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.
OK, I'll try once more. If you do a Rove type analysis, I think this bill favors conservatives, particularly when you factor in the hard money increase and the liklihood the 60-day ban will be overturned. People thought the world ended with the first CFR enacted during Nixon's term. They were wrong - Republicans still dominated presidential politics the next 30 years.
I don't see that Bush had any room for maneuver on this. Enron changed everything. Nothing Daschle has tried since November has resonated with the public, but this would. "Bush vetoed CFR so his Enron buddies in the energy industry could keep corrupting politics by buying White House access with millions in soft money." Wrong? Yeah. Effective? Yeah. Enough to turn Congress to the Dems when the margin is under 10? Maybe. Wanna take that chance? No.
You are an NRA member. I also favor 2nd Amendment rights. You think you're gonna like the gun bills that would come out of a Dem Congress and Senate???
Phew! For a second I thought that you might have respected me personally, to the exclusion of my views. I knew you didn't agree with me, but thought that you might have meant that you respected me, not disagreed with me in a respectful manner.
(the truth is I knew exactly what you meant, but was just having a little fun)
"Some" freepers undoubtedly also do and believe many, many other bad things. Perhaps "some" Freepers have kicked a little doggie. But you don't see me starting a thread entitled "Is FR now the place for people who kick little doggies?"
Why is that?
Because I'm not a straw-man-attacking idiot, that's why.
And how will the media accept an illegal ad? (especially one that is counter to their own philosophy) They won't, then they'll report you to the authirities. They put a nice little knot around the whole process with this bill.
EBUCK
Good for you. Maybe I'll start a thread in your honor.
I'm all for dissent. Trouble is, most of them are gone.
". . .MR. Magoo, playing Don Quixote . . ."LMAO!
Hard to rationalize the abdication of rights as a way to win liberty.
Apparently, some people are born with a stick up their butt called gross hyperbole.
FreeRepublic: A place for "grass-roots conservatism on the web" or not?
Your use of the title suggests you abhor truth in labeling laws? Didn't you mean to entitle this,
"Pat & Bay and I are pooping our pants while the rest of the world is busy making a loser look like a president...and we ain't gonna take it no more."
...overlook the clear unconstitutionality... and
...violated the very solemn oath he swore to keep, that being his promise to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States.
Humor me here just a touch, will you please? Thank you.
Where do you teach and/or where is your bench?
And what I'm saying is that our First Ammendment rights are more important than his job. And judging by the turmoil created here he may loose his job because he was trying to keep his job.
We'll have to wait and see how the SCOTUS rules on this.
Question for you. Do you think that the office of the pres. has a duty to the Constitution? If so can the pres shirk that duty in order to keep his popularity intact regardless of whether or not he thinks that the SCOTUS will act as a backstop?
EBUCK
I keep waiting for someone to tell me how the Presidents Choosing of the Battleground to fight CFR, is a Constitutional Abrogation.
Such a thread certainly wouldn't be any less reasonable than the one you did start.
Yes, if we could get these bastrads out of the influence peddling business, we wouldn't have sane rational people like me, arguing with raging gross hyperbolists.....
As usual, we agree on the ends....I can dig that.
Respectfully, I don't understand how this could be construed as winning liberty. I think a veto, along with an explanation to the American public regarding rights and the Constitution, would have been a brilliant defense of liberty. I also believe it would have been a politically adept move, cementing Bush's image as a principled fighter.
I've never used that term before and I clearly thought that Dubya was the clear choice during last election. He still may be, however, I definately don't like that he signed the bill. Perhaps it will all work out for the best, we'll see...
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.