Call the WHite HOuse to Thank Bush for CFR!!!

[rebel]

With a screen name like "July 4th" you should be outraged that a president would trade freedom for partisian poiticial advantage.

Those men who took a stand on July 4th did not put their lives on the line for the tyranny American is rapidly becoming. Those patriots are turning in their graves today.

From now on, I will vote for someone who believes in defending the constitution. That means voting third party.

[No Blue States]

"I'm done with the Republican Party."

So what is your alternative? You joining DU and the Dems? Or just dropping out of politics?

Not trying to be a smarta$$, i just dont understand your end game.

[MJY1288]

Maybe MoveOn.org has room for you, Howard Dean appreciates your support

[stevio]

You have a point, but I have to reiterate to the WH. We've tolerated CFR, Ted Kennedy's education bill, prescription drugs, hugh(sic) spending increases, etc.. We got back $600 of our own money, which is good. The SCOTUS let the 9th circus court decision stand, that there is no RKBA. The AWB is the last straw for me.

Hey Cobra64,
Put that in your BB and smoke it, or what ever else you do with it. Just don't put your eye out, those things look sharp. ;^)

[Cobra64]

They are sharp. My wife can ring doorbells wearing her Bullet Bra. You should see the looks she gets wearing a tight top.

[retrokitten]

president@whitehouse.gov

[Mr. Bird]

I appreciate and agree with your sentiments on CFR, but any number of calls or letters will have zero impact. Bush knew it was crap when he signed it; he probably still thinks it's crap; he probably wanted the SCOTUS to overturn it. Had he vetoed it, he'd have been roasted in the press and every news item about fundraising in '04 would begin "Bush, who vetoed CFR...".

The political calculus is that he can do more good by signing CFR and remaining in office than vetoing it and letting Dean sign it in '05.

[July 4th]

With a screen name like "July 4th" you should be outraged that a president would trade freedom for partisian poiticial advantage.

I am outraged. Nevertheless, come next fall, I have two real options in the general election. Maybe the decision really is between "bad" and "worse," but I'm not going to see that "worse" gets elected.

[Mac The Knife]

Sorry I think the fault lies with the RATS

[Mark]

Yes! I agree. Besides clearing out AlQuida and removing Sadam in a rapid manner and bringing honor back to the White House and honor to our military, what else has he done!(good protest sign?)

[AppyPappy]

Had he vetoed it, he'd have been roasted in the press

Oh Puh-lease. He's getting roasted anyway. What a cowardly approach.

[MineralMan]

"Oh Puh-lease. He's getting roasted anyway. What a cowardly approach."

Really! And when Bush signs the AWB, as he said he would do, what will these folks say then? Will they apologize once more, and say, "Well, he had to do it or risk media criticism?"

At some point, isn't the President supposed to stand his ground? CFR. Amnesty for illegal aliens. Islam the "Religion of Peace." Where does it end, I wonder?

I'm sorry, but I'm beginning to lose sight of the difference between Bush and the other side here.

It's funny that folks are proposing calling the White House about this issue NOW. Who were they calling BEFORE the bill was signed?

[Fred Mertz]

The Senators are useless. They support the law because it keeps them in power.

Not just the Senators, all incumbents.

[BushisTheMan]

Fine, don't support Bush. Then you get Dean! What an idiot you are!

[Recovering_Democrat]

I'm displeased with SCOTUS, they did the wrong thing, too. From top to bottom this was bad. Now, that being said, what can be done? Well, we can either wallow in anger or we can work to put more conservative people on the bench. Overturning the unconstitutionalities of this law is not out of the question. Re-writing the law is not out of the question either.

We have, really, two choices when we go into the voting booth: vote for the Democrat who will definitely move us into an anti-First Amendment society
OR
we could vote for Republicans who, though they sometimes put "expediency" over "righteousness" generally move us toward a more FREE society.

For me, being a former Democrat, the choice is clear: I'll be voting Republican.

[MineralMan]

"we could vote for Republicans who, though they sometimes put "expediency" over "righteousness" generally move us toward a more FREE society.
"

Not so you'd notice, these days.

[fly_so_free]

"Get a grip people, seriously, get a grip"

I agree with you. While I am not happy at all with this USSC decision, I'm not about to join the "Bush-doesn't-do-everything-I- want-and-his-veiws-don't-agree-with-mine-100%-so-I'm-not-voting-for-him crowd"

He made a mistake here. He assumed the Judicial Branch would up-hold the Constitution, and took a calculated risk in passing the buck. It blew up. I am disapointed. It was a BIG mistake to make. But, no one is perfect. As bad is this is, it would be 1 million times worse, and also extrememly dangerous, to have President Dean running the country.

[My2Cents]

With all due respect, I don't understand the outrage. In making a "freedom of speech" argument against the campaign finance reform law, it would seem that ANY campaign finance law enacted by Congress or the states when such became the vogue in the mid-1970s would be a violation of the First Amendment. Regulation of campaign contributions, whether by individuals, corporations, or PACs, and whether to individual campaigns or to political organizations, are all regulated. So, why the outrage?

[My2Cents]

It is time to start removing judges.

Take it up with Charlie Schumer.