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

Me

[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.

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."

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.

"If you're 'proud he's your President' why don't you try supporting him instead of bashing him.

He's smarter than you are. He knows what he's doing.

And he hasn't betrayed anyone."

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.

"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.

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."

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."

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.

[DAnconia55]

Perhaps Bush should ask Congress to send him bills in opposition to each of the Bill of Rights. If we're strengthening the Constitution, let's not do it piecemeal.

LOL... So right, so right..

[RAT Patrol]

EBUCK, I will not support Bush in the primaries. I won't give him money. He has lost my support. The truth is, however, in my state we didn't even have a primary because the nomination was already won. (sad, isn't it.) In the general election, if I voted for Santa Claus the Republican candidate would still win. It's a nice thing mostly but, especially in state politics, it causes a lot of RINO's to pop up. People need to pay attention.

But, when it is all said and done and my choice is Hillary or W, I will not lie to you, I'll vote W, even though I now know he's a liar.

[EBUCK]

It is a good thing the Founders put so many checks and protections in the Constitution- we've sure shown we need every one of them.

That may be the first "good" comment to come over this thread all day. Thank you for pointing that out.

EBUCK

[Jim Robinson]

I am not rationalizing violations of the Constitution. There is no way that CFR should or could be rationalized. I hoped (and lost) that Bush would not sign it. Now that he has, I've got to hope the Supreme Court rules it out. If they do not, then we've suffered a lost battle, but the war against liberalism/socialism rages on. The only way to defeat these guys is to toss out the worst of the lot every chance you get. And even though we've suffered this setback, you will still find the worst of the lot of socialists over in the Democrat party. If you ever want to win back your freedom, you must defeat the Democrats first. It would be a great day when the Democrats are defeated and the battle for liberty is narrowed to Republican vs Constitutionalist. But, for the time being, the Constitutionalists are not even on the battlefield. They have no army to speak of. The political war in America is between the Democrats and Republicans. The tiny third parties stand no chance at defeating either, much less both at the same time. So I say, defeat the leftist Democrat party first. That's my rationalization. You can take it or leave it. Or you may join the others with their continued mantra that there is no difference. But I do not believe that. I've seen the men and women of both parties in action and, sorry, but there is obviously a big difference. Check out conservative.org.

Is there a difference between these:

• Richard C. Shelby (R-AL)
• Frank H. Murkowski (R-AK)
• John Kyl (R-AZ)
• Wayne Allard (R-CO)
• Pat Roberts (R-KS)
• Jim Bunning (R-KY)
• Robert C. Smith (R-NH)
• Jesse Helms (R-NC)
• Rick Santorum (R-PA)
• Strom Thurmond (R-SC)
• Bill Frist (R-TN)
• Robert Bennett (R-UT)

and these?

• Barbara Boxer (D-CA)
• Richard J. Durbin (D-IL)
• Paul David Wellstone (D-MN)
• Jon Corzine (D-NJ)

Or these:

• Terry Everett (R-AL)
• Bob Riley (R-AL)
• J. D. Hayworth (R-AZ)
• John Doolittle (R-CA)
• Edward Royce (R-CA)
• Gary G. Miller (R-CA)
• Duncan Hunter (R-CA)
• Bob Schaffer (R-CO)
• Thomas G. Tancredo (R-CO)
• Jack Kingston (R-GA)
• Bob Barr (R-GA)
• Saxby Chambliss (R-GA)
• Nathan Deal (R-GA)
• Philip M. Crane (R-IL)
• Mike Pence (R-IN)
• Dan Burton (R-IN)
• Jim R. Ryun (R-KS)
• Ron Lewis (R-KY)
• David Vitter (R-LA)
• Todd Akin (R-MO)
• Earnest Istook, Jr. (R-OK)
• Pat Toomey (R-PA)
• Joseph R. Pitts (R-PA)
• Floyd Spence (R-SC)
• Jim DeMint (R-SC)
• Ed Bryant (R-TN)
• Sam Johnson (R-TX)
• Pete Sessions (R-TX)
• John A. Culberson (R-TX)
• Tom DeLay (R-TX)
• James V. Hansen (R-UT)
• Chris Cannon (R-UT)
• Jo Ann S. Davis (R-VA)
• Edward L. Schrock (R-VA)
• J. Randy Forbes (R-VA)
• Eric I. Cantor (R-VA)
• Barbara Cubin (R-WY)

and these?

