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

Skip to comments.

Bush Will Sign Campaign Finance Bill
Yahoo! News ^ | Mar 25, 2002 | Reuters

Posted on 03/25/2002 11:16:37 AM PST by Pay now bill Clinton

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 381-400401-420421-440441-443 next last
To: DJ88
If you don't like it, LEAVE.

How childish!

He has every right to post his opinion on this forum just like you and everybody else does.

Why do you want to his voice to be silenced?

Why does our president want our voices silenced 60 days before an election?

421 posted on 03/26/2002 6:31:43 AM PST by RickyJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 417 | View Replies]

To: Triple
Well, it is a different day. Same problems, that we have so little control over.

I let my frustrations with my inability to understand President Bush's actions get the best of me and went overboard a bit in the tenor of my rants.

It has been my experience here on FR as well in the real world that at times I spend too much time dwelling on what makes us different rather than what we have in common.

Howlin, Dane and others who are doing their best really do have much more in common with us all who care about the Republic than they have differences.

Passion is a great thing, but passion without reason gets the best of us in a jam at times. At least I have found that so in my experiences.

I am going to try and remember that the President has much more to consider than I do. I still don't understand the decision, but realize I don't understand much at all in the big picture. I am disappointed and yet have a faith that tells me in the long haul, life will go on according to His plans. Accepting that fact is the challenge.

Have a great day.

422 posted on 03/26/2002 6:33:24 AM PST by ImpBill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 412 | View Replies]

To: RickyJ
Ah, yes, he does. But he does NOT, nor does anyone ELSE, have the right to shout at me, call me names or anything else.

And by the way, Ricky, if you haven't heard, or haven't asked, a majority of the people out there that voted for President Bush are SATISFIED with the signing of the CFR Bill. Most people do want some sort of restrictions place on the soft money contributions.

I have noticed however, when I ask, that because the media does not focus on the RESTRICTION OF FREE SPEECH issue (because it promotes their agenda, of course) most people don't have a clue about it. Therefore, if you think about it logically, when they hear that this part of the bill will be given to SCOTUS to review, it will be a big surprise to THEM that the RATS even wanted this from the very beginning.

Now think about this: how many of the media outlets have given much time to the CFR Bill since it has been passed? Not many. I've not heard/read anything about it on the cable outlets. What does that tell you? It tells me that the media can't use this as a Bush-bashing item, because there's simply nothing there for them to bash. We may not agree with what the President is doing, however, in the end, it will work out the way it's suppossed to, Ricky.

423 posted on 03/26/2002 6:42:12 AM PST by DJ88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 421 | View Replies]

To: Pay now bill Clinton
"I won't hesitate" signing it, Bush said at a joint news conference with Salvadoran President Francisco Flores as the president wrapped up a four-day trip to Latin America. "It will probably take about three seconds to get to the W, I may hesitate on the period, and then rip through the Bush."

This is not funny. The only thing that should "rip" is this piece of trash called CFR.

With Clinton they wore presidential knee-pads.

With President Bush we wear presidential muzzles.

Don't be SHUT-UP--SHUT OUT! Call, E-mail President Bush--VETO-CFR!

We Must Protect First Amendment Rights. There is a clear and present danger emanating from congressional politicians and liberal mainstream media who gleefully strive to subvert our rights and forever silence We The People.

They full well know CFR is unconstitutional but still are deliberately testing the response of our reaction. Do we sit by idly twiddling our fingers? Or do we stand tall as freedom loving men and women and gallantly man the phones, the fax machines, flood the President's e-mail box? I ask you what is next on their goody list of unconstitutional legislation?

If George, Ben, Tom, John, Paul and the Boys of '76 were alive today they would be having one big old fashioned CFR Party and dump the whole nasty offensive offal legislation into the sewer where it belongs.

You call now for VETO or you call to order your muzzle. It is only up to you to put up a boisterous roaring ruckus for your Free Speech Rights.

424 posted on 03/26/2002 6:48:09 AM PST by harpo11
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Revel;MassExodus
Yeah, Howlin and I see eye to eye on so many things...

Here's the confusion, I think: when I said "I have no love for wolves in Republican's clothes" I wasn't talking about Mass, I was talking about BUSH. I was responding to Mass' #19, and I was admittedly a bit sharp, but I intended in no way to insult him.

