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

Me

[Howlin]

You know exactly what I mean........I don't grab on to ONE ITEM and say "If Bush doesn't do exactly like I SAY he should on this, then I'm going to sit home next time."

Nice try though.

[sheltonmac]

That's a pretty comprehensive list in post #164. I suppose some Bush supporter will try to explain away those things by saying that the president has some strategy up his sleeve that we just don't know about and that we should just trust him. Who are we to criticize him? We're just simple citizens, not rich politicians fluent in all the constitutional loopholes.

[Howlin]

I miss Richard Pryor SSOOOOOOOOOOO much; we quote him around here ALL the time. He was SOOOOOOOOO right!

[OWK]

I'm asking you to read the entire bill. You're right: some things ARE black and white. Please read the entire bill is one of them. It means please read the entire bill.

I have read what was available on the Congressional website.

Do you have a point?

[Protagoras]

I've known you long enough to know your Libertarian ideologies. Disagree with your opinions probably 99 and 9/10ths of the time. Respectfully.

Thanks for the respect, which lasts precisely until your next comment to me. :-)

As to the quote you posted from me "He has surpassed any expectations we had of him."

I suggest you develop the ability to "read" more than mere words, but the "meaning" behind them.

Thanks for the advice. I'll add mind reading to my "to do" list right away.

One could read it to say we had "little" expectations from him,..and have been pleasantly surprized. Which we have.

That was precisely my point. You had low expectations and he was bound to be better than that. Which would lead me to ponder why someone would vote for someone from whom they expected so little.

He is proving to be a huge threat to you isn't he? There goes the chance of a Libertarian President in 2004!!! LOL

That is a laugh! I don't know a single person who believes we will elect a Libertarian president in 2004, much less a libertarian president. We all know that who ever is elected, most probably the current statist, the country will still be screwed. and we will have less liberty and larger government than we had before.

Thanks again for the advice. It sure means a lot comming from a "cognitive" person like you. Have a nice Easter. FRegards!!

[OWK]

[Jim Robinson]

Oh, hell. you got me. FR was just too successful at electing and re-electing Bush so the PTB of the NWO ordered me to balkanize it. They don't want to take a chance on the world discovering that FR is actually a secret front for the CIA, ADL, NOW, RLC and NWO. FR must be balkanized and them destroyed. How else are we going to make the world safe for the Bush takeover? By the way, I guess Clinton decided to give up on his scheme to rule the world. Bush is now the man. Actually, that was just a scam anyway. The secret deal was made between Bush Sr, Ross Perot and Bill Clinton. They allowed Perot to appear to take out Bush Sr, and let Clinton advance the NWO ball for 8 yrs. Now Bush Jr has the ball, but the real secret is, Bush Sr is actually running the whole shebang. The CIA rules!

[ScreamingFist]

"Well there you have it, NOTHING is worth fighting for, everything is negociable"

Precisely. The busheeple are happy as long as bush leaves their retirement, social security and investments alone. All else should be interpreted by the supremes because common folk like me are just too dumb to figure it out. Down right nauseating.

[f.Christian]

aaaaaaaaaaabbbbbbbbbbbbuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuussssssssssssseeeeeee!!!

[Roscoe]

LOL

[sheltonmac]

"...3-5 people whose quotes I selected for criticism and decided to employ as representative of the entire forum."

Those quotes were not indicative of the entire forum and you know it.

[Sloth]

Do you want the Supreme Court to stop doing what they are suppose to do, or do you just want them to agree with you on every single isssue?

Your use of that expression -- 'agree with you' -- is very telling; you see such issues as mere matters of opinion, in that saying CFR is constitutional or unconstitutional is equivalent to saying the cottage cheese tastes good or bad. Nobody can objectively prove that cottage cheese tastes bad. If I hold that opinion, a dissenting opinion carries just as much weight and legitimacy.

Is this REALLY how you think of Constitutional issues? For the record, I don't want the Court to agree with me or any other human being. I want it to agree with the Constitution, and I expect it actually will in this case. Either way, it does nothing to justify Bush's violation of his oath of office.

[ScreamingFist]

"Oh, hell. you got me"

I knew you we're gonna have to weigh in on that one eventually, LOL.

[Ward Smythe]

You know Jim, the rest of us in the Illuminati don't like it when you blow our cover...

[NittanyLion]

Pray tell,.. enlighten us to the responsibilities of the three branches of our Government. Even though you do not know the educational level of, nor the Government experience some here have,.. please educate us all. I'm sincerely interested in your opinion and views on how each branch should have responded to the CFR issue.

I would be surprised to learn that anyone with significant government experience would believe the Supreme Court is the only branch tasked with considering constitutional questions.

[Dan from Michigan]

I think idea here best

TIME TO PAY BACK A CFR RINO....endorsed by Bush

[tacticalogic]

The CIA rules!

When you got your orders from the CIA, were they, perchance, written on the back of a map?

[f.Christian]

We can't attack the flames...we have to go to the source of the fuel!

[DoughtyOne]

Here:

1. This person must adhere to the Constitution of the United States at all times.
2. This person must protect the United States against all comers.
3. This person must protect the citizens of the United States against all dangers, foreign or domestic.

[OWK]