Replies

"Wow. I can't believe you actually put these 2 paragraphs together. Which is it? My party is the majority party because Clinton stuck to his principles or was it Newt? Or did Clinton not stick to his principles, signed welfare reform, and lost the election for Gore? In 2002 the Republican party gained 3 seats and the majority in the Senate, more seats in the House, more state legislators, and control of more state legislatures...bucking the historical trend for off year elections. Could it be that the voters were voting for the Bush tax-cuts and military success? Or was it still Clinton - 2 years after his term ended, or Newt 4 years after he resigned for sticking his principles in his secretary.

It takes a pretty disjointed mind to have 2 completely opposing assertions in just 4 sentences. That has got to be some kind of record even for a paleo-con. You are lucky this thread is mostly dead. I'm embarrassed for you."

I'll be fine, thanks. This kind of ad hominem is par for you when you get backed into a corner. You wouldn't even sniff the logic of the two paragraphs - that Clinton HAD NO PRINCIPLES, and as such Gore and his party were swept away by a party with an agenda that put some accountability back into government, starting with Congress in 2002 leading up to GWB's win in 2004. Why should I have to explain this to you? Even Carville, in Stephanopolous' book once drew an empty box on a table with his finger and asked, "What's in here with Clinton, What does he stand for?

As far as SS, there is a court case going on right now that is challenging the legal basis of the Federal Income Tax, and yes, as you probably know there is an amendment providing for an Income Tax. As far as SS, I couldn't tell you, and I'm not sure its even relevant to this discussion.

I'll tell you some things that are, however:

Where in the constitution does it say that woman have a right to abort their children? It doesn't THE COURT said there is. Where does it say that people have a right to sodomize each other, in the privacy of their bedroom? It doesn't, THE COURT said there is. Same with CFR. The ban on political speech was language inserted into the bill, it passed both houses because nobody making a career in politics would think of whacking something so sweet. Bush gets it (the only president since John Quincy Adams to not use his veto) and passes the buck to the SCOTUS, who he believes will do his work for him and spare him the political cost of the veto. Wrong guess. SCOTUS doesn't bat an eyelash, and the recourse 'we the people' have in this case - zip.

And there is the line for me - gutting the first amendment. CFR wouldn't have got him booted from office, and it would have been principled to boot. Moreover, it would have said, "Look, leave it to Democrats to filibuster in their advise and consent capacity and other weak tricks - we will not amend the constitution by judicial activism. I'm all for CFR, but not if there is a real ban on speech, especially political speech - what could be clearer than "Congress shall make no law . . . ""

That he signed CFR with BOTH HOUSES in R CONTROL leaves him zero excuse. He could have sent a clear message to the conference committee that the final version should be without the 60 and 30 day rules.

As far as filibusters, no Congress has ever used filibusters to stop judicial nominees from getting a floor vote. Democrats are perverting procedure to do this, and GWB can correct it by simply instructing Frist to do so. I'm not claiming to be smarter than anyone before or after me.

Your Kirkegaard reference - What?

Your stance is that the people have the power, and eventually get it right (1000's of years of history don't back you up on that regard - and the Electoral College was designed to protect against 'the people' concentrated in one part of the country being able to tyrannize people in less populous parts).

Kirkegaard's comment essentially says that people speak before they think. While many times true, so what? Are you trying to say the freedom of speech is overrated?

The erosion of rights is a gradual process in government, and its inexorable unless guys like you decide that the Constitution has very deliberate methods by which you can make changes to it. The framers left the amendment process in place so that it can change with the times, but they made sure it was tough to do. Guys like you have to say, "Sorry, I love you GWB but the 1st amendment is a sort of important one, and it ought to be up for a 3/4 vote of Congress before we change it."

SCOTUS has changed all of that. Of all the branches, they represent nobody. They are just there to tell us what is constitutional and what isn't, and even on that score they are doing a poor job.

Everything I laid out there are real possibilities. As far as answering your question to me, I have a simple answer:

The line for me is when speech isn't free anymore. It's been crossed, and it isn't paranoid delusions either. The ACLU and the NRA are IN AGREEMENT on this one. So is George Will and Alan Colmes.

You are one of the first people I've come across that thinks its no big deal.

Hey for you, its all relative I guess.