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.
Nice try though.
I have read what was available on the Congressional website.
Do you have a point?
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!!
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.
Those quotes were not indicative of the entire forum and you know it.
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.
I knew you we're gonna have to weigh in on that one eventually, LOL.
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.
When you got your orders from the CIA, were they, perchance, written on the back of a map?
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.
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.