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

Skip to comments.

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

Posted on 03/28/2002 8:04:49 AM PST by sheltonmac

Rather than crash the pro-Bush orgy threads, I thought I would honor the requests of the "we must support the president at all costs" crowd and let them bask in their Republican utopia in ignorant bliss. Consider this a thread that seeks actual debate and discussion concerning the "accomplishments" of our current president. Feel free to voice your support or opposition to the president's policies. After all, dissension, even among conservatives, can be healthy.

This thread is in response to the blatant display of sheer ignorance on the part of some FReepers. There have been several threads initiated lately that have included some rather disturbing posts. Without naming names, I would like to share some of those with you:

"I guess when you want to get MEANINGFUL CFR you avoid the obvious veto bait and keep the issue out of the dem's hands, so that hopefully you can get a Senate elected and some JUDGES appointed.

I guess when you are running a WAR you don't have time for this stuff that is nothing more than petty political junk. Instead, you get the bill where the SC can decide it."

This person supports the president so much that he or she is willing to overlook the clear unconstitutionality of the Incumbent Protection Act. The president ignored his oath of office and deliberately signed an unconstitutional piece of legislation as part of some well-concealed strategy? Please.
"If you're 'proud he's your President' why don't you try supporting him instead of bashing him.

He's smarter than you are. He knows what he's doing.

And he hasn't betrayed anyone."

Translation: President Bush is smarter than his critics. We should trust him without so much as a whimper of criticism regarding any unconstitutional legislation he may force down our throats. He hasn't betrayed anyone but the American people, so back off.
"There are many of us who have chosen to STILL support the President even though we may disagree with some of the things he's done. Where is the reality in expecting the President to agree with you on absolutely everything he does? It's nowhere. Because that reality does not exist no matter how hard we try to convince ourselves that it does.

But consider this. Think back two years ago... and now think of what the alternative could have been. Cripe, even Rosie O'Donnell admits she didn't like GWB, but even she supports him now. I am simply amazed that it takes one issue, one issue, to dismay so many people."

Perhaps the "one issue" that dismays so many people is the fact that the president we are expected to support has violated the very solemn oath he swore to keep, that being his promise to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States. Say what you want about Clinton. Play the "What if Gore were elected" game if you want. That was then, this is now. We have a president in office who essentially told America, "This law may be unconstitutional but I'm signing it anyway."

Has anyone read the statement on FreeRepublic's main page? It reads as follows:

Free Republic is an online gathering place for independent, grass-roots conservatism on the web. We're working to roll back decades of governmental largesse, to root out political fraud and corruption, and to champion causes which further conservatism in America.
I always thought standing for smaller government meant just that, whether that means criticizing a Democrat or Republican administration. We need to ask ourselves one question: are we for smaller government and more freedom? If the answer is "Yes," then act accordingly. Let's not fall into the trap that says we must support the liberal policies of a president at all costs simply because he's not as liberal as a Democrat.


TOPICS: Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: bush; cfr; freespeech
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 741-753 next last

1 posted on 03/28/2002 8:04:49 AM PST by sheltonmac
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: sheltonmac
Good luck, my friend. This should get interesting.
2 posted on 03/28/2002 8:07:16 AM PST by white rose
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sheltonmac
Thanks for the lecture...
3 posted on 03/28/2002 8:08:45 AM PST by Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sheltonmac
You have opened up a can of worms- - - get ready.
4 posted on 03/28/2002 8:09:17 AM PST by stanz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sheltonmac
Uh, you haven't been alone, Sheltonmac, in hitting the President on CFR and other issues. You have the "Bush can do no wrong" crowd here, but a vocal contingent has been critical of many of the President's actions.
5 posted on 03/28/2002 8:09:59 AM PST by Clemenza
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sheltonmac; CheneyChick; vikingchick; Victoria Delsoul; WIMom; one_particular_harbour...
(((ping))))