• Robert T. Matsui (D-CA)
• Lynn Woolsey (D-CA)
• George Miller (D-CA)
• Nancy Pelosi (D-CA)
• Barbara Lee (D-CA)
• Fortney H. “Pete” Stark (D-CA)
• Anna Eshoo (D-CA)
• Mike Honda (D-CA)
• Zoe Lofgren (D-CA)
• Sam Farr (D-CA)
• Henry A. Waxman (D-CA)
• Xavier Becerra (D-CA)
• Hilda L. Solis (D-CA)
• Diane E. Watson (D-CA)
• Lucille Roybal-Allard (D-CA)
• Maxine Waters (D-CA)
• Bob Filner (D-CA)
• Diana L. DeGette (D-CO)
• Mark Udall (D-CO)
• Rosa DeLauro (D-CT)
• John Lewis (D-GA)
• Jesse Jackson, Jr. (D-IL)
• Janice D. Schakowsky (D-IL)
• Lane Evans (D-IL)
• Thomas H. Allen (D-ME)
• John W. Olver (D-MA)
• Barney Frank (D-MA)
• Marty Meehan (D-MA)
• John F. Tierney (D-MA)
• Martin Olav Sabo (D-MN)
• Donald M. Payne (D-NJ)
• Rush Holt (D-NJ)
• Jerrold Nadler (D-NY)
• Anthony David Weiner (D-NY)
• Nydia Velazquez (D-NY)
• Carolyn Maloney (D-NY)
• Jose E. Serrano (D-NY)
• Nita M. Lowey (D-NY)
• Maurice Hinchey (D-NY)
• Louise McIntosh Slaughter (D-NY)
• EVA M. Clayton (D-NC)
• Mel Watt (D-NC)
• Thomas C. Sawyer (D-OH)
• Earl Blumenauer (D-OR)
• Chaka Fattah (D-PA)
• Joeseph M. Hoeffel III (D-PA)
• William J. Coyne (D-PA)
• Jim McDermott (D-WA)
• Tammy Baldwin (D-WI)
• Thomas Barrett (D-WI)

You betcha.

[MarkWar]

>FR must be balkanized and then destroyed.

[laughs] Well, it hardly matters whether the NWO ordered you to do it, or if you were just so blind to the consequences of your changes. The results are the same.

(NWO note -- Hey, lots of people here were suckered into that whole Klinton-will-never-leave-office stuff. I even thought it was conceivable for a while. If a tin-foil notion like that could get floated extensively, then it's really just fair to apply the same tin foil to ourselves... [smiles])

Anyhow, speaking of fair, it's hardly fair to just lump my comments in with NWO rantings -- everyone has noticed the changes in the dynamics of interactions around here, first with the diced threads, then with the multiple forums. F16Fighter said it well back in #191: "The "diverse scrutiny" of the "old" Free Republic "salad bar" operation was more constructive and unique..."

The end result has been bad, whether your motives were

• Devious -- Stifle conservative dissent of Bush
• Dr. Evil -- Fr has outlived its usefulness and must be tweaked into oblivion
• Really Nice and Helpful -- Let's give Freepers the best environment they can have to exhange views and ideas.

[shrugs] Like I said, maybe this new version of FR will grow to be a wonderful place. (It's not been particulary fun for me, and I participate a lot.) But if you actually don't see the profound difference -- or if you just laugh it off -- then you must be in some kind of denial.

Mark W.

[colorado tanker]

No amount of name calling and mudslinging will substitute for the language that just isn't there. The Constitution just doesn't assign the duty of review for constitutionality that SCOTUS took for itself in Marbury v. Madison. You can reason, infer, deduce and interpret all you want, that's fair ground, but don't claim express language is there when its not.

Implying that the President has violated his oath of office is an extremely serious charge that is quite frankly frivolous. From where I sit President Bush has been preserving, protecting and defending the Constitution and the United States with honor and distinction.

[EBUCK]

But, when it is all said and done and my choice is Hillary or W, I will not lie to you, I'll vote W, even though I now know he's a liar.

I hate to hear it but at least you are honest. Just sucks that we can't put up someone better that has a chance against the establishment.

EBUCK

[RAT Patrol]

Just sucks yep!

