A Few Questions For Die-Hard Bush Supporters

Toogood Reports ^ | June 5, 2002 | Lee R. Shelton IV

[Spiff]

I didn't think a Bushcheerleaderbot would answer you. I guess the answer is too difficult for them to accept.

But, here goes again. Maybe someone will answer:

Another question for the Bushcheerleaderbots:

What would your reaction be if a Solicitor General under a Democrat Administration rewrote the Constitution to say that the 2nd Amendment guarantee of the right to keep and bare arms was "subject to reasonable restrictions designed to prevent possession by unfit persons or to restrict the possession of types of firearms that are particularly suited to criminal misuse"?

[My2Cents]

Whiner.

[Poohbah]

Since we are continually being bashed on here along with the President we support, would you like us all to just pick up and leave Free Republic along with our donations? Then you can all have this forum to yourself to trash at will.

I'd like to get the head-honcho's opinion on this. I'm sure he has something to say about it.

If we give up FR, we'd better think about what we'll use to replace it. But if the Bush-basher-bots force the issue...I think we'll make do with something.

BTW, JimRob, how much does Robinson-DeFehr plan to charge for a copy of Focus Forum?

[My2Cents]

Your question is nonsensical. The Solicitor General doesn't "re-write" the Constitution when he files an opinion with the Supreme Court on a case. Ted Olson's comments on the scope or intent of the 2nd Amendment expressed the Bush Administration's position on this legal question. If a Demo Administration choose to express differently, it still wouldn't be "re-writing" the Constitution.

[BJClinton]

Al Gore wouldn't even have tried that one...

Your hysteria is amusing. Al Gore did that very thing. Do you remember the stink about Clinton/Gore getting convicted criminals from Mexico citizenship so they could vote Democrat in 1996?

I'm pissed about the immigration thing, too. But keep your frustration based on reality, it's much more productive.

[prisoner6]

Glad you asked even though I'm NOT a Bushie.

My reaction is pretty much the same with the exception being I'm not gonna throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Build on strengths, work to eliminate weaknesses.

Make it known that you object, but don't feed the opposition.

We have the ablility to influence the Bush administration by way of threatening our support and pointing to real conservative leadership.. Name one member of a democrat administration that we could influence.

prisoner6 - sorry, gotta go to bed.

[Diddle E. Squat]

Thank you for providing an excellent reminder of how the perpetual gripers never change. Always disappointed that a conservative utopia isn't reached in one fell swoop, never satisfied, first to complain, yet never seeming to offer a realistic blueprint to actually accomplish anything. Its their way or no way, harping on the shortcomings while totally ignoring all the positives.

There are Broken-Glass Conservatives, and then there are Broken-Record Conservatives.

[PsyOp]

I would have to agree with you on how the definition gets stretched. Many things get termed felonies that should not be. Nor am I %100 behind laws that prevent those who have served their time from owning firearms - at least the first time around.

I would limit that denile only for those who have commited violent crimes that resulted serious injury to another. For non-violent crimes, denile for the length of probabation. Get busted a second time though, and its gone.

First, though, we need to overhaul our justice and prison system top to bottom.

[Dog]

Like the Bush bot grahpic .....stole it....hope you don't mind....:-)

[ruoflaw]

You deserve to go to the head of the class in my opinion!

[Dog]

That one gets the abuse button!

[prisoner6]

Before I leave for bed I must say one thing about your post.

YUP!

prisoner6

[My2Cents]

My conclusion about the Bushbasherbots on FR: They are either 1) ignorant of how an idea becomes legislation and how legislation becomes law, 2) ignorant of the scope and responsibility of the judicial system, 3) not practical enough to truly get anything they want accomplished, 4) i.e., ignorant of how politics and government really work, and/or 5) simply dislike George W. Bush for some reason which escapes me. I think it's mostly #5, because their attacks on Bush are not simply discussion points, but points filled with venom. I don't get it.

I don't agree with 100% of what Bush has done, and I wish he'd do things that he hasn't taken on (yet). But I don't lose any sleep over these things. If I agree with Bush more times than not, I'm satisfied. It beats having whatever the alternative might be.

And speaking of alternatives, who do the Bushbasherbots offer up as an alternative? Pat Buchanan?

[Howlin]

Big bump Betty! Well said.

[rdb3]

I believe that a user-moderated forum could be used as well, with the AdminModerator still in control.

Just a thought.

[Howlin]

On 9/11, what has Bush done that a Democrat in office wouldn't have done?

This boggles my mind. If the Dems had the Oval Office, regardless of who it was, we'd STILL be negotiating the size of the "peace talk" table!

[My2Cents]

See post 207.

[RedBloodedAmerican]

The 2nd paragraph defines your opinion of Bush. That's where I stopped reading. This one goes in the same place as the rest of Toogoods; dung heap.

[My2Cents]

The graphic was Howlin's, I think. He said it was alright to steal it.