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.
You wouldn't be the first to choose flight over fight. It would be better than to give in and support people who are destroying what you treasure.
I'll give you a little hint though, you can run, but you can't escape. Not if you go to the places you mentioned. And I am at a loss to think of any places where you could escape tyranny.
And every president that followed has done the same thing.
EBUCK
"Rationalization in the defense of winning liberty is no vice." - JR -
Well said Sandy.
The rationalization of constitutional violations for political reasons is a dangerous vice indeed.
You can't cement what's not there.
You're really grasping for straws when you attribute anything sane to harrowup. It must be time to rethink your position.
When it comes to the constitution its best to fight for it on all battlegrounds. Its too important to pass the buck and hope someone else does the right thing. What if they don't?
Pretty popular for such an unreasonable thread.
I don't either, except classical liberals. I'm not too wild about conservatives either when they are like CJ,Dane,Kevvie boy and the rest of that group.
I just want to be left alone by thugs of any (or no) political bent. In fact I insist upon it.
Good point.
Okay, but are a lot of Freepers dog-kickers? I reckon not.
If I could find, in the FR annals, three people who had admitted to kicking dogs sometime in their past, would that "prove" that "a lot of Freepers are known dog kickers"? And would it justify starting a thread about it?
Now, please, translate this analogy back to the case in point (the current thread) in the obvious way. How exactly do three quotes defending/rationalizing Bush's CFR signature justify questioning whether FR is a place for grass-roots conservatism on the web "or not"? The mind boggles.
In the second place discussing politics and politicians is what we do here.
Well, on most threads, yes. But that's not the topic about which this thread was started. On this thread is being discussed the pressing troubling question of "whether FR is a place for grass-roots conservatism on the web or not".
And why wouldn't it be? Why does sheltonmac think this question might have a negative answer? Because of three freakin' quotes he pulled from some thread! Does that really make any sense to you?
I don't understand why you are so angry?
I get annoyed (I wouldn't say I'm "angry") when straw man arguments are made, and easy target quotes are pulled for the purpose of extrapolating them so as to criticize an entire group of people.
Part of it is just that sloppy logic tends to annoy me. Three random uncredited quotes do not make a good case that FR Is No Longer A Place For Grass-roots Conservatism On The Web, sorry. Not even close. I can't even figure out what one thing has to do with the other, to be honest with you.
The fact that 3 Freepers were defending Bush on some thread means that FR isn't a good place for grass-roots conservatism? Sorry, I don't get it.
We conservatives agree that the 60-day ban is unconstitutional, but that result is not guaranteed if you review all 500+ volumes of the Supreme Court Reporter. Some limits on campaign ad money are constitutional according to SCOTUS and have been in place for 30 years. Commericial speech, TV ads, has never been given the same protections as other forms of speech. And if you actually read the bill you will see there are lots of ways individuals and members of groups can and will influence elections during the 60-day period - the claim people are silenced is just wrong.
I agree this is a bad bill, as does the President, apparently. But it tinkers with restrictions that have been around for decades. It's not the end of the world. I have a pissificity meter that regularly goes off when the government restricts my rights. My pissificity meter is at about 3 out of 10 right now.
OK, I know what you're going to reply. So, here's my response in advance. You're right, Bush made a political call and is no longer pure of the conservative spirit. So, let's split the conservative movement and nominate an ideologically pure third party candidate. Lets do to Dubya what we did to his dad. Lets make him a one termer. Lets elect Gore, Hillary or Edwards. Lets raise taxes. Lets have more restrictive gun control. Lets quit being "unilateralist" and give in to the Europeans and quit the war on terror now - heck, maybe next time the terrorists will get the Capitol, after all it took them two tries to get the WTC. Lets have another go at a Middle East "peace" settlement - maybe we can cause all out war in the Middle East this time. Lets sign the global warming treaty and sink our economy. Let's expand Medicare and bankrupt Social Security 15 years faster. Lets protect the environment by mandating strict fuel economy standards and drive up the price of gasoline and electricity 2-3 times. Lets quit coddling the military, they don't need a pay raise or all that expensive high tech equipment. Lets have another corrupt administration and impeachment trial.
Happy now?
If by socialist you mean transferring wealth, building ever larger government institutions, raising taxes, buying votes with pork, etc., etc., etc.,
Well, then, both parties are guilty...
So why don't we just name them ASP One and ASP two?
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.