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

Me

[RAT Patrol]

Bush signing CFR really makes me wonder. You can't argue that this was smart politically because the smart thing to do, if you want to remove the issue, is to tackle Campaign Finance (and through in Electoral) Reform from a conservative point of view. Why not come up with a counter-proposal? One that protects our rights to participate in the political process, to be heard - both vocally and through our wallets? Why not initiate legislation designed to bring the kinds of conservative reforms campaign finance needs? That would remove the issue from the Democrats and McCain (who isn't nearly the threat to the President's 2004 run that some of you apparently feel he is.) No...Bush didn't even try to derail the legislation, as is often done, by adding things to it that would make it too unreasonable, as a whole, to pass. Congress does that all the time to kill a bill that otherwise would go through.

I NOMINATE THIS PERSON FOR BEST NEW POSTER!

Amen to everything you said!

[NittanyLion]

Welcome. Outstanding first post.

[Howlin]

I was generalizing..........understand?

[EBUCK]

Hell of a first post. Welcome.

EBUCK

[Sloth]

Welcome to FR. Great post. :)

[Howlin]

What a silly argument.

[in the Arena]

forgot this one...

Sabertooth

member since September 15th, 2001

[Roscoe]

So, you support the current "hard money" restriction of $1,000, believe its Constitutional, and believe the President violated his oath and the Constitution by not vetoing a bill to increase that limit to $2,000, right????

Bump.

[RedBloodedAmerican]

The same people that despise Bush over CFR are the same people that despised him beforehand as well (and many of these "conservatives" defended/supported Clinton). They only need to look in the mirror to see the real RINO's. They are only using CFR as an ends to their means. Nothing new here, just different sounds.

[EBUCK]

I second your nomination.

EBUCK

[thepitts]

Here's a list of some of the things Bush has done/endorsed during his presidency. All of these issues have been discussed at length on this forum, and still, some are taking a "wait and see" attitude:

Stem cell research

Faith Based Initiative

No attempt to prosecute Clinton crimes

EO to keep Clinton documents from release

No congressional declaration of war

MFN status to China

Back dues paid to the UN

Airline bailout

Patriot Act (pretty good rape of the 4th amendment)

Office of Homeland Security

Payoffs to families of victims of 9-11

Federalization of airport security

Education bill and lovefest with Ted "The Swimmer"

Shadow government (who are these people? did we elect them?)

Volunteer corps

Steel tariffs

50% increase in foreign aid??

Amnesty for illegals???

I guess we're supposed to be happy because we got a tax refund.

Geez, maybe gore would have been better.

[NittanyLion]

The same people that despise Bush over CFR are the same people that despised him beforehand as well (and many of these "conservatives" defended/supported Clinton).

I guess when you don't have the horsepower to argue the facts, you're forced to slander the other side.

[colorado tanker]

If you want a bill out of Congress that reverses the liberal advantage of controlling Hollywood and the media, you might as well jump on the ship to Neverland.

In all the hysteria over the part of the bill none of us likes, ya'll overlooked the fact that "hard money" just doubled. Pubbies collect gobs more hard money than Dems. So, the Pubbie interest groups will advertise up to 60 days before election, then the candidates will use their hard money to carpet bomb the airwaves to rebut Babs and Rosie.

Assuming the Supremes do their duty and hold the 60 day restriction unconstitutional, this bill becomes majorly pro-Pubbie.

In the last 40 years, the Courts and Congress have done a lot of stuff that IMHO infringes my Constitutional rights. CFR is probably 55 on my to do list. Conservatives shouldn't be getting their panties in a wad over this - restricts the blood flow.

[rbmillerjr]

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.

______________________________________________________

No, no, if we go down that road we will soon find ourselves on the slippery slope of relativism...no matter fact or words in Constitution, everybody's opinion is not just to be heard but have equal value..."...shall make no abridgement of", many things including the "freedom of speech"

[Sloth]

A silly argument with a question you conspicuously did not answer. If we don't draw the line on Constitutionality, where do we draw it? Or is there no line at all? Can a guy with an (R) by his name do NO wrong?

[cake_crumb]

"Labeling everyone that criticizes the President as a Bush-basher is the tactic of a weak mind."

And labeling anyone who defends him, for whatever reason, even when they openly disagree with him, as a Bush syncophant is a tactic of a weak mind as well. Not that I'm saying you did, but some here have.

I reiterate: what would we rather have here? A "forum" in which 80,000 or so mindless automatons which are in total agreement post the same drivel all the time, or a forum for open, honest and (hopefully) civil debate of the issues?

[EBUCK]

I actually liked Bush (didn't vote for him on principle) but thought he was doing great up until he signed the Patriot act. All downhill from there. And to try to pry some reason other than, he signed an unConstitutional bill into law, out of our critism just shows your blind devotion to him.

EBUCK

[Sabertooth]

Yeah, but I can do this...

Sabertooth (can kick your butt in HTML)

anti-Lemming since September 15th, 2001

[OWK]

And labeling anyone who defends him, for whatever reason, even when they openly disagree with him, as a Bush syncophant is a tactic of a weak mind as well.

Uhhhh... short of a multiple personality disorder, why would someone defend him while openly disagreeing with him?