Posted on 06/05/2002 1:20:54 PM PDT by Stand Watch Listen
While Southack did post GWBs positives (or at least some of them), the BFBs ignore the negatives. That's kind of like the ostrich sticking his head in the sand. Of course, when your heads in the sand, your butts in the air. 'Nuff said.
These few words are as powerful as a megaton nuclear warhead. Outstanding! Priorities do mean something, don't they?
Let me guess: In your mind, nothing.
Is this your site? Do you make the rules?
****
**********
The murders are among us because of the risky scheme that Dubya substituted for real immigration policy...
I agree with you 100%, OldVike.
But I honestly think we've seen the type of "conservative" agenda this President espouses, and it's not what I, and a lot of others, voted for.
On the other hand, the mere thought of Hillary or Gore sitting in the Oval Office will compel me to vote for W again the next time around.
Hopefully, maybe some of the Conservatives in Congress can gain a little headway. I'd look for the Conservatives to start making a lot of noise after 2006, especially.
History is replete with tragic lessons of blind loyalty to elected officials. The author of this post lays out a convincing argument that should be used as a learning tool, IMHO.
For the past three days, the FR neocons have sliced and diced Limbaugh, Hannity, et al, three ways to Sunday, for merely holding Dubya's feet to the fire. Had the Libertarians, Independents or Constitutional Party members done the same to El Rushbo, they'd have been summarily banned.
Dual standards and blind loyalty to elected politicians suck.
Regards,
-JT
Now I agree with Pat. Reagan - perfect no, the greatest yes.
I agree.
I think that is one of the reasons GHW Bush had such a difficult start is because Reagan was such a great President that people really wanted a 3rd Reagan term.
No overabundance of gray matter crowding your skull, is there...
Of course it isn't that simple, and the kitty knows that his posts have no bite with intelligent people. What's simple to do is to cut through the propaganda smoke-screen, and see them for what they are: inflammatory, baseless, rethoric for the consumption of soccer moms, and the impressionable.
One thing about those qualifications that astound me, that most people can't see this chance at legalization for what it truly is.
Conservatives oppose gun registration because of the inherent danger it poses, it creates a data base which could be used to grab our guns. We want our guns unregistered so that the Feds don't know where they are.
Here we have illegal immigrants in the country, that everyone seems to want rounded up and deported, but since they are here illegaly, we don't know where they are.
So, get them to register by applying for a hearing under 245(i), then we know where they are, don't we?
Yeah! Go Pat! All the way to the lowest rung of Dante's Inferno. Do not pass Go. Do not collect $200.
Anytime you have a so-called conservative in whom an openly Marxist, communist supporter's endorsement is not rejected, you have a problem.
Who was the this Marxist communist supporter of Pat Buchanan? Well, I won't give the name, but her initials are LENORA FULLANI. Read all about it.
I agree, the problems are far greater that just the White House. The rnc leadership, and the millions that they control are supporting poor candidates which results in poor congressmen, senators, presidents, and therefore poor judges.
We then are presented with a no-win situation. A great case in point is the retirement of Jesse Helms in NC. All the support from the rnc will go to dole, regardless of who might challenge her. She is a nice woman and has done many wonderful things in her carreer, but she is two giant steps to the left.
Only if the conservatives rise up and speak with one voice aganist the moderate/left will the situation change.
Conservatives must demand an agenda that creates smaller government, greatly reduced spending and taxes, a rejection of globalism, and putting the decision-making control back into the hands of the citizens at the community level.
This is not the agenda of the republican party at this time.
That's the insulting part of all you all's arguments. What the hell makes you an arbiter of my thoughts?
You and I don't agree on something when it comes to matters of policy for the administration. I happen to think that most of your positions are insane, and that you don't have a grasp on reality when it comes to poitics.
But at least, I recognize your right to believe whatever you want to believe, and I don't stand here and insinuate that you are some sort of a moron for holding fast to your beliefs. But you do us.
It isn't blind loyalty. We just don't agree.
Very well articulated!!
This has to be the most IDIOTIC statement I've ever read.
Let me get this straight. You are saying that it is George W. Bush's fault that the murderers are among us? Were the hijackers of the planes here before of after G. W. was inaugurated?
Just HOW is this to be blamed on Bush?
Explain yourself.
Lay it out.
Preservation of the first ten amendments to the Constitution doesn't strike you as important?
_______________________
Texasforever: There is only ONE portion of the bill being challenged. That is the issue ad ban. Of course the rest will be affirmed because there is no other 1st amendment violation as has already been established under previous CFR laws.
There does remain the possibility that SCOTUS will reject the idea that the bill is severable. That appears to be a murky area, and one that is very difficult to predict. Heck, SCOTUS could refuse to hear the case altogether, although I admit that's an unlikely scenario.
There is another possibility few people are considering. Perhaps this is a bit ghoulish, but what if one of the conservative members died? The makeup of the court is not set in stone.
_______________________
Texasforever: Tell me, a court that has ruled that virtual child pornography, Christ in a bottle of urine and burning the flag is protected speech is going to let the issue ad ban stand?
Probably not. That said, how sure of this are you? I would say there's a 90% chance the ban will be tossed by SCOTUS. Now let's take this a step further: do this enough and you're bound to get burned by that pesky 10% at some point. When constitutional guarantees are at stake, those "10%" instances will erode rights quickly - especially when your timeframe is decades/centuries.
My stance is, it's for this reason the Founders envisioned a system where proposed legislation had to pass three (really, five) separate bodies before becoming law: committee, the House, Senate, White House, SCOTUS. If the first four abdicate their responsibility we've lost one of the mechanisms the Founders provided for eliminating bad law.
_______________________
Luis Gonzalez: The big difference here being the fact that the current SCOTUS has already identified political donations as speech, and protected under the First.
True, but as I stated above, the current SCOTUS could change at any time. They could refuse to even ehar the case, for all we know. Everybody thinks they can predict what the SCOTUS will do, but I maintain they're a notoriously unpredictable group.
_______________________
Howlin: Ah, yeah. Right. I hope you have better luck with your predictions in the Triple Crown. BTW, I ain't buying that stuff about "Lurked since '98" on your profile page. There's nobody in the world that could hold out that long.
Starwind posted a well-constructed, thoughtful post. The best you could do is make personal attacks? And you wonder why folks dismiss your comments out of hand. Unbelievable.
Go back and re read the article. Although I doubt you'll see it, the author took deliberate effort to show that he didn't dislike Bush as a person, but disagreed with his politics. You stated that the author showed hatred and that is not true.
The things that Bush has done that are right are not, for the most part, remarkable, but we've grown wo accustomed to clinton that anything that isn't debauched is treated as a spectacular success. Cutting funding to foreign family planning, while a moral victory, doesn't stop abortions overseas and has virtually no impact on US citizens. It wasn't really a bold stroke, merely correcting a bad policy.
What this thread is revealing is that it is very hard to get civil discussion regarding Bush's position (moderate or conservative) and criticism of his policies.
We used to shake our heads in frustration over the clinton supporters who stood by their president through thick or thin. I don't recall ANYONE on FR praising them for their loyalty. Now we have people doing the same thing and putting on blinders and making excuses for half to two thirds of the president's policies while maintaining that he stands for Conservative policy AND getting personally nasty with those who disagree.
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.