All you people are pretty funny with your precious votes, all of which add up to about .005% of the population. And it's contradictory: if your views are so important that the pres. has to listen to them, then he would have listened to them in the first place. Heck, I know someone INSIDE the White House, put in an e-mail, and know that some GOT THE MESSAGE. It has been an issue. So clearly Bush knows what he's doing. Doesn't mean I have to like it. But a presidency is about a hell of a lot more than one bill.
Reagan didn't work at all to end abortion---Bush has already, in three executive orders or changes in Clinton rules, done more to end abortion than Reagan did.
Reagan bailed out Harley-Davidson. Bush bails out steel, which at least, it can be argued, is necessary for defense.
Reagan signed a big tax increase in 1986. Does that make him anything less than a great president? No. It means that like anything else, in politics, you have to compromise. I don't think this is the issue to compromise on, but we ARE FIGHTING A WAR, which most people here seem to have forgotten.
Finally, the poster above does have a great point: if all of you are (as I am) so sure that this bill is unconstitutional, there there is nothing to worry about, right? But, as another poster suggested, we can't trust this to the courts, then let me see: the Legislature (both houses), the Pres., and (if it goes this way) the Courts would have all said this is Constitutional. So it is. End of story. If you don't like it, YOU are then in the position of changing the constitution, a la a repeal of Prohibition.
Coolidge
It never occured to me that most people on this forum wouldn't. Jefferson isn't the subject of this thread. If you want to engage me on that subject and find out what I know about him or the constitution, start another thread.
All you people are pretty funny with your precious votes, all of which add up to about .005% of the population.
Not nearly as "funny" as the morons who vote for Repubicans and Democrats. They have removed your rights one at a time, not my party. They have just reached the bill of rights, starting from the top, which one will be next? You are really happy to be in the majority, above all other things apparently.
But a presidency is about a hell of a lot more than one bill.
It doesn't get any more fundamental than defending the first amendment.
Reagan bailed out Harley-Davidson. Bush bails out steel, which at least, it can be argued, is necessary for defense.
A bailout and a trade war are two different things. Both bad, one worse. But all of this is off topic.
but we ARE FIGHTING A WAR, which most people here seem to have forgotten.
More freedomd have been lost in the name of war than all other reasons combined. BTW, this isn't a war. The congress alone has they power to declare war, and they didn't have the balls to do it. they punted to Bush, he was happy to have free rein.
Finally, the poster above does have a great point: if all of you are (as I am) so sure that this bill is unconstitutional, there there is nothing to worry about, right? But, as another poster suggested, we can't trust this to the courts, then let me see: the Legislature (both houses), the Pres., and (if it goes this way) the Courts would have all said this is Constitutional.
The courts have a poor record defending the constitution. And my right to free speech is not granted by it in any case. I have the right to speak, whether or not it is being violated.