Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

JOINING THE RUSH-LED CHORUS ON DUB (Normal People Prefer Bush. He has gravitas)
rushlimbaugh ^ | 3/26/2002 | Rush Limbaugh

Posted on 03/26/2002 3:28:09 PM PST by TLBSHOW

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 181-197 next last
To: solzhenitsyn
Nader didn't ruin algore, algore ruined algore.

IMO, the election wasn't won by someone the people wanted, but by the person the most people feared least.

21 posted on 03/26/2002 4:11:37 PM PST by Eagle Eye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: hole_n_one
They get to go to the press dinner at the White House?
22 posted on 03/26/2002 4:13:10 PM PST by TLBSHOW
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: NoControllingLegalAuthority
I don't agree with GW on every issue...far from it.
Im being selfish...I want to protect my hubby and son, with a President that I know will use them wisely and actually cares and respects the military.
My rant is directed at those who constantly post...*I will not vote for GW again* over this or that issue.
Rush is a smart man, but IMHO he is doing more harm than he realizes.
23 posted on 03/26/2002 4:13:56 PM PST by mystery-ak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Eagle Eye
IMO, the election wasn't won by someone the people wanted, but by the person the most people feared least.

For many of us; you nailed it.



24 posted on 03/26/2002 4:15:00 PM PST by who knows what evil?
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: TLBSHOW
I think there should be a separate Rush Limbaugh forum so these posts don't interfere with real news and issues.
25 posted on 03/26/2002 4:17:47 PM PST by Willie Green
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: oldvike
The little bit I heard this morning had Gallagher saying on his show that Coulter had said things that were less than accurate about the scandal that is presently rocking the Catholic church..........

According to Gallagher, Coulter argued that the scandal is overblown in that only 55 of the 45,000 priests have been revealed to be pedophiles.

Gallagher went on to say the the figure "55" is simply the number that have been exposed in the 2002 calender year, and that he found Coulter to be disingenuous in her comments.

It struck me as odd, given his history of professing his admiration of Coulter and her "work".

26 posted on 03/26/2002 4:18:27 PM PST by hole_n_one
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: ex-snook
First time Pat's made since in my opinion. Im all for supporting Israel, but when did they become the 51'st state? It seems as if they dictate what we do,or atleast everything we do is expected for their approval, thats how some would seemingly want it.
27 posted on 03/26/2002 4:21:14 PM PST by Texas Cornhusker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
Your post #7 hits the nail on the head. When Rush has to look to "Fats" Bennett and Judge Wills he's lost his case (and his credibility).
28 posted on 03/26/2002 4:24:49 PM PST by hgro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: hole_n_one
Gotcha. Thanks for the explanation. I'm sure TLBSHOW will be on the case real soon. Poor Gallagher. LOL
29 posted on 03/26/2002 4:25:25 PM PST by oldvike
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: who knows what evil?
It was called the "Anybody But Gore" vote.
30 posted on 03/26/2002 4:26:21 PM PST by Eagle Eye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Eagle Eye
"Nader didn't ruin algore, algore ruined algore."

Eagle Eye, whom do you suppose would be President right now if Buchanan had taken as many votes away from Bush as Nader took away from Gore? I challenge you to name any person other than Al Gore who could plausibly have won in that circumstance. We are indeed fortunate that Buchanan's attempt to play spoiler failed and Nader's succeeded.

31 posted on 03/26/2002 4:36:48 PM PST by solzhenitsyn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: oldvike
It isn't Wednesday yet.
32 posted on 03/26/2002 4:38:23 PM PST by TLBSHOW
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: TLBSHOW
LOL!
33 posted on 03/26/2002 4:40:55 PM PST by oldvike
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: ex-snook
So anyone who says that Islamic terrorism against Jews in Israel is just as wrong as when it is directed against Americans in NYC is an "acolyte" of Bibi Netanyahu? Give me a break.
34 posted on 03/26/2002 4:42:22 PM PST by Hugin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: mystery-ak
That is the point. He is so high in polls and in the hearts of the people that if he did what was right with this, VETO CFR, and told the people why, he would not lose a thing. I am willing to bet he would become even stronger in the eyes of the people for doing what is right.
35 posted on 03/26/2002 4:42:32 PM PST by TLBSHOW
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: RightThinkinDood
"When I began entering into the give and take of legislative bargaining in Sacramento, a lot of the most radical conservatives who had supported me during the election didn't like it. "Compromise" was a dirty word to them and they wouldn't face the fact that we couldn't get all of what we wanted today. They wanted all or nothing and they wanted it all at once. If you don't get it all, some said, don't take anything. "I'd learned while negotiating union contracts that you seldom got everything you asked for. And I agreed with FDR, who said in 1933: 'I have no expectations of making a hit every time I come to bat. What I seek is the highest possible batting average.' "If you got seventy-five or eighty percent of what you were asking for, I say, you take it and fight for the rest later, and that's what I told these radical conservatives who never got used to it.

~~ Ronald Reagan, in his autobiography, An American Life

36 posted on 03/26/2002 4:43:56 PM PST by Miss Marple
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: TLBSHOW
I prefer to read the conservative Limbaugh, David. Rush is so '90s you know?
37 posted on 03/26/2002 4:48:13 PM PST by Twodees
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TLBSHOW
I listened to Rush ranting about Bush for a couple of days and then I turned him off. I don't care to listen to it. On the way home tonight Charles Goyette started in on him and, for the first time since KFYI started, I turned it off.

First of all, CFR is going to be overturned by SCOTUS. For the first time, we are going to demand results tied to our foreign aid (and YES we do have to do something to turn around the influence of the madrassas or we'll be stuck killing terrorists for the next 100 years). As to the schools, we finally have accountability. OK, so we threw some money at them, but if we hadn't the dems would have found something else to spend it on.

