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.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.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."
"If you're 'proud he's your President' why don't you try supporting him instead of bashing him.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.He's smarter than you are. He knows what he's doing.
And he hasn't betrayed anyone."
"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.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."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."
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.
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.