6 posted on 03/28/2002 8:10:07 AM PST by Sabertooth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dog
Yeah. I feel smarter already.
7 posted on 03/28/2002 8:10:15 AM PST by Cyber Liberty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: ouroboros; Snuffington; Inspector Harry Callahan; Greg 4TCP; Loopy; cva66snipe; Askel5; ppaul...
Are we really supposed to "support" the president when he signs a bill that cracks down on free speech and boosts support for political incumbents? Are we supposed to "support" the president when he increases education spending by epic proportions? Are we supposed to "support" the president when he champions legislation like the Patriot Act? Standing up for smaller government has nothing to do with party loyalty. Taking a tip from our president's stance on terrorism, let me just say that you are either for the Constitution or you are against it.
8 posted on 03/28/2002 8:11:02 AM PST by sheltonmac
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sheltonmac
I made the mistake of posting my displeasure of Bush signing the CFR bill on a Bush Babe thread. Boy was that a mistake. I actually said that I still respect him etc. but I was disappointed. Man was that a mistake. Some of those "women" make the Klinton Kool-Aid Brigadetm look like amateurs...
9 posted on 03/28/2002 8:11:24 AM PST by ItisaReligionofPeace
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sheltonmac
FWIW, I agree with you completely. I try as hard as possible to hold politicians to the same standard regardless of their political affiliation. I would be outraged if Clinton had signed this bill, and so the sae goes for Bush.
10 posted on 03/28/2002 8:11:59 AM PST by NittanyLion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sheltonmac
This person supports the president so much that he or she is willing to overlook the clear unconstitutionality of the Incumbent Protection Act. The president ignored his oath of office and deliberately signed an unconstitutional piece of legislation as part of some well-concealed strategy? Please.

It's not well concealed, it's fairly obvious to the undoltish.

Yes, most of the Bill is unconstitutional, So what happens if Bush Vetoes it? The bill gets packed away in Dassholes desk drawer until....A new president comes along and will sign it, and for his trouble, the biggest 2 proponents of the bill,McAnus, and the Mainstream media, Bash the living crap out of him, rekindle their love affair, give him an asspain primary in'03-'04, and use the issue to cost him ground in the middle against his Dem opponent in '04. Oh yes, and it also makes it a campaign issue for the 38 Republicans that voted agianst it in the Senate,where by my count, we need a net gain of 1 seat in '02 to have control.

OTOH, sign the Bill, The media is happy, so they leave him alone, McCain has NO SIGNATURE ISSUE to push himself into the Primaries, or to draw media attention, and when the Court shreds the bill, it will be DEAD. Not Vetoed and Waiting for another President.

Your way stalls the passing of the bill, His way Kills it, and helps to solidify Conservative Ground for the Next 2 election cycles.

Fairly obvious, when you take reality into account, rather than tilting at windmills in search of utopia, like MR. Magoo, playing Don Quixote.

11 posted on 03/28/2002 8:12:28 AM PST by hobbes1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sheltonmac
Let's get these out of the way...

Bush is a genius... he MEANT to divide the GOP to throw the Dems off balance!

Who do you want, Hillary?

I can tell you voted for Bushanan!

Disruptor from DU!

McCainiac!

Gorebot!

Bushbasher!

Bush-hater!

You hate Laura because she's a stron woman!

Libertarian!

etc!

Did I miss any?


12 posted on 03/28/2002 8:14:00 AM PST by Sabertooth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sheltonmac
There is a difference between unanimity and unity.
McCain-Feingold is an abomination that should have been vetoed.
It wasn't, I am disappointed.
13 posted on 03/28/2002 8:14:07 AM PST by NeoCaveman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sheltonmac
Bush signed it....

It's law of the land!

Pray the Supreme Court does the right thing.......want to blame someone call McCain's and Chris Shays offices and all the other RINO who pushed this bill thru Congress!!!!

14 posted on 03/28/2002 8:14:25 AM PST by Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: sheltonmac
You're spot-on right. But it's not time to jump the boat yet. If conservatives don't criticize Bush harshly, we can't affect his policies. But if we say, "we're outta here" too quickly, we end up with nothing.

Just remember, we are still recovering from the Oval Office alternative.

15 posted on 03/28/2002 8:14:55 AM PST by The Old Hoosier
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sheltonmac
I saw thru the Bush sycophants the second they started using the same ambulance-chasing-lawyer style arguments that the Clinton people used to support him. They are just the other half of the pincer that is squeezing the people who actually understand that the country was founded on a constitution, not the Republican and Democrat parties.
16 posted on 03/28/2002 8:14:58 AM PST by Free Vulcan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sheltonmac
"This law may be unconstitutional but I'm signing it anyway."

This is nothing new, the Constitution was being used as toilet paper by big government long before Bush came around. He's just more blatant about it.

You do have your flame suit on, right? Once the pro-Bush lackeys notice this post, you can be sure you'll need it.

17 posted on 03/28/2002 8:15:04 AM PST by Pern
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dog
want to blame someone call McCain's and Chris Shays offices and all the other RINO who pushed this bill thru Congress!!!!

Did McCain sign it?

18 posted on 03/28/2002 8:15:38 AM PST by Sir Gawain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: sheltonmac
If I had to vote all over again and the choices were between Bush, Buchanan, McCain, Gore, and Brown, I'd still vote for Bush...Did I mention Bush is a bonehead?
19 posted on 03/28/2002 8:15:56 AM PST by BufordP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sheltonmac
I hear ya.
20 posted on 03/28/2002 8:16:14 AM PST by deadrock
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 741-753 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