescription drug benefit.
I have no problem giving credit where it's due. But, unlike you, I also have no trouble putting out the criticism when it's well-earned.
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.