WE DON'T KNOW FOR A FACT THAT THE SCOTUS WILL KILL THIS BILL. GOT IT?
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.
SSSHHHHH. You will give it all away!
Screw the media.
I have read all of Farrand's notes, de Toqueville, massive selections of Locke, Hobbes, and Hume.
You just don't like the fact that Law of Unintended Consequences continually betrays your expedient preferences. It's typical of those who don't look for options, once their lust for power blinds them to the true range of options. Faith in the power of following God's Commandments opens one to options beyond the closed set. A rather famous Republican once referred to that as Providence.
Gorebot!
Bushbot!
Bushbasher!
Bush-hater!
You hate Laura because she's a strong woman!
Libertarian!
Disrupter!
Idiot!
Arrogant blowhard!
Doltish poof!
Limpwristed Ditchcarp!
Cordless bungee-jumpers into the abyss of expediency!
Beggars at the doorstep of principle!
.....For these free expressions of opinion, our forefathers gave their lives.....
Thats not true either!!!
I will always "respect" your right to voice your views. There is a huge difference between "respecting the right" of others to voice their opinion, and "agreeing" with those views.
Once again you have cruelly misread my words. I'm crushed!!!
:o)
Thank you for the kind wishes for our Easter. We wish you happiness during your Easter celebrations too.
FRegards!!
LOL, okay, you got me with this one.
I get this from you: "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."
Ho-kay.... I'll check back later to see if you gave a tad more definitive explanation. Thanks in advance!
I apologize. Based on the condescending nature of your previous post, I didn't realize you expected a sincere response. As far as what each branch should have done...
The House and Senate each had a chance to vote the bill down, and didn't. They should have. The President had a chance to veto the bill, and didn't. He should have. The Supreme Court has a chance to strike the bill down, and I pray that they do so.
Simply put, each branch should have considered the constitution before acting on the legislation. Clearly they neglected that responsibility. On a more philosophical note, perhaps these folks shouldn't blame "the system" for their own corruption.
Bwahahahahaha. Live and learn. When "Winning is Everything" serves as a philosophical foundation, anything can be rationalized. That's all we're really witnessing here. It's been obvious on this forum since before the 2000 election. I don't understand why so many are just now noticing it.
No limits on our rights are necessary. Agree!
370 posted on 3/28/02 10:09 AM Hawaii-Aleutian by colorado tanker
You need a reality check!
I specifically said "some FReepers." Apparently, "some FReepers" put their support of Bush ahead of grass-roots conservatism and are quick to reprimand those who dare to question things like Bush's signing of CFR.
Watching the moral equivocating, logic bending and wild rationalization to explain away anti-Constitutional politics in the GOP brings back memories of why I renounced the democrats a decade ago.
Exactly. It doesn't help when you're trying to find common ground. I suspect that's why you like doing it.
I agree.
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.