Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

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

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.

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.


TOPICS: Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: bush; cfr; freespeech
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 661-680681-700701-720 ... 741-753 next last
To: hobbes1
Political speech, in this bill, is curtailed in a certain period of time.No speech has been outlawed. There is a difference, and were it not for the hysteria induced myopia, you would see that.

"A certain period of time!?" Okay, you're free to write about candidates after we've ensured that it won't make any difference.

681 posted on 03/29/2002 9:40:56 AM PST by supercat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 176 | View Replies]

To: hobbes1
Political speech, in this bill, is curtailed in a certain period of time.

How about we forbid Congress from passing any legislation during those same time periods?

682 posted on 03/29/2002 9:41:28 AM PST by supercat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 176 | View Replies]

To: supercat
I'd settle for requiring them to show the Constitutional Authority for Each bill, in Each bill.
683 posted on 03/29/2002 9:45:07 AM PST by hobbes1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 682 | View Replies]

To: ThomasJefferson
[hypothetical Bush quote]"I will veto any bill which infringes the right of any American to speak his mind on any subject at any time. The first amendment benefits all Americans and insures all of our other freedoms. I will never sell out the American people for any reason whatsoever."

He would be more popular than he is now across every spectrum of the body politic. He would also have secured his place in history.

But he didn't do that, he doesn't have the courage or the brains.

The First Amendment's restrictions on Congress are more explicit and absolute than those applied by the Fourteenth Amendment to the states. After all, the authors of those amendments never intended to legalize libel or other such practices, but they recognized that since such things fell quite adequately within state jurisdiction and there was thus no need for Congress to legislate them.

Nonetheless, state statutes which attempted to do what this CFR abomination does at a national level have been consistently struck down by courts which held that political speech is speech, and that laws restricting it abridge the rights of free speech.

Bush would have been able to cite from an ample array of court precedents if he were to denounce this abomination as unconstitutional. Unfortunately, he failed to do so.

684 posted on 03/29/2002 9:47:40 AM PST by supercat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

Comment #685 Removed by Moderator

Comment #686 Removed by Moderator

To: infowars
Yes, it was proposed a while back, but defeated.
687 posted on 03/29/2002 10:15:36 AM PST by hobbes1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 686 | View Replies]

To: EBUCK
Sorry, you are right, it's hard money. And hard money means direct contribution from citizens, it doesn't mean money given to a candidate.

Eg: Any pro-life organization out there can collect $$$ from their membership and buy any number of issue ads to run right through elections supporting their stand. The ad just can't promote (or discourage) voting for a candidate by name.

688 posted on 03/29/2002 10:28:16 AM PST by Luis Gonzalez
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 674 | View Replies]

To: supercat
"Yes, but what about the right of groups to put out ads that neither candidate particularly wants to see?"

The bill does not stop them from doing that, as long as they use hard money (direct donations) and identify the source.

689 posted on 03/29/2002 10:30:18 AM PST by Luis Gonzalez
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 680 | View Replies]

To: lexel
"...the battle for liberty has been narrowed to Democrats and Republicans vs. The People..."

While it is very Patriotic sounding rhetoric, like it or not Democrats an Republicans ARE the people. Not only that, but they are the VAST majority of the people.

690 posted on 03/29/2002 10:34:37 AM PST by Luis Gonzalez
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 676 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez
"Hard" money is regulated/documented money given to any group?

I don't think so but give me a chance to look up the gubment definition of "hard" money and I'll get back to ya.

EBUCK

691 posted on 03/29/2002 10:35:34 AM PST by EBUCK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 688 | View Replies]

To: EBUCK
Look up a thread I posted last week called "Who wins and who loses with CFR", thre's a pretty fair breakdown on the bill there.
692 posted on 03/29/2002 10:38:02 AM PST by Luis Gonzalez
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 691 | View Replies]

To: hobbes1
I'd settle for requiring them to show the Constitutional Authority for Each bill, in Each bill.

They should have to show Constitutional authority at the beginning of each bill.

Can you imagine the beginning of the CFR bill.

"Persuant to the Constitutional authority granted this congress by the 1st Ammendment to curtail political free speech.....blah, blah."

I'm sure that would fly!!!!LOL

EBUCK

693 posted on 03/29/2002 10:43:57 AM PST by EBUCK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 683 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez
Democrats an Republicans ARE the people. Not only that, but they are the VAST majority of the people.

This statement is demonstrably incorrect. They aren't even the majority much less the vast majority. Do the math.

694 posted on 03/29/2002 10:46:54 AM PST by Protagoras
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 690 | View Replies]

To: hobbes1
Well, since you like to deal in the "fairly obvious", how about a "fairly obvious" question?

[You]....when the Court shreds the bill, it will be DEAD.

Oh, good. I rejoice. And what if they don't? Who is the Rhodes scholar then? Will you freely present yourself in the public square for flogging?

Mind you, some TV punditary Court followers have already been opining that there's good reason to think CFR will be found constitutional by the Rehnquist Court, so your optimism mystifies me. Given that this Court has already found against your side once on a similar case, where is font of your enthusiasm for rejoining the issue?

Methinks you just want the issue off the table to shut the DemonRats up ..... you've given up on it, in other words, and are now toying with people you consider beneath the salt intellectually, hence all the insulting references.

Well, if I were you, I'd start putting together a collection of nice, soft, comfy flannel shirts. You're going to need them to protect what's left of your skin, after SCOTUS rolls over on you and sends you down to the public square for your chastisement.

695 posted on 03/29/2002 10:51:55 AM PST by lentulusgracchus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez
Yah, I was on that thread I think. (maybe not, there are so many CFR threads)

Here is my break down. If I, as an individual, want to speak out in the media I am not allowed to do so. In their quest to make it hard for the rich to get their voice heard they have made it illegal for me to do so without contributing to a party/PAC.

EBUCK

696 posted on 03/29/2002 10:54:15 AM PST by EBUCK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 692 | View Replies]

To: ThomasJefferson
"This statement is demonstrably incorrect."

If that's the case, why are you asking me to prove your statement true?

697 posted on 03/29/2002 11:00:17 AM PST by Luis Gonzalez
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 694 | View Replies]

To: BluesDuke
He could well enough have vetoed CFR ...

Okay, so why'd he sign it, when he didn't have to?

His signing it just becomes harder and harder to understand. I followed hobbes1's argument (though I think he's wrong, and the Pubbies are going to get burned bigtime), but does the President really intend to rely on the Supreme Court instead of stepping up to a piece of legislation he knows is wrong?

698 posted on 03/29/2002 11:02:53 AM PST by lentulusgracchus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 652 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez
When less than half of the voting population even votes it'll be damn hard to prove that the republicrats are in a "Vast" majority.

BTW, See post 212 on the thread you directed me to.

EBUCK

699 posted on 03/29/2002 11:03:45 AM PST by EBUCK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 697 | View Replies]

To: lentulusgracchus
does the President really intend to rely on the Supreme Court instead of stepping up to a piece of legislation he knows is wrong?

Either that, unpalatable as it may be, or face the fact that Bush does not care about the Constitution. Put yourself into a BBNs (Bush-Brown-Noser) shoes and which would you choose to advocate?

EBUCK

700 posted on 03/29/2002 11:06:00 AM PST by EBUCK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 698 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 661-680681-700701-720 ... 741-753 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson