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

Me

[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.

[rbmillerjr]

What a silly argument.

Let it be known that Howlin has described argument using Founders as a reference to be construed as a silly argument. I'll let that stand alone unless you want to expound.

[colorado tanker]

The part of the bill that neither of us likes will probably be overruled by the Supremes.

The bill actually corrects some of the damage done the Constitution 30 years ago by increasing the hard money limit.

I am far more concerned with correcting other unconstitutional actions like preserving the right to carry arms, reversing Roe v. Wade, stopping unconstitutional forfeitures, throwing out the unconstituional restrictions on the speech of pro-life groups, stopping unconstitutional taking of property for envirowacko causes, and that's just off the top of my head.

All I'm saying is get some perspective on this.

[majordivit]

Bush Pushes Senate To Legalize Illegal Aliens

President Bush strongly urged the U.S. Senate to support a measure passed in the U.S. House of Representatives that enables illegal aliens to apply for visas and permanent residency in the United States. The House bill also allows illegal aliens to bring their entire huge families over here in the name of "family reunification."

It is estimated that there are at least 11 million illegal aliens who have invaded the United States. Virtually all come from Third World cultures where America is despised and envied.

Here they come! (If they're not already here)

The U.S. population is already 30% third world. If the illegal aliens are legalized and permitted to bring their illegitimate children here, the third world percentage of the population will grow dramatically.

Furthermore, the Bush-supported House bill will encourage huge numbers of other Third World aliens, who do not even have family members here, to swarm across our borders. When these aliens in Third World countries see how America is welcoming millions of illegals and their illegitimate offspring, it will certainly send them a signal that they can also eventually benefit by sneaking into the country.

Coyote Numero Uno (March 21, 2002) (Jorge Bush barks out of both sides of his mouth)

Addressing a gathering of flag-waving "Texicans," Jorge Bush vowed to stop the "coyotes," the criminal smugglers of illegal aliens across the Mexican border, who are bringing equally dangerous criminals into the beleaguered United States on a daily basis. But the coyotes (Jorge pronounced it with a Spanish accent) are small beans compared to Coyote Numero Uno, Bush himself, who wants to inundate his nation with millions of Third World cucarachas.

The House bill passed by a stunning margin of 275 to 137. The bill was co-sponsored by such "conservative" Republicans as House Majority Leader Dick Armey of Texas. It was strongly supported by House Speaker Dennis Hastert and the rest of the Republican leadership.

A similar bill passed the Senate earlier but the House and Senate versions must be identical in order for the legislation to be sent to Jorge Bush for his signature.

Dick Armey and Dennis Hastert (Hastert is standing on the left)

If this suicidal measure does not prove that America is run by traitors, whether they are Democrats or Republicans, then nothing will.

Yet America's "Silent Majority," which certainly opposes this lunacy, continues to be silent.

Meanwhile, even so-called "conservatives" like Sean Hannity of the Fox News Channel (FNC) support and promote ever greater Third World immigration.

Dick Armey laughs at the INS visa mess (March 13, 2002) (He chuckled audibly when the issue was raised on FNC's Hannity & Colmes)

Although left-wing Fox commentator Alan Colmes is naturally a supporter of amnesty for America's millions of illegal aliens, even he did not dare laugh aloud while asking the Texas Republican Congressional leader why the INS granted terror pilot Mohammed Atta a student visa exactly six months after the horrors of September 11th.

Other "conservatives" like Rush Limbaugh -- who become positively apoplectic over some minor tax cut or anti-smoking or seat belt regulations -- remain strangely silent on the Third World immigration issue which is bringing about the literal destruction of America.

Once again, the only answer is getting JTF the millions of dollars that it needs to purchase air time for a weekly program on national television or radio.

Unless that happens, the very survival of America, Israel and Western civilization is in grave jeopardy.

"Now hiring [c]losers" (The Third World hordes of cheap labor need jobs, too)

[Sloth]

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...

OK. Go to profiles of ANYONE on this thread who is criticizing Bush on Constitutional grounds. Then click 'Find in Forum' and find some examples of these people expressing support for Clinton, or Gore in his attempted 2000 coup, or even McCain. Post your findings back here.

I won't hold my breath.

[My2Cents]

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.

Some no doubt are. We're agreed, then: Many Bush-glorifiers as well as many Bush-bashers are pompous, ignorant oafs....Seems like the basis of unity on FR to me.

[B. A. Conservative]

This past week Jim Robinson made a virtual reply in response to one of my replies on a thread. I could be wrong, but I suspect that no one but me could actually see his reply to my comment. At any rate, I sent him the following email to which he has not yet replied:

To: B. A. Conservative

To: Orion

Robinson's Maxim: If you vote for anyone other than a Republican you are supporting a Democrat.

Good luck.

