Posted on 04/14/2003 7:45:39 PM PDT by Uncle Bill
Edited on 04/17/2003 6:40:21 AM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
Only moderately so. It's been three years, and even partial-birth abortion is still legal. So far, Bush has done nothing but given lip service to the pro-life cause.
2. prolife ultra-conservative judges;
Bush's judicial nominations have been moderate, not "ultra-conservative". Just because leftists oppose them doesn't make them conservative; they oppose anyone that isn't as far to the left as they are.
3. probably the biggest tax cut we've ever had;
Not even close. That honor goes to Reagan.
4. war on terrorism; 5. war on Afghanistan and attempt at democracy in their country; 6. war on Iraq, regime change of Saddam, removal of chemical weapons once they're found, and democracy; 7. tough hardline stance against North Korea, who are now changing their tune, now that they see we are willing to fight; 8. hardline stance against Syria, which will probably result in the release of Iraqi leadership they are harboring;
None of these things are "conservative", they are merely the president doing his job to defend the country. FDR fought the Nazis in WWII, but that didn't make him a conservative.
9. a strong Christian faith and moral foundation which shapes his decisions, because he has convictions.
If he really had convictions, he wouldn't violate his oath of office.
AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH.
I knew it. You don't have one.
I'd put Bush's conservative batting record at around 250 which is another way of saying his liberal batting record is 750. The reality is that Bush is a big government liberal--republican label notwithstanding.
AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH.
I knew it. You don't have one.
Just like Bush 1991... was "in the bag".
No, by simply what the Constitution says. Words mean things, and the text of the Constitution is about as clear as words get. Next you'll be trying to defend Clinton's definition of what the word "is" is...
there wouldn't be a single candidate left in the Senate or House, let alone the presidency, due to them all being in violation of the Constitution
First, you're wrong; not everyone violates their oath of office. While they might not be in the majority any longer; they do exist (although they tend to be constantly ridiculed by people like you). You appear to be legitimizing the worst sort of criminal behavior (violating what is, literally, the highest law of the land) simply with the excuse of "but everybody's doing it".
Right now, it is Bush. If he signs this legislation, it will be someone else, even if I have to write in a candidate. While they might not have a chance of being elected, at least I won't have sided with evil like you plan on doing.
I knew it
You know nothing, other than how to sell out what little principles you might have and chastise others for refusing to do the same.
If no new 3rd party candidate emerges between now and Election Day 2004 I'll probably vote for the candidate of the Constitution Party. There's your answer.
Hiltery is one democratic candidate that would force me to seriously consider voting for Bush. But I don't think the Witch will be a factor in this race...deal with it.
Yes you are. You are just too morally bankrupt to realize it.
You've just proven my point.
You don't have a point; your entire moral foundation is to get "your" candidate elected, regardless of what he actually believes. If Bill Clinton had an (R) after his name on the ballot, you would surely vote for him just as willingly.
You don't have a clue what is a violation of oath, or what is unconstitutional
Obviously I know far more than you about the subject; you can't even grasp that the words of the Constitution actually mean what they say, or that an oath to "uphold and defend" that Constitution means not trying to dismantle the concepts embodied within its words. If you are so clueless that you don't realize that the AWB violates "shall not be infringed", then you are of the same mentality as Clinton; neither of you believe words mean anything.
My point is that you have such a wharped definition what's unconstitutional that no one would be able to stay within it.
Nonsense. With a few rare exceptions, just about every president before FDR stayed within its bounds. Your morality is so degenerate that once again your only excuse for such heinous violations of the oath of office is the false claim that "everybody does it".
Your faith in God is corrupt; you deny what God himself says about the sacredness of oaths (Leviticus 5:4), and you willingly tolerate (and even embrace) those who violate their oaths. Of course, you'll probably now try to make some argument that the Bible doesn't really mean what it says either.
I support him, because he believes what I do about issues that are the most important
In other words, neither of you think keeping an oath is even relevant to the issue. You have no fundamental principles. You are neither hot nor cold. God says your kind makes him vomit (Rev 3:16).
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.