Posted on 03/28/2002 8:04:49 AM PST by sheltonmac
Well well well... by your own use of the word "curtail," which is synonymous with "abridge," - the very word used in the constitution as in "shall not be abridged" - you've actually come closer to making my point than I did.
No speech has been outlawed.
No, it's just been "curtailed." I get it.
Only in your own mind, which, as has been observed, is quite faulty. The fact that you thought you made good points shows the extent of your demensia.
Every one of those people have just as much Right to have an opinion as any of you Bush bashers! Bush bashers tend to be long on criticism, and short on solutions!!
Be prepared to call him "crazy like a fox".
We feel the President is quite brillant. He has surpassed any expectations we had of him. It won't surprise us to find he got this one just right.
We can't think of this bill in such narrow terms as "him caving". Frankly, I'm surprized that Rush doesn't "get it".
The Fox is in the chicken coop.. right under the nose of the farmer.
With his administration, and with the staff he has, we aren't questioning to many of their decisions. To date,.. the only thing we honestly disagree with him on, is illegal immigrants.
But we are still open to debate on it. We would admit it is a HUGE policy to consider and a very complex one at that. There are several millions of dollars sent home to Mexico every year. I believe I heard that money is ONE THIRD of their economy. If it were suddenly taken away.. there could be a multitude of problems for Mexico that would reverberate back to us. It would create a vaccum that would be filled in Mexico by people from other countries that would effect a bigger threat to our security.
I mention Mexico as an example of how complex issues really are.
Which I mention to point out the simularity of the complexities to the CFR bill. Obvious constitutional questions are rising about the un-constitutional gagging of First Ammendment rights in the CFR bill. It is an extremely complicated issue. We need to judge this President by the fact that he has outsmarted the best of his political adversaries on the hill in a multitude of policies and issues already. We feel that with his sharp mind, and with the experience and expertise of his staff and administration, that he is going to get this one right too. We think he is going to let the courts answer the "constitutionality" of this issue. Which is pretty savvy when you look at it. It will show that HE wants reform.. he can show that he has publicly expressed his dissatisfaction with it,..and he will be more than helpful in providing the Supreme Court with materials/correspondence to answer the Constitutional question. In fact, I think it will be a shining moment for him to show how well our Constitution and Politics can work together to "get it right". PLUS.. it will take the "political" onus off him. He will shown how he tried to compromise with the Senate, in an effort to be bi-partisan... while deferring the Constitutional question to the legal branch of our Government. (The only question I have is, isn't there a method of doing that before signing a bill?)
As you just said Physicist,.. the difference is .. he is truthful. So we comfortably give him the benefit of the doubt. While remaining vigilant and even debating issues. (Really nice for a change!!)
We will never agree 100 percent with anyone elected. I don't think that is humanly possible. But we both feel this guys is just as you say.. "Sly as a Fox".
I dare to say, he will end up being considered the smartest President this country has enjoyed in history so far. (Much to the dismay of the Liberal press and Hollywood.) Anyone want to place any bets?? :o)
I guess my last comment would be,... It is so easy to judge. And it appears that negativity comes easier to some than postive thinking or being able to "debate" without bashing. Thats where the difference in these kinds of threads are IMHO. Debating vs. D'bashing
FRegards!!
But Barbra Streisand can still go on Rosie O'Donnell's show and give a nice long speech about why everyone should vote for Al Gore THE DAY BEFORE THE ELECTION and that is still legal. How many fat cat sources did that money come from?
When they restrict the Corporate giants who own media outlets to the same financial limitations then we can talk about the issue ads being "no big deal". I give to interest groups who advertise and I'd like to keep that right thank you very much!!!!!!!!!
Could someone explain to me what benefit outweighs the risk of CFR being upheld?
Bush got the Army beret controversy solved, didn't he?
Oh, that's right, he didn't do anything on that, did he?
Your ignorance is astounding.
True enough, they can hold whatever opinion they want. As to whether it's in agreement with the Constitution, it would seem theirs is not.
You're talking as if everyone that disagrees with you is in one single "other" group.
If that were true, you would not be continuing to embarrass yourself.
Many bad bills get passed, and even the USSC gets one wrong now and then, but in the End, the Constitution still stands. Hysteria. Now go have some Jim Crow pie and think it over.
Hmm, if the Founders had thought like that, we'd still be drinking tea and have a King. Our Constitution and particularly the Bill of Rights is a little different than tarrifs on goods, if we dont draw the line there, where do we draw it?
Either he genuinely supports the measures in the CFR or he doesn't. If he doesn't what then is to be gained by risking an unfavorable decision by the court? Just so he will look "crazy like a fox?" I do not feel this is sufficiant reason to toy with the constitution.
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.