Just keep bi*ching people and we're going to end up with a democrat house and democrat senate. You're doing the dems work for them.

38 posted on 03/26/2002 4:48:33 PM PST by McGavin999
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Eva
I most definitely think that is what he is doing. Bush is a pragmatist and he knows that the senate and the RINO senators will not go with the agenda he and the house are pushing. So he is letting the democrats in on the compromise. So we didn't get vouchers and the government is giving money to educate the illiterate and the poor. So, that can change or become more meaningful when vouchers can be included when the senate is back on Republican hands. And as for CFR--do you really think that the media would have left Bush alone especially with ENron if he vetoes CFR. Again this too can be revisited with a senate majority. Please, we always high tail it out of town when the going gets rough. Personally, I am disapointed in Rush--he states that those of us still loyal to Bush are more concerned with power. Frankly, I believe that without the next term republican agenda will not go far and the tax cuts will be stopped. So, my friends, disagree but remember that Bush is a republican as you and I but he too is the president for everyone and there are some moderates and there are some liberals who also have good points. Let's start a different tone.
39 posted on 03/26/2002 4:50:41 PM PST by olliemb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: TLBSHOW
Maybe Rush should learn the constitutional peocess before he accuses Bush of violating it

Article. III.

Section. 1.

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

Section. 2.

Clause 1: The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State; (See Note 10)--between Citizens of different States, --between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects

The Supreme Court is the highest federal court in the United States. Its existence is provided for in Article III of the Constitution, although Congress is given the power to determine the size of the Court. The size of the court is set by Congress and currently consists of a Chief Justice and eight Associate Justices.

Members of the Supreme Court are appointed for life by the President. They may be removed only by death, resignation or impeachment. The Supreme Court has the power of judicial review. It may declare acts of Congress or of state governments unconstitutional and therefore invalid. The Supreme Court decides cases by a majority vote and its decisions are final.

Franklin D. Roosevelt came into conflict with the Supreme Court during his period in office. The chief justice, Charles Hughes, had been the Republican Party presidential candidate in 1916. Herbert Hoover appointed Hughes in 1930 and had led the court's opposition to some of the proposed New Deal legislation. This included the ruling against the National Recovery Administration (NRA), the Agricultural Adjustment Act (AAA) and ten other New Deal laws.

On 2nd February, 1937, Franklin D. Roosevelt made a speech attacking the Supreme Court for its actions over New Deal legislation. He pointed out that seven of the nine judges (Charles Hughes, Willis Van Devanter, George Sutherland, Harlan Stone, Owen Roberts, Benjamin Cardozo and Pierce Butler) had been appointed by Republican presidents. Roosevelt had just won re-election by 10,000,000 votes and resented the fact that the justices could veto legislation that clearly had the support of the vast majority of the public.

The Constitution is deliberately inefficient.

The Separation of Powers devised by the framers of the Constitution was designed to do one primary thing: to prevent the majority from ruling with an iron fist. Based on their experience, the framers shied away from giving any branch of the new government too much power. The separation of powers is also known as "Checks and Balances."

Three branches are created in the Constitution. The Legislative, composed of the House and Senate, is set up in Article 1. The Executive, composed of the President, Vice-President, and the Departments, is set up in Article 2. The Judicial, composed of the federal courts and the Supreme Court, is set up in Article 3.

Each of these branches has certain powers, and each of these powers is limited by another branch.

For example, the President appoints judges and departmental secretaries. But these appointments must be approved by the Senate. The Congress can pass a law, but the President can veto it. The Supreme Court can rule a law to be unconstitutional, but the Congress, with the States, can amend the Constitution.

All of these checks and balances, however, are inefficient. But that's by design rather than by accident. By forcing the various branches to be accountable to the others, no one branch can usurp enough power to become dominant.

The following are the powers of the Executive: veto power over all bills; appointment of judges and other officials; makes treaties; ensures all laws are carried out; commander in chief of the military; pardon power. The checks: The Legislative branch can override vetoes; can refuse to confirm appointments and reject treaties; can declare war; can impeach the President. The Judicial branch can declare Executive acts as unconstitutional.

The following are the powers of the Legislature: Passes all federal laws; establishes all lower federal courts; can override a Presidential veto; can impeach the President. The checks: The Executive can veto any bill and can call the Congress into session. The Judicial branch can declare laws unconstitutional. In addition, the two houses of Congress must agree on legislation, providing an internal check.

The following are the powers of the Judiciary: the power to try federal cases and interpret the laws of the nation in those cases; the power to declare any law or executive act unconstitutional. The checks: The Executive appoints members. The Legislative can impeach judges and has approval power over Presidential appointments; it can also propose amendments to overturn judicial decisions.

Historically, the concept of Separation of Powers dates back as far as ancient Greece. The concepts were refined by contemporaries of the Framers, and those refinements influenced the establishment of the three branches in the Constitution.

History of the Veto

Tracing the veto back to the Roman Republic, Spitzer states that the veto was used by tribunes to protect plebeian interests from those of the patricians. And, as a result of their conquests, the concept of the veto was spread throughout Europe, eventually coming to be one of the last vestiges of power the British monarchs had over the law-making process.

From there the veto made its way to America. But due to the experiences the colonies had had with the veto, they initially made it unavailable to those in power. However, by the time the founders met in Philadelphia, the question was not whether or not to include the veto – or as it was known at the time, the negative – in the Constitution, but whether it should be absolute or qualified.

It should be noted, though, that the founders intended the veto not just as a block to bad legislation, but as a revisionary tool whereby the president and Congress could come to an agreement on a proposed bill. This revisionary intent is an aspect of the veto that has all but disappeared over the years.

40 posted on 03/26/2002 4:52:27 PM PST by Texasforever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 181-197 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson