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

To: Once-Ler
So the constitution is just paper to you?

Where do you draw the line? If GWB decides that it makes sense to have everyone either register their firearms in a national database, or hand them over, what will you do?

If he decides the 4th amendment is sort of inconvenient, and that warrants are sort of optional before law enforcement can take your house apart looking for something you have no business knowing about, what's your position going to be on that.

What if, and this is a very real possibility Dad, he decides that he's going to require the services of your son, daughter, or both, and they should hustle into the post office to register for the draft, which is forthcoming. What then?

What if he decides that it would be okay to place your son or daughter under the command of a Polish general somewhere over in Syria in a forward combat position. What then?

Where's the line between blind trust and patriotism for you?

Now, you are out of gas in terms of logic or the facts, since you've decided that the Constitution of the United States is nothing more than a set of suggestions more than the foundation of our system of laws, and that very short term political calculation takes precedence.

At this point you will resort to your M.O. and hurl some insult at me and go play in someone elses sandbox.

I'm serious about this suggestion: reread the Constitution. Read the Federalist Papers. Especially the Federalist Papers - you'd swear they were written last week. The founders had looked back on 1000's of years of failed governance and wrote a new plan. So far it is worked, and it is massive arrogance to think that we have learned anything in 200 years or so that we didn't already know before.

Amending the Constitution without consent of the Congress is Judicial activism, and it is worth standing up against.

Another knock on GWB: All he had to do is say the word and Frist would have dropped the Nuke in the Senate to put a stop to the improper filibustering of Judges.

Your party is what it is because we are not willing to stand by and see it hijacked by guys like Clinton, or well-meaning ones like GWB. The rats are going to be on their ass for the next little while until they figure out that its okay to be against abortion.

Mark my words, they are going nowhere else until they fix that problem. The moral high ground is off-limits to them until they do, and that means virtually the entire southern US.

So, have some guts and be willing to let your President and your Party know that you think he can be wrong. This is the arena of ideas - the very thing that rats have forgotten. They have no idea what they stand for anymore.

If we follow your lead, neither will we. We'll simply do anything we have to in order to retain power. That is exactly what you are suggesting we do.

One more thing: Stop telling me what the American People demand. You don't know anymore than I do. They don't demand anything except to be safe in their person and their property - that we know. That much we have figured out. You are just pounding the table when you do that - invoking some imaginary crowd swelling behind you as you make your pronouncemnts.

Clinton has been excellent for you and for your party. He has made possible what was impossible for 40 years - an R Congress and R Presidency. Anybody more effective, and where do you think we'd be right now?

By the way, it took Newt Gingrich invoking the party to stick to its principles in order to take the country back.

Don't sacrifice your principles on the altar of fear and expediency.

What was that line? - "A people willing to trade freedom for safety deserves neither."
528 posted on 01/05/2004 10:40:09 PM PST by RinaseaofDs (Only those who dare truly live - CGA 88 Class Motto)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 526 | View Replies ]


To: RinaseaofDs
Where do you draw the line? If GWB decides that it makes sense to have everyone either register their firearms in a national database, or hand them over, what will you do?

That is where I draw the line. If Dubya even suggests this, ping me and I will admit you were right. I don't think it is going to happen.

What if, and this is a very real possibility Dad, he decides that he's going to require the services of your son, daughter, or both, and they should hustle into the post office to register for the draft, which is forthcoming. What then?

What if...what if...what if. It is not a real possibility.

Where's the line between blind trust and patriotism for you?

It's not blind trust. I trust Dubya based on his performance so far as President. How about a question for you? Where's the line between paranoid delusions of persecution and rational caution for you?

Now, you are out of gas in terms of logic or the facts, since you've decided that the Constitution of the United States is nothing more than a set of suggestions more than the foundation of our system of laws, and that very short term political calculation takes precedence.

I am misunderstood. The Constitution retains all the power that the people of America instill it with. If the people believe the Constitution allows a right to privacy, and therefor a right to abortion and buggery, then that is the law. If the people believe that the right to free speech does not include campaign money then that is the law. We have had Social Security for 70 years. Can you find the clause in the Constitution that provides for a government controlled retirement account? I hope SS isn't "unconstitutional" because I've been paying into the damn thing since I was 18.

