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.
You can play silly word games, but you can't back up the incorrect statement.
It was demonstrably incorrect and I demonstrated why by asking you the question. The answer is obvious. Except perhaps to you.
Well, those are all good points. Bush has been under a huge strain since September, as he contemplates the possibility, ignored by the Klintoons, that the Al-Q'aeda have been trying to get their hands on nuclear and biological weapons.
But the bite is that his signing the bill may have just crippled the GOP permanently......allowing the DemonRats to begin turning the U.S. into a one-armed republic a la Zimbabwe.
I guess my bottom line is, he finally decided he didn't have time to "mess with" the issue, and he needed to hoard his popularity points against things yet to come.
What do you think?
BTW, I'm on the phone right now with my Rep. to get an exact definition of "hard" money.......They just said that they're going to send via slo-mail an answer. Darn, thought that would have helped.
EBUCK
"It was demonstrably incorrect and I demonstrated why by asking you the question. The answer is obvious. Except perhaps to you."
Isn't this from Alice in Wonderland?
...and you say that I play word games?
No doubt. He is definately under some pressure right now. I wouldn't want his job at the moment.
But the bite is that his signing the bill may have just crippled the GOP permanently......allowing the DemonRats to begin turning the U.S. into a one-armed republic a la Zimbabwe.
Some think he'll pick up enough votes from moderates to make up for the losses we see here. He doesn't care where the votes come from, right/left/middle, all the same to him.
I guess my bottom line is, he finally decided he didn't have time to "mess with" the issue, and he needed to hoard his popularity points against things yet to come.
Yup. Kept his popularity at the expense of the Constitution. Some here would actually argue that he did the right thing because to them holding onto the houses this Nov. is more important than the principled defense of the Constitution. I see the basic strategy bonuses in this but I can't approve of it on "principle"
EBUCK
As I read it, the NRA can buy ads, but the money can't come from Smith and Wesson.
Which is OK by me actually because conservative issues raise hard money far better than liberal ones do.
On principle, I am opposed to the mass murder of thousands and thousands of innocent people, even during times of war.
But I do understand the reasons why we did just that in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and I agree with the decision to do it.
Not a good analogy on your part there.
I take it that you support Bushs descision to sign CFR. You have no reservations with regard to the language?
What did you think of my small businessman hypothetical situation from the other thread? How do you think CFR will effect the little guy that is not affiliated with a PAC/Party?
EBUCK
EBUCK
EBUCK
Nor do I need polls to convince you that to the majority of Americans, this isn't an issue.
He warned them he would sign it. He won't do their work for them.
"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.
These lame excuses are like trying to defend a rapist with;
She was asking for it.
She had it comming, do you see the way she dresses.
WAKE UP! He took an oath.
No, actually it served its purpose very well, it points out WHY we differ on this issue.
To me, what's going on in DC is a war, to you it isn't.
For years we've been complaining that the socialists defeat conservatives at nearly every turn, they do that because they void themselves of the obligation to observe any sort of pre-determined "rules of war" in this struggle.
Meanwhile, when conservatives take the offensive, a choir of well-meaning, but somewhat naive voices begin raising the question of whether we are following those "rules of war" in our campaign.
We are doomed to lose because we shackle ourselves.
I know that a lot will not agree with me on this and I will more than likely be flamed, and branded a Bushbot, and that's OK with me. It's a small price to pay for the right to freely speak my mind.
I believe that the signing of this bill into law is a solid, political move by the administration. The Supreme Court has ruled that money=free speech when it comes to political ads on two occasions not that long ago, I don't see them overturning previous rulings to give CFR legitimacy.
They will either strike it down, or send it back to congress to have the questionable portions removed. Either way, it's a set back for McCain and the Democrats.
I think that you keep missing the point, the "little guy" will in no way be affected.
If he can pay for a pro second amendment ad, he can do it. All he has to do is show that his $$$ did not come from a gun manufacturer.
Then again, I could be dead wrong.
BTW, we are speaking about politically active people, people who vote. Those who do not vote have no concern with the things we are discussing here, they have taken themselves out of the loop by chosing not to participate in our system.
So don't go embarrasing yourself by counting children, or dead people. Count only those whose political allegiance you can actually prove.
"...we will see if you are man enough..."
Drop the Mexican machismo stuff too.
The United States was home to 284, 796,887 residents on July 1, 2001.---Source, US Census
63 million registered Democrats
47 million registered Republicans
32 million registered as independents or with minor party
62 million not registered
Source---USA Today 11/01/2000
284,796,887 people
-110,000,000 Democrats and Republicans
=174,796,887 people not of those two parties
Any Questions?
Oh no we're not. You change in the middle. Your statement and mine are clear. I gave you every chance to correct yourself or just let it pass but you wouldn't do it would you?
How did I know you would weasel out Luis?
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.