106 posted on 3/19/02 2:53 AM Eastern by Jim Robinson [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

22 posted on 3/25/02 11:49 AM Pacific by Howlin [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

I am a sixty year old retired physician that first voted in 1960 for Nixon. The erosion of our Constitution began in earnest in 1913 with the creation of the Federal Reserve. Since that time we (conservatives who believe in the Constitution and the rule of law) have lost big-time when the Democrats have won. If you look closely at our history, you will see that with the exception of the Reagan years and 1994, we have lost when Republicans have won, but at a slower pace. The benefits of 1994 were erased in 1996 by the subsequent failure of Impeachment in the Senate. You as much as any other person on the planet through your founding of FreeRepublic deserve the credit for the House finding enough backbone to do the right thing on the Impeachment vote. Thank You.

All that is now ancient history. Ask yourself which way the country is moving now. Under Bush, has the country moved back toward restoring the Constitution or have we lost additional Constitutional rights and are we enacting the Democrats agenda rather than our own? If you honestly think Bush and the Republicans are leading us toward the conservative agenda or more likely simply trying to slow the speed of the lurch to the left, then my arguments are going to fall on deaf ears. On the other hand if you want FreeRepublic to once again lead the fight for restoration of the Constitution and would like to see the United States saved, then prompt and significant action is needed.

The unfunded and unfundable liabilities of Social Security and Medicare will exceed the realm of the possible before the president elected in 2012 finishes his term. The sacrifices needed to even make some dent in the problem contain the seeds of revolution between young and old. The Democrats have poisoned the well and the United States is going to pay the price. The problems of Social Security can be solved and relatively painlessly if we act quickly under the Cato plan and do so by 2008. Medicare cannot be fixed. But it is by far more politically sensitive and no one will allow anyone to tackle Medicare without first haveing demonstrated their ability to fix SS.

It is my personal opinion that things have progressed to the point that only significant political shocks that cannot be ignored are going to have any effect on politicians who want nothing to do with facing these responsibilities and their accompanying repercussions. Like the ostraches they are, they would rather hide their heads in the sand hoping no one will recognize them or their roles and that the blame will fall elsewhere. For the near term assigning blame will not stick with a populace that functions at the sixth grade level. If you have read any of my stuff, you can see where I think this is headed. I don't for a minute profess to have the answers or solutions. For one thing I don't have any political base at all and no one is interested in hearing what I have to say. But I do think I have a pretty good read on where we are and what is likely to result from the interplay that is likely to unfold from this point forward. I don't think there are very many Americans that are going to like the end of this story. And the end of the story is much closer at hand than almost any Americans can imagine. Most haven't even considered the possibility that the story could have an end after the cold war ended. And there are only a handful of Americans that are even talking about the fact that our downfall is coming from within and that it could be soon. Sobran and Walter Williams are the only voices that people recognize that are talking about the "S" word for secession. And to a large measure they aren't talking about why except for personal freedom. I don't think they are considering that the US is as fragile as it actually is or how bad the demographics of SS and Medicare actually are. My prediction is that there will not be a presdential elecion in the year 2016, because the US as we know it will no longer exist. And if the truth were known, as much my patriotism and love of country has struggled against it, I don't think it will be a bad thing. And I suspect that in a few years, I will be actively working to bring exactly that result about. I doubt and don't think the US can be saved.

So far my efforts at posting on this site convince me that there is little hope. Certainly the Democrats are going to fight Constitutional restoration with every fibre in their souls. The fiascoes of the aftermath of the 1996 and subsequent elections would seem to indicate the Republicans don't really want it fixed if they might face the possibility of losing their own personal seats in Congress. Just like the drug addict or the alcoholic, sometimes you have to hit bottom to have enough self introspection to realize that you are going to have to change or simply die. In my opinion, we are at that point for the Republican Party and in turn the United States itself.

It took one hundred years to free the slaves in the South. It took another hundred years to turn us back into serfs. I don't intend to wait another hundred years to see if we can recover what we have lost. I hope you will think about this very carefully. There is a lot at stake. Reagan was right about the United States being the last best hope of freedom for the rest of the world. FreeRepublic may be the last best hope for freedom in the United States. So far we are at best holding our own. More likely, we are still losing and more seriously than we dare to imagine. Winning elections is meaningless if you enact your opponents agenda rather than your own. If the Republicans sweep the elections this fall, is Bush going to come back and repeal CFR? The steel and lumbar tariffs? Am I going to be able to get on a plane with my sidearm? Is he going to kick the illegal Arabs out of the country then? Is that when Ashcroft is going to do a real investigation of Waco and OKC? Are we going to see the Clintons charged next Feb? Will the Flat or Fair Tax be enacted in 2003? And is SS going to privatized under the CATO plan without debate or a political campaign? I think I can read his lips, and they aren't playing my music.

