FreeRepublic: A place for "grass-roots conservatism on the web" or not?

Me

[headsonpikes]

I'll bet that Bush's flaws are what endears him to you. After all, if he was perfect, your lot would have no way of understanding his motives, or of profiting from them.

I suppose we can always trust the skunks to be in favor of henhouse-raiding. ;^)

[VRWC_minion]

Yeah... it was brilliant when Clinton took this route with HillaryCare.

The hysterics works well for my argument that Bush did the right thing for both the Constitution and the party. The lack of an argument not based in hysterical projections of unwarranted dangers exemplifies the vapor on which the anti-bushies arguments are written.

[ScreamingFist]

Said it on another thread, I'll say it again here. Many FR posters think an "r" or "d" after a president's name is more important than the president's integrity. Says a lot about those posters, doesn't it?

[EBUCK]

It's not like he folded on some social engineering program or over some stupid little commerce issue in order to keep the political high ground. He folded on our First Amendment right to Free Speech. He should have taken a stand on this.

I think you know this was wrong but are willing to give him leeway because he's a "conservative" and may just be playing the game. I however am not willing to give him quarter on this issue. Any time a politician hacks into the 1st, 2nd, and 4th especially, but any part of the Constitution/BOR in general, they are fair game regardless of ulterior political motives or supposed affiliation.

EBUCK

[hobbes1]

I am not the one playing Chicken Little here... Shredding the Constitution.... sheesh.

[Howlin]

That is NOT what I said; I said that when you act like people who don't agree with you are dumb then you are bashing, whether it be Bush or the poster.

I'm tired of being told I don't understand the Constitution, or that I don't care about the Constitution, that I put party over country, blah blah blah.

What I put first, above EVERYTHING, including my own desires, is this COUNTRY; I'm not one of these "line in the sand" types........as I said yesterday, if you keep drawing a line in the sand, sooner or later it becomes a circle and you are the only one in it and anybody who doesn't see things the way you do is the enemy.

You all just do not have the market cornered on what is right, to the exclusion of all other people's views.

[hobbes1]

The experiment failed, the patient died.

I am sorry to hear that, but you should never let them experiment on your brain, it's a realtively useful thing to use...

[rintense]

[VRWC_minion]

Then perhaps you should credit John McCain with killing CFR. I think McCain wrote this bill just to get it killed by SCOTUS - that way it's off the table for good. Brilliant!

McCain wanted the bill passed no matter what. That is why he gave in on the hard money and why the GOP insisted on clauses that allow the bill to be contested well in advance of it being effective. This may well be the only bill that was passed in such a way that it can be tested in the courts before its even effective.

So, yes in many ways the bill was written so accomadate a quick and effective SC challenge.

[Protagoras]

I never knew your real name.

But I suspect you of being the "Roscoe" in question. Now crawl back into your toilet.

[VRWC_minion]

its signing has forced McCain to shut up and sit down -- , and wait to receive his pen in the mail.

[Protagoras]

I am sorry to hear that, but you should never let them experiment on your brain, it's a realtively useful thing to use...

You wouldn't know from first hand experience it seems.

[Roscoe]

Nobody would ever confuse you with the real Thomas Jefferson.

[Sabertooth]

I think some of the Bush-bashers ARE arrogant blowhards! Not always; just most of the time.

And is this not true of the Bush Apologists and Amnesty Deniers?

Their arguemnts are often rife with fallacious reasoning, deliberate ignorance of basic facts, personal attacks, and obsequious hero-worship.

[hobbes1]

nd the bill has not been declared unconstitutional, yet, and you have no guarantee (or recourse) if it isn't.

Yes, you do.Retake the Senate, Keep the House, and you can do anything you damn well please, install judges, repeal legislation...whatever. That having been said, this will not pass the courts.

[NittanyLion]

McCain wanted the bill passed no matter what. That is why he gave in on the hard money and why the GOP insisted on clauses that allow the bill to be contested well in advance of it being effective. This may well be the only bill that was passed in such a way that it can be tested in the courts before its even effective.

Yep, as I suspected, McCain is the most brilliant conservative mind in history! He wrote the entire bill and worked hard to pass it through Congress, knowing all the while SCOTUS would strike it down. That way it'll be off the radar screen and the GOP can concentrate on getting things done. He's a chessmaster, that's for sure.

[Bitwhacker]

Did I miss any?

"Arrogant blowhard."

Doltish poof.
Limpwristed Ditchcarp.
Cordless bungee-jumpers into the abyss of expediency.
Beggars at the doorstep of principle.

There! That should do it!!

[hobbes1]

That is correct, I keep mine to use, not for experimentation.

[Carry_Okie]

Aristotle blew the question of ends and means wide open over 2,000 years ago (this is paraphrased):

No one selcts an "end" except as a means to something else. There are no ends; there are only means.

[Roscoe]

I wonder what they think they'll accomplish with their hysteria?