Posted on 06/08/2006 5:12:02 AM PDT by FerdieMurphy
the Bush/Senate/McCain/Kennedy amnesty for illegal immigrants.
The fact that Bush's name is among the others along with a GOP Senate largely complicit, says more than enough on that issue.
So they are - again - trying to federalize a state issue: marriage.
Since when did we conservatives believe the federal government should usurp state’s rights?
While I agree with just about all of the article, it seems that they are trying to make this ammendment specifically for purposes of state's rights. Not making it would seem to entail that what's good in one state must be honored in the other 50, which then by default inhibits state's rights. Thoughts?
Of course the "slippery slope" part of that is using the Constitution for moral issues in a nation whereby moral relatavism reigns.
that's because up there in the noth they slap down a tortilla, throw on some fried hamburger, salsa and call it 'pizza'....
we have a winner!
RE the border....Those that live in border states have a right to demand that immigration be in the top-two....
Dang, apprehended once again.
I keep telling my 4 year old that when he's transcribing my thoughts on the keyboard to pay attention to his spelling. :-)
i agree, but as i'm sure you know, it's not just a border state issue....the migration is from sea to shining sea...
I definitely have the same problem from time to time.
Good description. Pizza up here is pretty pathetic.
For a good chuckle, check out the Democratic Underground Zaeqawi thread.
Basically, it's more lies.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2327738#2327740
True, but when one can see them crossing your property/lawn, sleeping in your deer blinds, and bathing in your cattle troughs, dropping dirty diapers, etc....then it gets personal...
The author of this hit piece is full of crap. Dubya is a student of history and is fully cognizant of how lessons learned from from a historical perspective can prevent the same mistakes, or missteps, from occurring again. This author doesn't grasp the concept that this nation is at war, granted not the intensity of a WWII, but every bit as dangerous.
well then, i have to defer to you guys...all my son did on the computer when he was four was pee on it...
Yes, but their not quite as anti-Bush as some folks are around here.
Well John, looks like good news is still bad news for some sleepers here, eh?
that's an apt categorization!
>>>Katrina and Iraq (up to this point) should have had nothing to do with the slide in the president's popularity. <<<
Somewhat true on Katrina. The media created the myth that the federal government screwed-up by not instantly coming to the rescue of everyone in the 91,000 square-mile area of devastation, and by not instantly cleaning up and rebuilding. The media also greatly exaggerated the problems at the shelters. Bush's popularity was hurt (IMO) because he did not stand his ground against the onslaught of the media, but instead gave them a scapegoat in Mike Brown. That was the poorest, wimpiest exhibition of leadership I had ever seen, and led me to question his leadership from that point on.
On Iraq he has also failed time and time again to stand his ground against the constant onslaught of lies and distortions by the media. There will be critics of his handling of the military operations by arm-chair generals and monday-morning quarterbacks, just as there were critics of Ike's D-Day planning and operations. The difference is Ike's critics were not in virtual 'real-time', and you could be hung or shot for treason in those days. These days treason will get you a Pulitzer. Why? Because Bush will not stand up to those treasonous sobs and throw them in jail. Instead, he acts like an ultra-left wing public school teacher toward misbehaving children who tries to 'understand them', who doesn't want to hurt their feelings.
Anyway, my wife and I have tried to understand Bush, believing at times that he was just too arrogant (too above us mere mortals) to bother to comment when he was criticized. At other times we thought he was too dumb to respond. In either case, he is no conservative and he has proven to be as poor a leader as his father.
I used to have a lot of respect for LeBoutillier. He's gone off the deep end now and so that respect is gone.
I bet you learned not to pee off your son when he was 4.
I recall an incident when Clinton was President when the military had a major terrorist target in their sights and only needed Clinton's OK to make the strike, but he was watching a golf game on TV and refused to be interrupted--in fact blew his stack at some aide who tried to get him to sign off on the strike.
just went over there and i got to go take a shower.....it actually Rains BS over there....
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.