There is no part of life that is not governed by time. No one knows exactly how many grains of sand are in their hour glass. But once the sand starts to drain, time is running out. You don't need very much vision to see that there is not that much sand left in our glass. The status quo is not going to allow us to turn the glass upside down and start our time over. It is going to take action, and probably inspired action. Freepers are going in a dozen different directions with thousands of individual agendas. Some how, in some way I think we need to look for a way to focus the efforts on some key thinking and principles. The right out come of this fall's elections is one. And it must be for the right reasons with the right agenda. The Contract with America worked because it was a positive program. The Republcians completely abandoned the technique after Dole killed the balanced budget amendment and the rest let Term Limits fail with many Republicans abandoning it. Now they have moved away from responsible leadership, moved away from tax simplification and away from tax reduction. I don't think we can count on them doing the right thing unless they get clubbed over the head with reality. Reality would return quickly, if they lose the House and the Senate in 2002. Bush will get the message as well. And we will test his mettle and leadership with a Democratically controlled Congress. If he stands up to the test, he should be willing to lead the fight to restore conservative control to Congress in 2004. If he doesn't stand up to it, we will have answered the question to our own satisfaction. From 2004, we will still have until 2012 to privatize SS and to begin looking at options of how to address Medicare. With the right government in place, our people can do almost anything. With the heel of government standing on their brows, most are struggling to get from one day to the next. This is a time for leadership. You have launched a potentially powerful ship. And so far you have been a reasonable captain. Now I am suggesting that you consider a Navy. Some of us would like ships of our own and would like to be involved in strategic planning. There is a tremendous amount of talent and thought on FreeRepublic. Most don't have the time to devote that it deserves. But in some fashion, and in some way, I feel in my heart that our best chance to save the United States, if it is still possible probably lies here. Frankly, I don't know where else to turn.

[foolish-one]

Asked that question yesterday. Got asked to go away.

[OWK]

Huh? 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????

There should be no limits whatsoever.

The way to eliminate graft and corruption in government, is to eliminate the extra-constitutional influence that legislators and executive officials have to begin with. If we put the federal government back in the constitutional cage the founders crafted for it, then these bastards wouldn't have any influence to peddle (and corruption would be a thing of the past).

No limits on our rights are necessary.

[Howlin]

Obviously you don't read many of my posts; there aren't many Republicans that I'm satisfied with.

And I am not going to get into a discussion with somebody who believes unless I agree with them down the line I'm anti-constitution.

[cake_crumb]

"Thanks for posting that. I don't like the additional reporting requirements in addition to the restrictions on ads. The rest is ok I supose, though its sort of hard to tell without having a copy of the original act. I still think Bush is an idiot for signing it."

I agree with all but the last part. I won't go so far as to call him an idiot for it, but I was extremely disappointed that he signed it....until I read it. BTW, I've posted that link on another thread today. I believe you're the first FReeper who actually used it (or at least admitted you did) Thank you for apparently believing that an INFORMED opinion is MUCH better than an UNinformed opinion.

[My2Cents]

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

ROFL!....That about covers it.

[Dr. Frank fan]

I'll respond to this great post of yours someday, but first I have to go dig up a few (3-5) less-than-unassailable quotes from random unnamed people to criticize and pick apart.

From there I shall proceed to extrapolate these 3-5 selected quotes so as to impugn the intelligence and sincerity and tolerance of all other people who participate, however tangentially, in the same internet forum as those unnamed 3-5 people whose quotes I selected for criticism and decided to employ as representative of the entire forum. As well, I will use those 3-5 quotes to prove that the people who run the forum from which the quotes were extracted have departed from its stated mission (by, uh, allowing the quotes to be posted. Or something. I'm not too clear about this part but I'm sure I'll figure out how it all fits together... just as soon as I find some great quotes to pick on!).

That, I think, should prove to be an appropriate response to your little article.

[Howlin]

Let it be known that Howlin has described argument using Founders as a reference to be construed as a silly argument.

Let it be know that you think you can speak for the Founders. I hope you don't mind if I pass on your interpretations.

[Sloth]

Conspicuous failure to answer the question: where is the line?

[Howlin]

Look in the mirror? You must be kidding......

[LiberteeBell]

"MFN status to China"

Hmmm, I thought Bush re-upped on that or PNTR. If I'm wrong, I apologize for the error.

As for the rest of the list, I was just pointing out that there are a number of issues besides CFR with which many FReepers have disagreed or find unconstitutional, unprincipled and only serve to grow the government.

[EBUCK]

throwing out the unconstituional restrictions on the speech of pro-life groups

You realize that this bill made it harder for you to accomplish one of your goals. Your right to life group just got barred from any and all independant speech in the 60/30 timeframe.

I do understand your desire for "perspective" but this is the bill/issue of the day. And it is a dooozy. All of our independant conservative causes just went into the toilet. While all the liberal causes got a boost because the media now has control over what is said leading up to an election.

EBUCK

[My2Cents]

Geez, maybe gore would have been better.

I was with you until your final statement. Pity.

[Roscoe]

...why would someone defend him while openly disagreeing with him?

You rarely have anything of value to say, but I'll defend your right to speak.

[Howlin]

The line is wherever the Supreme Court decides it is; I'm a lot more comfortable with that than letting some of the people around here decide what I can and cannot say.