425 posted on 03/26/2002 6:49:47 AM PST by Pistias
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 395 | View Replies]

To: ImpBill
No need for all this; I took it as a good natured jab. I'm sure that I give as good as I get, if not more. And this surely is a heated discussion, as we can all tell. :-)
426 posted on 03/26/2002 6:49:56 AM PST by Howlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 419 | View Replies]

To: JoeMomma
If Bush signs CFR, many sheeple will forget about it, and vote for Bush in 2004 because he is a "protector of conservative values".

Is that the same calculation he is making when his administration doesn't even INVESTIGATE the crimes the Clintons, Clinton administration, DNC and democRATS committed the last 9 years ... little matters like the Riady non-refund (election tampering and CAMPAIGN FINANCE VIOLATIONS), Filegate (violation of privacy and blackmail of Republicans), Emailgate (obstruction of justice at its worst, intimidation of witnesses), Chinagate (treason), the death of Foster (obstruction of justice AT BEST and possibly murder) and the death of Brown (murder ... nay, MASS MURDER)? Because if it is, then it is DISGUSTING. That action would suggest a ONE PARTY system in a nation where the LAWS don't apply to PARTY MEMBERS.

NO EXCUSES.

427 posted on 03/26/2002 7:02:11 AM PST by BeAChooser
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 413 | View Replies]

To: Howlin
What's FReedom's Future?

FREEDOM SOARS

FREEDOM MUZZLED

Call Now--VETO CFR!


428 posted on 03/26/2002 7:02:47 AM PST by harpo11
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 426 | View Replies]

To: Howlin
Howlin, let's work thru this. The Constitution itself gives the President the authority to veto a bill for any reason at all. Now you're saying that even if the President thinks a bill is unconstitutional, he cannot veto it. By your criteria, what bill can he veto?

Also, you will search the Constitution in vain for the provision which gives the judicial branch the sole and exclusive authority to pass on a law's constitutionality; it ain't there. Until the U.S. morphed into a social democracy, legislators and presidents would debate bitterly over a law's constitutionality before they even reached the question of the law's policy merits.

BTW, Grover Cleveland, a Democrat, once vetoed a bill for drought relief in Texas because he believed, as did James Madison, that the general welfare clause modifies only the specifically enumerated powers granted to Congress--it is not an enumerated power in itself.

George Bush, alas, is no Grover Cleveland. Just another vote-chasing social democrat.

429 posted on 03/26/2002 7:11:54 AM PST by SteamshipTime
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: DJ88
I know that you believe that SCOTUS will bail George W out of the mess he's about to make for himself and us.

The problem I have is twofold.

1. I'm not betting my childrens heritage on a handful of SEMI Constitutionally minded people

to strike DOWN a law that 2 other branches have signed into law.

They don't OFTEN do that you know, do you think CNNNBCCBSABCMSNBC are going to HELP them explain their actions ?

Isn't the measure of a President who he puts on the Supreme Court ?

How easy will it be for "W" to land a Conservative Constitutionalist judge on a Supreme Court which just struck DOWN the media's baby ?

Think of THAT yet ?

2. On what has been a marvelous and effective forum for which I've devoted time, money and energy over the last 3 years,

I'm noticing a very disturbing trend of what were formerly solid, principled patriots becoming the WORST sort of pragmatic political fascists.

All out of FEAR that voicing an opposition might be detrimental to what are 85 + approval ratings.

Sadly and typically, the RINOs aren't even being politically SMART in their treacherous gambling.

Unless of course, their stated goal is NOT in fact what we're being told.

430 posted on 03/26/2002 7:47:16 AM PST by MassExodus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 423 | View Replies]

To: Pistias
Well I don't see how it is that the wolf comment did not reffer to MassExodus but I will take your word for it- that it did not. Sorry for all the trouble.
431 posted on 03/26/2002 7:54:54 AM PST by Revel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 425 | View Replies]

To: Revel
It was my mistake, I was too obscure--I don't like plainly criticizing the president; it just seems like bad form, but sometimes you just have to...
432 posted on 03/26/2002 8:09:37 AM PST by Pistias
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 431 | View Replies]

To: Howlin
Yeah it is a heated discussion, but I am too old and too tired to let myself get as "amped up" as I was yesterday. I litterally had to say "The Serinity Prayer" outloud a dozen times last night (early this morning) before I could even get to sleep.

