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.
[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.