Posted on 12/30/2003 11:44:49 AM PST by GunsareOK
Edited on 07/12/2004 3:41:02 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
President Bush is beginning to anger certain hard-line conservatives, particularly over fiscal issues, the way his father did in the year before he lost to Bill Clinton in 1992.
It's not clear how deep the dissatisfaction goes, and whether it will translate to damage at the polls in November.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
Remember the middle class tax cut, clinton was touting during the 92 campaign, and then he and a demo congress raised them.
The press never held him to it.
So the only issue is removing activist judges - what about maintaining the non-activist judges?
Please see #377 for what I was thinking.
I apologise for offending you.
I have a very dear friend who worked on the 80th Floor, South Tower. She retired a few years ago, but I visited enough that I knew Fuji Bank and Trust like the back of my hand.
When the plane struck the South Tower, it was just as if a knife had been plunged into my heart!
And worse, for the first week "they" misreported where the plane struck.
Finally, two survivors from the 80th floor came forward and clarified what had happened.
My friend Needlepointed a caricature of "The Banker", and the President of Fuji Bank so liked it that it was hanging on the wall on 9-11.
How does protecting and defending the Constitution bring harm to the nation? Do you think CFR and the so called "Assault Weapon" ban is Constitutional? Perhaps you think our Constitution is "Fascist"? You're not as "reformed" a liberal as you think you are. To call you a "moderate" would be generous.
Are you sure you’re not a Democrat?
You sure talk like a Democrat.
Anyone who disagrees with you in the smallest way, in your opinion, must be an idiot.
This is typical liberal Democrat behavior.
Also typical of Democrats is the liberal use of the term Nazi, as when you called GunsareOK “one of the national socialist populist union”.
So perhaps you should ask yourself ‘am I a Conservative?’
LOLOL! So then if you think 1980 and before is the Dem's radical phase, then logically it would follow that you think post 1980 is the Dem's nonradical stage.
Your slip is showing.
Now that is funny! I spent two decades as a wildlife biologist and never heard that one. Thanks for a hearty laugh.
Muleteam1
Please see #386
When the mind stores or evaluates a picture or a verbal expression, it also stores its opposite for reference.
When a reference is made to that picture or expression, the mind processes it by comparing it to it's opposite.
Most people don't know this, and the Sales people earn their keep by using "tag expressions" of the form ", is it not?". If they say "this is a great car..., is it not?" timed just right, what the prospect accepts it 'this is a great car'. The "NOT" shuts down the prospect's evaluation process.
If I offended you, I apologize.
New York is where I grew up, at a time that the Hayden Planetarium and it's Zeiss Machine were world famous, and where the Christmas Show really did get into how the sky looked in March of 4 BC.
How ignorant do you have to be to not know the constitution is what ever 5 of the 9 judges say is is ... today. Do you really think the constitution says slavery is legal? Do you really think the constitution says blacks are not human beings? Do you think the constitution says blacks are property like dogs or cows, and can never be citizens?
That is exactly what the Supreme court said in the Dred Scott Decision way back in 1857. Only a complete idiot could read the constitution and then examine the supreme court decisions of the last 200 years, and not know that the constitution and used toilet paper are the same thing... Both are worthless sh*t on paper.
What is constitutional, is what ever the Supreme court says is constitutional. They can and often do change their minds a few years later. They don't care what the words in the constitution mean. Those words mean what ever the justices want them to mean.... no more no less. What you and ohters who are not Supreme court Justices think they mean is of no consequence. That has been going on for 200 years. Read the 200 year old Marbury Vs. Madison decision. Madison wrote the constitution and the in 1804 they court ruled in that case that the author of the constitution did not know what the words in the constituion meant. They supreme court in 1804 ruled the court and not the author had the right to say what the author of the constitution meant by his words. Does that give you a clue? I didn't think so.
It does not matter if the next person put to death for murder is innocent or not. It only matters that the courts ordered that person put to death for murder. Life or death is determined by courts not the words in the law.
You read the words in the constitution and think you know what they mean. You are silly enough to think the words mean what the dictionary says the mean. Madison the author of the constitution thought he knew what he had written, but the justices said he was mistaken.
So am I and I'm at a complete loss to understand why President Bush never addresses this problem. And our open borders are a very serious problem! The Democratic presidential candidates never address this issue either. What's going on?
Very good point, and in fact, most of the current litigation concerning the 2nd amendment (among other things) is naturally occurring belwo the SCOTUS.
And later, those lower court judges become candidates for higher courts...
Key word bolded. Congress shouldn't be getting a free pass since it is easier to blame one elected official. As long as people keep "hoping" there will be a President that gives them everything they want, the longer it will take to have a veto proof majority in Congress that will work within the Constitution.
You apparently consider Republicans passing and signing liberal legislation to be part of the solution.
Not at all. The libs version would be much worse.
LOL! I repeat: if you want to live in a fantasy land, where a Republican signing gun control legislation is somehow better than a D@mocrat signing IDENTICAL gun control legislation, then "that is your choice, I'm just dissapointed that it could effect my rights in the long term."
I'm not willing to cut off my nose in spite of my face.
"Key word bolded." 'The President shouldn't be getting a free pass since it is easier (for some ;>) to blame Congress.'
WIJG: You apparently consider Republicans passing and signing liberal legislation to be part of the solution.
!: Not at all. The libs version would be much worse.
Really? We'll see if Mr. Bush signs an extension of the 'assault weapons' ban. If it's as bad as (or worse than ;>) the original 1994 "libs version," what precisely would be the difference?
WIJG: I repeat: if you want to live in a fantasy land, where a Republican signing gun control legislation is somehow better than a D@mocrat signing IDENTICAL gun control legislation, then "that is your choice, I'm just dissapointed that it could effect my rights in the long term."
!: I'm not willing to cut off my nose in spite of my face.
And I am not willing to call a pig's ear a silk purse, simply because it is jammed down my throat by a Republican rather than a D@mocrat.
;>)
Fair enough. We agree to disagree. Independent thinkers often do.
At least your not comparing anybody to Nazis.
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.