Even in dictatorships, power is in the hands of the people, no matter what official looking declaration of legal control the dictator has written up. When the people of the USSR got tired of communism they rose up and took power, and a new constitution was written. It is not the paper...it is the people.

Another knock on GWB: All he had to do is say the word and Frist would have dropped the Nuke in the Senate to put a stop to the improper filibustering of Judges.

Why do you suppose Dubya hasn't done this? You say it is easy. You say all he has to do is "say the word." Why do you suppose Johnson didn't do this when Chief Justice Earl Warren retired? Johnson offered up Justice Abe Fortas to be Chief Justice and the Senate filibustered the nomination. Because of this Nixon got to choose the Chief Justice in 69. Maybe President Johnson, President Bush, and all the other Presidents who have ever faced filibusters throughout our history just ain't as smart as you.

We'll simply do anything we have to in order to retain power. That is exactly what you are suggesting we do.

You must first have power to change anything. Goldwater stuck to his principles in 1964. Mondale stuck to his principles when he told the American people he was going to raise taxes. Principles are important, don't get me wrong, but losers with principles are still losers and they don't change things. I have principles and where I come from (Wisconsin) many people think I'm a far right conservative. I swallow my principles when I go to parent/teacher conferences. If I spouted off and told the teachers what I think of the curriculum my children would pay the price. There are times when principles must take a backseat in the name of actually accomplishing something. In order to get testing and standards for education Dubya had to sublimate some principles. If Dubya said "I want everything and I want it now," he would get nothing. That is exactly what you are suggesting we do.

One more thing: Stop telling me what the American People demand. You don't know anymore than I do. They don't demand anything except to be safe in their person and their property - that we know. That much we have figured out. You are just pounding the table when you do that - invoking some imaginary crowd swelling behind you as you make your pronouncemnts

People demand freedom of speech to make up for the freedom of thought which they avoid. - Soren Aabye Kierkegaard (And the crowd swells behind me once again!)

Clinton has been excellent for you and for your party. He has made possible what was impossible for 40 years - an R Congress and R Presidency. Anybody more effective, and where do you think we'd be right now?

By the way, it took Newt Gingrich invoking the party to stick to its principles in order to take the country back.

Wow. I can't believe you actually put these 2 paragraphs together. Which is it? My party is the majority party because Clinton stuck to his principles or was it Newt? Or did Clinton not stick to his principles, signed welfare reform, and lost the election for Gore? In 2002 the Republican party gained 3 seats and the majority in the Senate, more seats in the House, more state legislators, and control of more state legislatures...bucking the historical trend for off year elections. Could it be that the voters were voting for the Bush tax-cuts and military success? Or was it still Clinton - 2 years after his term ended, or Newt 4 years after he resigned for sticking his principles in his secretary.

It takes a pretty disjointed mind to have 2 completely opposing assertions in just 4 sentences. That has got to be some kind of record even for a paleo-con. You are lucky this thread is mostly dead. I'm embarrassed for you.

Clinton was a bad and very liberal President. He was not nearly as awful as Johnson who gave us the Great Society. Clinton failed to socialize medical care, and his great achievement was welfare reform. We both know Clinton didn't want to sign welfare reform but the people demanded it(crowd swelling again!) So what is the real difference between 1964 and 2004? The people have slowly gotten more conservative. The people sometimes make the wrong decision. Sometimes they want CFR and prescription drug plans. Eventually the people correct their mistakes...like slavery or welfare reform. I would rather put my faith in the American people then a principled dictator. Dictators follow their principles and ignore the will of the people. People like you pray for a strong dictator to do what you want over the objections of the majority, but if your opinion ever strays from the opinion of your savior tyrant you will be the first against the wall. To paraphrase you "People like you scare me." I will always choose a servant of the people like Dubya over a strong despot.

"We the people"

529 posted on 01/07/2004 12:30:00 AM PST by Once-Ler (Proud Republican and Bushbot)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 528 | View Replies ]

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