Soooooooooooo, I think I will leave the "serious" debating to you younger folks, better equipped to deal with it.

Thanks for being gracious to an "old fart". After re-reading my last couple jabs at you, you really had a right to be put off, a bit. /;-)

433 posted on 03/26/2002 8:18:58 AM PST by ImpBill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 426 | View Replies]

To: MassExodus
Tell you what I think, for what it is worth and more than likely not much. The power stucture in the GOP has bought into the media portrait that a pricipled, passionate conservative base is a liability. The signs are all over the place that one who is an educated (in the Constitution) supporter of an ideology that wishes to conserve the Constitution is nothing short of a "bug-eyed/red necked" single issue zealot, one step away from being a Malitia home grow terrorist.

We know that is far from the truth, but to the folks that live in the beltway mentality ... well I really do believe they view us as an albatross around their necks. And you know, they may be right about the albatross business. Especially if one adopts the view, unfortunately as I have, that the only concern "they" have is the acquisition and maintenance of POWER not as a means, but as an end, in and of itself.

Think about it a bit. Passionate conservatives on the right or passionate "real liberals" on the left who opperate on principle would definitely be a liability for those whose only quest is the maintenance of raw political power. I also, based only upon observation and a life time as a political junkie believe that the numbers of educated/passionate believers of both conservative and libleral ideology is decreasing in geometric proportions. The DemocRATs no longer really support a true Liberal agenda and the Republicans ... Well I think you get my drift. I hope so anyway. Not that you have to agree mind you.

I wish I didn't feel this way, but man the signs are and have been out there for a long, long time now.

434 posted on 03/26/2002 8:36:26 AM PST by ImpBill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 430 | View Replies]

To: ImpBill
But does that mean I have to ignore my concerns and disappointment? Or more to the point muzzle my political speech right to question our elected leaders when, by most any translation they are violating both the Consitution and their Oaths of office? I'm sorry, but if walking in muzzled lock step is what you mean by "reserving judgement", .

You're responding to the wrong post. I wrote"The attitude I am taking is that he is prosecuted and not convicted." Hardly a directive to muzzle free speech. W has not defended himself. His actions before this bill and in promising to sign it are utterly incongruent. I'm still open to an explanation

435 posted on 03/26/2002 8:52:24 AM PST by calebcar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 401 | View Replies]

To: ImpBill
I am in complete agreement with you.

I know that in all "movements" there is the "lunatic fringe" or leading edge or whatever we might be labeled.

I didn't think of myself as being out on a limb, especially on this Forum.

Tell you what, I'm really pretty disgusted as of this week.

I can see how so many Christians have removed themselves from this cynical circus.

If I want to see maggots feed on themselves, I'll turn on the Discovery Channel.

At least in the back of THE BOOK, we win.

436 posted on 03/26/2002 9:39:27 AM PST by MassExodus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 434 | View Replies]

To: eeriegeno
you hit the bullseye on that one--great analysis!
437 posted on 03/26/2002 10:35:01 AM PST by luvzhottea
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 407 | View Replies]

To: Howlin
I don't know.....how long did it take you to find that "pat" reply?

If you're suggesting that I am a Pat Buchanan follower, you are dead wrong. What I am is a concerned conservative (and American) who has watched Bush turn into a RINO this year. CFR isn't the only bad call he has made, just the latest one. This is a guy who is in the Oval Office only because conservatives were willing to express their outrage over the Gore Gang's efforts to steal the Presidency, but maybe that outrage was wasted on the wrong bunch.

Bush has a great opportunity to advance a few (not all) conservative principles, but he is simply dropping the ball. I guess the apple doesn't fall too far from the tree, after all.

438 posted on 03/26/2002 10:48:03 AM PST by Major Matt Mason
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 310 | View Replies]

To: Major Matt Mason
I wasn't referring to Pat. I was referring to your post to me -- I've seen it quite a few times on here.
439 posted on 03/26/2002 11:14:21 AM PST by Howlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 438 | View Replies]

To: calebcar
Sorry I mis-read your intent. It was a long and really weird day. I OD'd on FR yesterday, which I should know from experience is a mistake. I sure can't give you an explanation as I am as in the dark about the man I voted for as most others around here seem to be in.
440 posted on 03/26/2002 12:36:20 PM PST by ImpBill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 435 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 381-400401-420421-440441-443 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