Posted on 03/28/2002 8:04:49 AM PST by sheltonmac
[laughs] Sometimes a dubious philosophy is easier to understand when translated into a more "accessible" context.
Let me see if I've got your principle here:
If you are in a bar at closing time, looking for company, and the
only two women left in the bar are Hillary and Janet
Reno, then you'd go up and hit on Hillary?
If you only have two choices and both choices are evil, then it's time to find a different game.
Mark W.
Which part of : 'Congress shall make no law .... abridging the freedom of speech' are you having trouble understanding?
I had no idea English was your second language.
How can you be defending the Constitution [with its accompanying amendments] if you are signing off on a piece of legislation that tramples on those vary rights? How is that protecting said Constitution?
looking for company, and the
only two people left in the bar are Al Gore and the guy who sold you out over the last 4 years,
then you'd go and find another bar wouldn't you?
EBUCK
I was sickened at the thought of algore being in the WH and that is why I voted for Bush. But maybe the GOP in Congress would have fought harder to defeat some of Gore's agenda and we wouldn't be any worse off. You knew what algore was/is. Bush is doing the wolf's job while masquerading as an innocent lamb.
[smiles] A few hundred years ago, the Dissenters in England got sick of choosing the least evil course in front of them and they just got up and left England. (Let's look back a minute. If the Dissenters had tried to stay and fight the CoE and the whole British Establishment, even with all their Dissenter energy and creativity and passion, would they have had a snowball's chance in hell of succeeding?)
We conservatives in America seem to be in a very similar position. Jim's vision of "defeating" the democrats (which, really, would entail reversing pop culture liberalism and neo-socialism in general) has about as much chance of EVER happening as, say, the Dissenters had of getting the British Establishment to turn England into what the Pilgrans and Puritans made America into.
However, I'm damned if I can think of any place to go. The Dissenters were able to come to America. Where the heck can Conservatives go?
Mark W.
"Rationalization in the defense of winning liberty is no vice." - JR - #377 -
Well said Sandy.
The rationalization of constitutional violations for political reasons is a dangerous vice indeed. - tpaine -
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.
Sorry, JR, -- I can see now that you were rationalizing a 'winning philosophy'. -- I took that to the next step, as far too many republican politicians are doing [Bush included, imo], where, as Sandy in effect noted, they are abandoning all pretense of following the constitution in unprincipled efforts to 'win'. --- I doubt they will. -- We will all lose.
I like to think that the crucifixion of Jesus was the prime example of a democratic execution.
We could name it the Republic of FReedomLovingFormerSubjectsOfAmericanGubmentTyrants. With the disclaimer that liberals/socialists will be shot on sight so they better stay the hell out. We could just re-use word-for-word our original Constitution.
EBUCK
If the President signs a school voucher bill SCOTUS would later find violates the First Amendment has he violated his oath of office, or is that a debate in which the branches of government and reasonable people can disagree?
SCOTUS held a provision of the religious freedom preservation act passed a few years ago unconstitutional; did the President who signed that bill violate his oath?
Some Senators thought the Civil Rights Act of 1964 unconstitutional, others thought Congress had authority under the Commerce Clause. Did President Johnson violate his oath by signing the Civil Rights Act? SCOTUS later agreed it was constitutional.
The Constitution requires Congress appropriate any funds used by the President in conducting foreign policy or military operations. Did President Reagan violate his oath when his administration bypassed Congress to fund the contras?
What if Congress, the President and SCOTUS disagree about whether a bill is consitutional? They all take an oath. Who violated their oath? Do two branches out of three decide? Does SCOTUS decide? Does FR decide?
This is political debate; it's rough and tumble; it's compromise; it's vocal disagreement among reasonable people. You really ought to think about it before accusing an honest and honorable President of violating his oath.
EBUCK
Bush is using September 11th the same way FDR used Pearl Harbor and Wilson used the Lusitainia, and I believe it was just as calculated as the others.
It can't be any plainer than Bush's own words.
On February 1, 1992, president George Herbert Walker Bush stated:
"MY vision of a New World Order forsees the UN with a revitalized peacekeeping function. It is the SACRED principles enshrined in the UN charter to which we henceforth PLEDGE OUR ALLEGIANCE."
Now anyone who can't figure out that America is going downhill regardless of which party is in office, isn't going to understand that the UN was created by the elites to be used as a tool to create world government, world rule, world slavery. Whatever You want to call it, it will have the same effect on our future.
These people hate the restraints that are on them, that slowdown their dream of total control.
A little genocide here and there has become okay.
Starving innocent people with sanctions hidden behind the veil of "Terrorism" is okay.
Wiping out poor peoples only chance at affordable medicines so they don't die from curable infections is okay.
Just imagine what they can accomplish with no holds barred.
It has always been the people behind the rulers with the agenda of world rule and it still is today. The only difference between now and then is, instead of the oppression being done behind the disguise of communism, it is now done behind the disguise of freedom.
The two have always been bedfellows.
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.