Posted on 03/28/2002 8:04:49 AM PST by sheltonmac
"are on record as saying they are unconstitutional"
I'm assuming you have references for that?
Are you man enough to admit it amigo?
You make good points. I don't know why the Prez didn't veto CFR on grounds its a bad bill and use some capital. Probably the P.T. Barnum factor, i.e. how many suckers out there right now would believe the backlash aimed at him. Also, his capital budget may already be committed to Iraq, judicial appointments, the energy bill and the budget, so why spend it here if the Supremses are likely to throw out the 60-day limits.
Freegards.
I would, however, rate the chances of reversal of the 60-day limits by the Supremes at 65-70%, which would improve the bill considerably.
Freegards.
Agreed. So far.
Reasonable people can, however, disagree over how Bush played a hand with no pairs and no face cards.
The cards are still being dealt. It is still possible he's merely checked the bet to the Supremes at this time.
You have now joined that group. There is so much work to be done, and so many standing in the way to get around. Many Republicans on this site are no longer allies, but instead, obstacles to be overcome. We have no choice but to overcome them. The alternative is too horrible to contemplate.
I have a new acronym for them.
RBA----Republicans before Americans
From now on, for me, they are RBAs. I will refer to them in that way from now on. They call liberal Republicans RINOs. I call the ones who look the other way as Bush (and most of the rest of the party) trashes the constitution and grows government for his own power, RBAs.
I hope it sticks, feel free to use it if you want.
I don't make a habit of making assertions I cannot back-up
Abortion and the Conscience of the Nation
Ronald Reagan
Ronald Reagan, while sitting as the fortieth president of the United States, sent us this article shortly after the tenth anniversary of Roe v. Wade; we printed it with pride in our Spring, 1983 issue, and reprint it now, after Roe's twentieth anniversary, just as proudly.
The 10th anniversary of the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade is a good time for us to pause and reflect. Our nationwide policy of abortion-on-demand through all nine months of pregnancy was neither voted for by our people nor enacted by our legislators— not a single state had such unrestricted abortion before the Supreme Court decreed it to be national policy in 1973. But the consequences of this judicial decision are now obvious: since 1973, more than 15 million unborn children have had their lives snuffed out by legalized abortions. That is over ten times the number of Americans lost in all our nation's wars.
Make no mistake, abortion-on-demand is not a right granted by the Constitution. No serious scholar, including one disposed to agree with the Court's result, has argued that the framers of the Constitution intended to create such a right. Shortly after the Roe v. Wade decision, Professor John Hart Ely, now Dean of Stanford Law School, wrote that the opinion "is not constitutional law and gives almost no sense of an obligation to try to be." Nowhere do the plain words of the Constitution even hint at a "right" so sweeping as to permit abortion up to the time the child is ready to be born. Yet that is what the Court ruled.
I was responding to a very specific situation possed by another FREeper. One that happened to be wrong.
Luis, I went back and re-read #277 (to which you responded and which sparked my question). In my reading, if you see the infringement, you appear to be minimizing it. Yes, the ads can still be run, but after jumping thru hoops. That to me is a serious problem.
I usually agree with your posts and was caught off guard by your take (or my take of what I see as your position) on CFR.
FReegards, Ray
:-)
I also do not agree with everything that President Bush does.
Yes, one.
How can you be this brain dead and still draw breath without the help of machinery?
As I predicted, your silly straw man argumentr brought into account people who cannot, by law, register with any party, due to being underage.
Americans under the age of eighteen are 25.7% of the total population of the US,according to the latest census figures available. That's about 73,927,800 Americans who are not allowed to register yet.
You showed us how people who register to vote pick their political affiliation, so we have plain evidence of the choices that Americans make once they register. But you obviously cannot show us the political affiliations of those NOT registered.
I however, CAN show you that when Americans register to vote, according to your figures, the pick either the Republican or Democratic party 77.5% of the time. That trend can be expected to continue as those 73,927,800 Americans under the age of 18 register to vote.
So then, let's take an INTELLIGENT look at the numbers you have provided:
284,796,887 people in the US
Minus 73,927,800 not old enough to register
210,869,087 Americans elegible to register
Out of those, 110,000,000 registered either Democrat, or Republican (BTW, I am trusting your figures here, in light of your total lack of accuracy I shouldn't, but I am anyway).
62 million elegible but not registered
32 million registered minor parties.
That leaves 6,869,087 Americans unnaccounted for.
Your very figures actually prove that once Americans register, they register either Republican or Democrat 77.5% of the time.
Any questions?
I can come up with thousands of situations where Americans have to jump through hoops to do a myriad of things.
From purchasing a home, to starting a business, we be hoops!
Yes, why do you persist in trying claim that I said all kinds of things that I never said and claim I made "straw man" claims when I never engaged you on anything except this moronic statement;
Democrats an Republicans ARE the people. Not only that, but they are the VAST majority of the people.
The statement speaks for itself. If you meant to talk about something else, like registered voters, you could have done so. You also had a chance to modify your statement after I told you your statement was incorrect. But due to your low IQ or high ego, or both, you started to post gibberish to me.
The statement as you have now edited it (without being man enough to apologise) is equally moronic because it states an obvious fact. You seem to have a stranglehold on the obvious and were determined to share it with others.
You, boy, are pathetic.
I know you don't. Thanks.
By failing to attemp to bring cases charging abortion providers with whatever law he felt they were breaking, I have no choice except to consider him a traitor to his own priciples.
I would feel the same way, if the supremes happen to not throw out the 30/60 day restrictions, and the President executes that portion of the law by bringing charges against someone for breaking it or fails to immediately pardon someone convicted of breaking it.
It's also worth noting that parties and pols that do this a lot get noticed by the people eventually, who rightly wonder if they're worth voting for.
Zero principles and maximum tactical radius for the pol adds up eventually to public repudiation. Klintoon relied on his constitutional term limits to exit office before his wages of retribution arrived.....and then he was going to pretend he was a "great" president. Yeah, right.
BTW: As I have posted before, I suppose those "THE GUILD" threads I have seen that post like they are the a Star Magazine with all the Hollywood awards shows think they have a cause of importance.
I have seen threads that when these (even if Bush signed us up for world governance and world tax with the U.N.-would still go ga-ga over him) get in a hissy they then personaly attack become vicious and brag about how much money THEY give to FR,and also ask how much others donate.I guess if enough money is given anybody can rule the discussion blindly to any constructive criticisim or debate.
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.