[foolish-one]

Thanks. Not saying I'm convinced, but that's the most succinct argument for banding together in order to defeat Democrats that I've heard. I'll consider it.

[MarkWar]

>...I think this bill favors conservatives...
>We'll have to wait and see how the SCOTUS rules on this

I don't think the angry people here are angry about whether this CFR stuff "favors" conservatives or liberals. I think people are angry that it is yet another *snip* off of the Constitution. It's possible to imagine any number of bills which might favor conservatives. But if they erode the Constitution, not many people here would favor them.

If we're laying bets, I bet SCOTUS never deals with CFR, and, if it does, I be conservatives come away from the encounter feeling the the 'rats did after the election...

Mark W.

[colorado tanker]

Frankly, its not the "snips" off the Constitution, like CFR, that worry me so much as the whole chunks that have been taken out. But I guess thats another thread. Freegards.

[sheltonmac]

"...but was this not VETO PROOF when Passed by the House and Senate?"

That was my understanding. Wouldn't it have been nice to see the president assume a leadership role in this by vetoing the bill and then calling to task all members of the GOP for supporting such damaging legislation? He's the defacto head of the GOP, the most popular political figure in America today, and in the perfect position to address the citizens of this great nation and explain exactly why he had problems with this bill. Did he do that? No. I will never understand why "conservatives" are praising him for his leadership when he willingly and admittedly went against his own conscience on this issue.

[ATOMIC_PUNK]

Said it before and ill say it again The president is a man no more no less he is prone to mistakes like any other I agree with siome that he does and other things i do not

BUT there are many who are bush worshippers who will agree with anything he says no matter what i think we affectionatly call these SHEEPLE there were and still are many sheeple left over from X42's rein of terror!

That being said many people are yearning and thirsting for a president and leader who will act like a grownup and be brave ,reverant and above all TRUTHFUL i think weve found alot of these charactoristics in president bush but he is far from perfect and not at all worthy of worshipping PRAISE FOR GOOD DEEDS YES WORSHIP NO !

Regardless of what people do or say Republican or Democrat he is JUST A MAN NOTHING MORE NOTHING LESS

Now Tom Dasshole thats another story altogether. !

[DAnconia55]

Fascism is no fix for democracy.

There's no essential difference between the two, really. Fascism is merely a later step.

[luckyzig]

I'm a Buchanan person myself. However, when your choices are evil, I go with the lesser of two evils.

[RAT Patrol]

That was my understanding. Wouldn't it have been nice to see the president assume a leadership role in this by vetoing the bill and then calling to task all members of the GOP for supporting such damaging legislation? He's the defacto head of the GOP, the most popular political figure in America today, and in the perfect position to address the citizens of this great nation and explain exactly why he had problems with this bill. Did he do that? No. I will never understand why "conservatives" are praising him for his leadership when he willingly and admittedly went against his own conscience on this issue.

I will never understand either.

[EBUCK]

If we're laying bets, I bet SCOTUS never deals with CFR, and, if it does, I be conservatives come away from the encounter feeling the the 'rats did after the election...

I'm betting that the NRA suit makes it to the SCrOTUmS before the Nov elections. Hopefully it gets there before Bush has a chance to stack the deck in CFR favor.

EBUCK

[Beenliedto]

Implying that the President has violated his oath of office is an extremely serious charge that is quite frankly frivolous. From where I sit President Bush has been preserving, protecting and defending the Constitution and the United States with honor and distinction.

The Patriot Act notwithstanding?

Why, that thing happened so fast that it almost seemed to be sitting in the wings waiting for the right moment.

Yessir, that's our boy.

[conserve-it]

"You wouldn't be the first to choose flight over fight."

If you lived in Californicate, you would not say this, you would just leave.

"And I am at a loss to think of any places where you could escape tyranny."

No you can't escape the tyranny, but at least your neighbors could speak English.

[DAnconia55]

The way to eliminate graft and corruption in government, is to eliminate the extra-constitutional influence that legislators and executive officials have to begin with. If we put the federal government back in the constitutional cage the founders crafted for it, then these bastards wouldn't have any influence to peddle (and corruption would be a thing of the past).

No limits on our rights are necessary.

Isn't that the most amazing thing?
We're told that we can't spend money in support of an issue or candidate because politicans can't control themselves and might be corrupted.

It almost makes one want to become a con artist. People will fall for anything....