The courts don't own the Constitution: David Limbaugh pummels pols for jeopardizing freedoms

WorldNetDaily.com ^ | Friday, March 22, 2002 | David Limbaugh

[DugwayDuke]

"You can continue to vote in fear, or you can vote with principle, but as it is becoming increasingly clear that we have to keep voting for the lesser of two evils. I refuse to vote for evil."

I would have thought you'd learned a lesson in 2000. It's not a perfect world and as long as this country is fairly evenly divided along liberal and conservative lines, you can vote "for principle" all you want and the only thing you'll get is evil.

[Pietro]

"That court?"

You've hit the nail on the head. What many people here won't admit is that they are putting the future of free speech into the hands of Sandra Day O'Connor.

I'm not comfortable w/ that, look at her Byzantine obsfucation on Casey vs Planned Parenthood--that's the type of decision you can expect.

Only a presidential veto kills this thing outright. There is no part of it I can support.

[DreamWeaver]

Sorry, but McCain is a traitor IMO in more ways than one. According to many Vets they too have their own opinion on McCain that you will not hear from our mainstream media.

I cannot provide the link but here is the URL...Read all about it ( McCain) from the Veterans Dispatch and their opinion on him........

http://www.usvetdsp.com/mccainpg.htm

[Jethro Tull]

"But the Republican Party holds itself out as the guardian of the Constitution."

Excuse Mr. Limbaugh.

Where was the RP and their defense of the Constitution when both you and your brother Rusty pushed for NAFTA, GATT and the WTO?

Incidentally, all of the above violate Article 1, Section 8, clause 3 of our Constitution.

Hypocrite...

[TLBSHOW]

Sorry but Rush and David are right. This whole garbage bill is for the liberal bias media and will make them stronger, while making the people weak.

[DugwayDuke]

"Damned if I do, damned if I don't."

I share your frustration with an imperfect world. One has to decide which course of action does the least harm.

Take for example this hypothetical example. Suppose there are three candidates for office. One supports all abortions. One only opposes partial birth abortions. One opposes all abortions. Truely, the first two are evil but one is less evil than the other. Now, suppose that you can elect either of the first two with your vote. Further suppose, the third candidate will lose regardless of how you vote but if you vote for the third candidate, the first candidate will win. Do you vote on principle for the third candidate knowing that many more children will be aborted when the first candidate wins or do you vote for the second candidate, "the lesser of two evils", knowing that you can save a few?

It's an imperfect world but we face the choices we face. Hoping for a choice we don't have is childish. We can only do the best we can given our choices.

[freeeee]

But the Republican Party holds itself out as the guardian of the Constitution.

BWAAAHahahahahaHA LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Got any other nifty one-liners?

[NittanyLion]

The problem is there are multiple interpretations of "correctly". The only ones that count hold seats on USSC.

I'm sure you'd say the same about abortion, right? After all SCOTUS says it's okay, and they're the only ones that count. Every citizen and expecially every lawmaker has a responsibility to consider the Constitution for themselves, not depend on nine unelected officials to do it for them.

[Jakarta ex-pat]

The Constitution.

Going the same way as the monarchy it once subjugated.

[DugwayDuke]

Quite frankly, Gore would have won had Browne, Philips, Nadar, and Buchanan been allowed into the debates. It would not have been four against Gore. It would have been Gore, Browne, Buchanan, and Phillips against Bush. Hasn't this forum demonstrated that the "true conservatives", Browne, Buchanan, etc., consider a "moderate" republican more of a threat than a liberal? But this is understandable. One secures the base before attacking the opposition.

Just look at your response to my hypothetical. It really wasn't about abortion since I could have framed that question in a multitude of ways. You found your principles to be more important than saving the lives of unborn children. Browne, Philips, and Buchanan would have made the same choice and attacked Bush.

[Jethro Tull]

#46:"This whole garbage bill is for the liberal bias media and will make them stronger, while making the people weak."

IMHO, we've been supporting the 'liberal media' for far too long.

Conservatives should have launched their own 'media' long ago.

I say we increase our donations to the FR and their budding radio outlet.

With the big three (ABC, NBC & CBS) all losing $$$ and viewership, we can (now we must) fill the void.

It's time to turn lemons into lemonade...

[DugwayDuke]

See my hypothetical on abortion above (post #47). My point is not that citizens shouldn't have opinions on constitutionality or other issues. Certainly they should and they should fight to prevail on those opinions. My point is simply this, if the consitutionality of CFR is at issue, then resolve the issue in a constitutional manner by refering the matter to those who can make that decision stick. All this debate about whether it is or is not consitutional is irrelevent to whether it actually is or not. Only USSC can make that decision. Let's get on with it. It's good ground to fight on and we can win that fight.

If this becomes a fight between the legislature and the executive branch then conservatives will lose because we wind up fighting ourselves too. We conservatives should quit killing our own over this issue. Loses to friendly fire are the worst kind.

[Jethro Tull]

#52: "Quite frankly, Gore would have won had Browne, Philips, Nadar, and Buchanan been allowed into the debates."

This is an excellent point and so very true.

The Pubbies, post the 2000 election, forgot how very fragile their victory was.

Since 11/00, illegals have entered Florida at an accellerated clip.

Florida is quickly becoming California, politically speaking...

[Jethro Tull]

accellerated = accelerated

[SuziQ]

Face it folks, if Bush vetos this bill, then it will be back next year and the next year and the next.

You're right about that. The libs are nothing if not persistent. They win by wearing people down and causing them to finally give in just to get them off their backs! I just wish I had enough faith in the Supremes at this point to KNOW for sure they'd strike CFR down!

But this gives us OUR marching orders, doesn't it? We need to get our there and work HARD to get some more conservative Republicans in the Senate!! I'd hesitate before voting for a moderate unless there were no choice between that person and a Democrat. WE need to regain control of the Senate so the 'Pickering' debacle is not repeated when Dubya goes to appoint a new Supreme!

[deadrock]

"Abdicate their responsibilities" is the exact phrase I used yesterday. I'm deeply disturbed by W's flip-flop. Read my lips - no new taxes is so minor compared to this about face veto.

[1Old Pro]

I agree with this article and opinion. The same thing is occuring with the 2nd amendment.