Bush signs Campaign Reform, NRA Sues

AP/Yahoo ^ | 03/25/02 | SCOTT LINDLAW

[wcbtinman]

Your tactic might work except for one thing. Bush already, publicly, announced that he will re-authorize the ban when it expires. He also has admitted to someone (a neighbor of his ranch) that he knows this ban has Constitutional problems.

Clinton really set the precedent for ignoring the Constitution, and Bush is just pushing the envelope. I don't think that many of us in his base of support expected this, and I for one have already made up my mind that he and/or the Republican party will get no further support from me. I'm sorry, but the Constitution and the freedoms that it protects are just too important for anyone to play games with on my dime.

[William Tell]

demlosers said: "CFR is really going to be hard to enforce, about impossible. Are they going to throw people in jail because an opponent critized the incumbent in a electoral race? Yeah right..."

What? You don't think there are people in prison for keeping and bearing arms? It only took about ten years for Germany to become the Nazi nightmare which nearly destroyed the world. Yes, it can happen here. And it is happening here.

[hchutch]

If the thing doesn't reach his desk, then he cannot re-authorize it, can he? Or are you going to run off and give us Hillary?

[wcbtinman]

"He added 'About this Constitution thing, Frankly, I don't give a d@mn.'"

I would like to think that this is 100% sarcasm, but given what has gone on lately, I can't. Tell me that this is not really a quote from President Bush.

[Illbay]

You people reveal the depth of your character every time you respond to a humorous--but accurate--depiction of your philosophy in this way.

Keep it coming. People need to see you as you truly are.

[Illbay]

Yep, they constantly fight for the right of the RNC to party.

Tell us another one.

[wcbtinman]

I'm not going to run off, but I'm not gonna give you Bush either.

Is this what the choice has come down to? I have to choose between a candidate who makes no pretense of conservatism/Constitutionality, or choose one who does it behind my back. Well, I wouldn't give a fart for either one. If I have to give up my principles for the lesser of two evil choices, then let's elect the worst SOB and get the revolution started, because that's where your kind of thinking is going to eventually get this country.

Have a spine and vote for someone with character, honesty and above all moral principles. Even if that results in a temporary setback, in the end right will prevail. If we deep making excuses for the bad behaviour of any elected official, we will reap what we sow.

[Mark Bahner]

Guess what, the Republican/conservative message doesn't get out due to the major media outlets, so your "talking point" goes nowhere. The reality of the situation (which apparently you choose to ignore) is that most Americans only know what the major media tells them. For them, the talking point WOULD have been President Bush and the Repubs are against meaningful campaign finance reform.

BS. President Bush calls all major network news departments (or simply CNN). He says, "I want 30 minutes for an interview, to tell the American people why this bill is completely unconstitutional...and I'll be happy to shoot the breeze about a few other issues." I absolutely guarantee you every news department would be falling all each other to have the exclusive rights to that interview. If you don't like that...go to Larry King, or Chris Mathews. They'd probably have heart attacks--well, at least Larry King would--with the excitement of having an exclusive with the President of the United States.

To say that the President of the United States can't get his message out is nonsense. He can, if he wants to. Bush doesn't want anybody to know about CFR, because he KNOWS he's violating a campaign promise...and more importantly, the U.S. Constitution.

He could of been a contenda...a champion of free speech...instead of a bum.

[Mark Bahner]

I would like to think that this is 100% sarcasm, but given what has gone on lately, I can't. Tell me that this is not really a quote from President Bush.

The secret of any good humor is that there is a reasonable element of truth in it. I could tell you that was a real quote--just like I could tell you Republicans support the Constitution and Small Government--but all three are just jokes.

Mark

P.S. Truth-In-Posting considerations require me to admit the obvious...on CFR, Republicans are...awful...but certainly better than the Democrats. At least on FR there's some frustration at the federal government shamelessly violating the First Amendment. I can't imagine any such sentiments on the discussion boards at The Nation, or any other liberal cesspool.

[Mark Bahner]

Is this what the choice has come down to? I have to choose between a candidate who makes no pretense of conservatism/Constitutionality, or choose one who does it behind my back.

In 2000, you had a choice...for Constitutionality (though not for "conservatism"...since "conservatism" today means Big Government). And not pretend Constitutionality, either. The Real Deal of Constitutionality.

Harry Browne would have absolutely followed the Constitution. He'd have shut down the federal government to do it (since 90% of what the federal government does is unconstitutional). But he would have followed the Constitution.

