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.
<--SNIP-->
" You really ought to think about it before accusing an honest and honorable President of violating his oath"....
I think it's really rather low for you to make innuendos when you are short on ammunition, brother. Let's don't even consider what Rowdee says or thinks--let's go straight to the horses', er the President's, mouth, shall we?
From the White House web page: ..."However, the bill does have flaws. Certain provisions present serious constitutional concerns. In particular, H.R. 2356 goes farther than I originally proposed by preventing all individuals, not just unions and corporations, from making donations to political parties in connection with Federal elections.
I believe individual freedom to participate in elections should be expanded, not diminished; and when individual freedoms are restricted, questions arise under the First Amendment.
I also have reservations about the constitutionality of the broad ban on issue advertising, which restrains the speech of a wide variety of groups on issues of public import in the months closest to an election. I expect that the courts will resolve these legitimate legal questions as appropriate under the law."...
I AM STATING HE VIOLATED HIS OATH TO PROTECT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES using his own words and state of mind to show his intent....his use of the words 'serious concerns are bogus because he is all too eager to fall back on letting the courts figure it out....and this from the man who assured us he would appoint strict constructionists! BUT, it isn't just him--the sumsabeaches in the Halls of Shame are every bit as much to blame.
Brother, continue to tell yourself he really didn't mean it, that it really is ok, yada yada yada....in time, you may actually believe it. That Constitution really is just an old piece of paper; it was just a 'guide'; it really did mean for government to cover every aspect of our lives......
EBUCK
EBUCK
The Constitutional basis for accusing the President of violating his oath? If a President signs a bill he believes has some "flaws" and about which he has "reservations" he has just violated his Constitutional oath of office. No citation to any provision of the Constitution for that whopper.
And you say I'm short on ammunition? Did you or did you not accuse the President of violating his oath? The basis for your accusation is your fantasy that if a President signs a bill passed by Congress that he believes has "flaws" and about which he has "reservations" he has violated his oath of office? You think there is any President who hasn't done that? Hey, I'm not the one a few rounds short of a full clip here.
So impeach President Bush. I hope you'll like the government you get.
Okay I give up... just what did I read into it?
Assumptions, assumptions..... Yep.
But I do concur with your assessment about JRs position. One of which I think he's held for sometime now.
They can never answer the question of a president enforcing laws signed by previous administrations. If their definition of the "oath" is as they define it, a president that enforces the Brady Bill, the voting rights act and a host of bills that Republican Presidents have never failed to enforce but are on record as saying they are unconstitutional, then by their own definition they are also "traitors" including Ronal Reagan.
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.