Posted on 06/05/2002 1:20:54 PM PDT by Stand Watch Listen
!) Killed the Kyoto treaty, It is not dead, and he sent a study to the UN, admitting Global warming is man caused, that he nows denies that he wanted it to say, that is moot. Watch what I do, not what I say
2) Where is this missile defense? Probably a victim of a secret agreement with Putin during his emasculation of our Strategic Nuclear Weapons program. Show me when they begin giving out contracts
3) Killed the International criminal court. Sorry it is not dead, only awaiting the next Democrat in office. Of course that is why we MUST continue voting as we are told, to keep the other EEEVIL party out of office
4)He blocked implementation of an emmission standard. He negated any good this signaled, by admitting that emissions by man are warming the planet, surely emboldening the Envirwhackos to push for even higher standards
5)Ergonomic rules This was BS, and needed to be done, score 1 for W
6) Using language that implies that weapons are an individual right Score 2 for W, although this is merely symbolic until the court gets done with it
7) What law gives pilots the right to carry? The FAA rules the day, and they won't let pilots carry, so if true it means nothing, security(new federal employees now) won't allow them through with a weapon
8) Killed the ABAs power over appointments?? Is he going to appoint a judge that is not a lawyer? All lawyers are members of the Bar, and so have a standing. Even the hated "right wingers" Now he will listen to his own lawyers, on what lawyers to appoint. He just cut out a tool of the Dems. A political decision- - but- - Instead he gave veto power to Boxer and Feinstein in California, in the appointment of judges. Again, if we want to keep the left wing ABA out of the process, we have to keep voting the "right" way, of course the Republican way
9) He completed a review of the military, yep and he was lookin' good while doing it
10) Killed the big gun, yep.
11) NO more funding for family planning overseas, yep he has a score of 4 in my book now
12) Ordered the justice dept to enforce a decision of the Supreme Court? He would be derelict in his duty if he didn't, the decision carries the weight of law. Clinton should have been impeached for not enforcing this. You can't give a guy credit for doing what he has to do.
Bush is a small man in a big job, if he pulls himself together and decides to break new ground, not just compromise with the "so-called enemy", he has a chance to be great. Until then, he is exactly like Bob Dole would have been as President, the great Compromiser.
Must be, seeing how your opinion on what you are "sick" of seeing on a privately owned site is completely irrelevant.
A splendid showing of backbone, wasn't it? He could have refused to sign the bill.
Yeah, there are dates the Illegal has to be in the country by before receiving this Amnesty, and a few other things. But here's what's simple, what the "restrictions" don't change:
Section 245(i) is nothing but a way for certain targeted Illegals to "change status" so that they become legal. It is rewarding their lawbreaking. It is most definitely an Amnesty.
There seems to be a fallback position among Amnesty Deniers to say, "but it's not a BLANKET Amnesty." That's beside the point as it was never the claim. Nor is it a sufficent defense for those defending the Administration on 245(i), as they were claiming it wasn't Amnesty at all.
So what do you think? Sarcastic enough?
I wish I could figure out how to post pics, I've got some great photoshop images that I could add.
I think I'll change my profile to a pro Pat Buchanan theme for a while, or maybe a McCain in 2004.....
What are your thoughts?
Ron Paul in 2004
You misunderstand. It isn't that he doesn't have the balls, because he does for things he believes in.
The legislation that Bush has signed IS legislation that he believes in.
He told us he was a "compassionate conservative", now we know what he meant by that label. Turns out "compassionate conservative" means pro big government moderate.
So, get them to register by applying for a hearing under 245(i), then we know where they are, don't we?
Since the point of 245(i) is to "change status" of Illegals, knowing where they are doesn't really help in this case, since they would no longer be deportable.
If this felon has been deemed "rehabilitated" and released from prison, then yes! If you don't think the rehabilitation "took", then keep him in prison.
The Founding Fathers believed that the Nation to be built on the shoulders of good and trustworthy people, and that the felonous sorts were in the strict minority. To have the views you hold, you must believe that you are surrounded by knaves who are ready to pounce on you. I prefer to regard my fellow citizens as the Founders regarded thier own peers.
In terms of "living," I'm referring to the fact that the Constitution is continually interpreted and modified by the government as a body. Interpretation coming from the Supreme Court, and modification coming through amendment, which (although it hasn't happened in the better part of a generation) comes through the Congress and the states.
The combination of the two makes it a "living" document in the context that I'm using here.
Bush undoubtedly knows what we know. If he doesn't correct the problem, then Bush agrees with the ruling. It is easy to say one thing and then turn a blind eye when the "real" policy is enforced. Measure government by what it does, not by what it says.
The Bush worshipers are the ones wearing the blinders. There appear to many "conservative-wana-bes" who will sacrifice thier freedom for security.
I suppose.
I haven't seen him veto anything yet.
He's pretty good at wielding a rubber stamp.
This group changes one letter in foul, four-letter-words, call former Presidents "Hijo de Puta" (Spanish for 'Son of a Prostitute'), is insulting of the other sides intellect and level of education and then cry "vulgar" when the other side retaliates. What's worse is the moderators might go along with them, because our side doesn't use their abuse button tactics and so there's no 'hard' record of who started using the 'vulgarities' and personal attacks in the first place.
The FR guidelines warn that the moderators will check the thread to verify that the alleged offender wasn't baited into retaliating in a way, that elicited the abusive response, that the instigator was waiting for, but it's clear that the moderators can't always do that. Especially on a 1,000-post-long thread like this.
Be wary of the 'hooks' these Freepers use to draw you into a 'flame war'.
Where do you get this stuff Tex??? Dang, you are wrong again!! Want a glaring example? Here, I will give you one. The people of the great state of California held a free election and voted 3 to 1 in favor of proposition 187 which would have put a stop to much of the tax paid support of illegal aliens. The federal government stepped in and burned our ballots and declared our election unconstitutional.
You couldn't be any more wrong in your above statement tex.
Our borders and immigration policies have become a national disgrace, and now a complete national security nightmare.
Thats a nice post, I agree 100% with one caveat. Those emigrating should strive to assimilate into the melting pot of American culture.
Too many ethnic groups have chosen to live apart and wear their minority status as a badge of victimhood. Our socity has become Balkinized into pockets of competing cultures where everyone blames all their problems on society, or alternatively, middle aged white men.
I am not demanding that they give up their cultures, but I believe that the success of America is partly attributable to the fact that here we have many cultures mixing together, which give us the unique opportunity to choose the best qualities of each in order to make a distinctively American, and I believe, superior culture.
You and your ilk are remarkably narrow-minded. The "Bush bashers", as you call them, are generally very pleased with Bush. Their criticism is well founded, however.
LOL........you know me better than that, RM. ;*)
I do have two minor problems with it though.
The first is that it looks like several people I know and I can't figure out exactly who it is.
Secondly.......whoever it is will have a rough time seeing it from his/her vantage point.
Some more misrepresentation of facts from you.245(i) only changes the mechanism by which they get to apply for change of status, and while it is true that while their applications are being reviewed they are not deportable, it neither guarantees a hearing, nor does it guarantee a change in status.
Hence, once the determination has been made that they do not qualify either for a hearing, or for permanent change in status, they are very, very deportable.
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.