[wcbtinman]

"In 2000 you had a choice..."

Yep, and I fell for the "vote for a 3rd party candidate, and we'll get Gore" routine. Well, I turned the other cheek and got that one slapped too.

But this is ugly on my face, not stupid. The Republicans, and Bush in particular are now a distant memory for me. I will be looking closely at Harry Browne, and others of his ilk.

[PRND21]

It also means no truthful, critical and informative TV commercials for 60 days prior to the election.

Fair enough. Thanks.

[Satadru]

OK...I get your drift. This is Alan Keyes' point and i disagree with him about that. I do not think that an amendment is necessary. The whole problem emanates from the fact that the Roe v Wade decision clearly violated the 10th amendment. Technically, we need to overrule Roe before we can pass another amendment. The 14th amendment was passed in a time when scientific knowledge was not strong enough to recognize the personhood of the fetus. Over the years, we have learned more about the sentiency of the fetus. If the 14th amendment was passed today, I am sure the unborn could be classified as such. Anyways..the original point was whether Bush should keep his words. I was referrring to the fact that he clearly said that he will not sign this present campaign finance bill. He had to make a judgement, as a co-equal branch of the government, literally, whether or not to sign a blatantly un-Constitutional bill. He picked the wrong side, consciously.

[Texasforever]

Harry Browne would have already been impeached.

[cidrasm]

So your answer is to give more power through CFR to the liberal media.........LMAO

Just how did you read that into my response? Perhaps you might want to read what I've written before responding.

[cidrasm]

Did you just seriously suggest the President give an unsupervised/uncontrolled interview with the major media? Think about that for a second or two. Think about the pains they go through right now twisting the few mangled words he utters in a public forum.

[rbmillerjr]

Just how did you read that into my response? Perhaps you might want to read what I've written before responding

Well here is what you said.

Guess what, the Republican/conservative message doesn't get out due to the major media outlets, so your "talking point" goes nowhere. The reality of the situation (which apparently you choose to ignore) is that most Americans only know what the major media tells them. For them, the talking point WOULD have been President Bush and the Repubs are against meaningful campaign finance reform.

You clearly show your belief of how strong the media is and with CFR they clearly are the biggest winners as they will not have to worry about organized groups of citizens getting their viewpoint out. The media are huge huge winneers with this GOP weakening bill. You dont have to say that the Bill weakens the GOP, it is clear and has been analyzed by almost every conservative analyst who talks about it as strengthening the media - since there is no provision for their speech and editorializing to be curtailed.

[Crusher138]

The country continues it's move to the right.

Your last premise is unsupportable. It is not moving to the right. Conservative bastions such as North Carolina and Texas are being overrun by liberalism. California, which since 1956 was a reliable Republican state (excepting 1964), is now reliably Democrat. Many other examples abound that the country is moving left and both parties are moving towards Statism.

Florida, which has been controlled by Democrats since reconstruction is 100% in the hands of Republicans. In the past few years Republicans have dominated the governorships and statehouses like never before. These gains will lead to more and more national victories.

Do you forget the 30's through the 70's? Socialism under FDR, war protestors, free love, Black Panthers, Jimmy Carter, Dan Rostenkowski, detante with the Soviets, Iranian hostages, et al.? The Republicans were able to nothing but sit in their country clubs and go "Tut, tut." Ronaldus Magnus started the revolution and though we have had set backs (Clinton), it is still moving in the right direction.

They didn't turn us into a nanny state overnight and we won't change it back by fiat. It will be a slow, painful process, but we will win, we will prevail, and America will continue as the world's bastion of freedom and opportunity.

Stepping off the soapbox now...

[Crusher138]

If I have to give up my principles for the lesser of two evil choices, then let's elect the worst SOB and get the revolution started, because that's where your kind of thinking is going to eventually get this country.

Are you so sure of your revolution? They know how to turn up the water slowly so we don't even know we are boiling.

I see the Democrats directly giving the people free medical, long vacation time, free housing, and a high minimum wage. Who is going to complain? When business leave the country or fail, they will be blaimed for being too greedy. The government will step in to fill the needs and soon you will have the Soviet States of America. But as long as you have "Survivor" on the tube (government funded), Academy Awards every year (with politically correct acceptance speeches), and a good late night talk show host (who belittles and demeans the right people), who cares?

[Blake#1]

"No politician that wants to put me in jail for criticizing him/her, will ever get my vote" (Freeper Rodney King)