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
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-80, 81-100, 101-120 ... 741-753 next last
To: hobbes1
"...but couldn't we get a little actual THOUGHT, as opposed to knee jerk whining ????" If one thinks of CFR as a 45 caliber slug, and the Constitution as a shattered bloody kneecap, then a "knee jerk" is not an innapropriate response.
Is that enough "actual THOUGHT" for you?
To: sheltonmac
I don't like parts of the CFR bill and I'm not happy that Bush signed it. He didn't exactly have a political pistol pointed at his head, but perhaps the equivalent of a political knife at his throat.
While it's good to discuss our differences and vent our frustrations, I for one am not going to freak out and condemn GW for life just because he signed this one bill. Face it, the law will be amended, you and I know it, and he knows it. I am a realist in that I am happy to be out from under 8 years of the Sperminator and equally happy not to be led into the Muslim wars by 'Earth in the Balance'. Cut Bush some slack. Have another beer and some barbecue. You'll have plenty of time to decide if you want to tar and feather him before 2004.
82
posted on
03/28/2002 8:44:29 AM PST
by
Sender
To: BigTime
As it happens I think Bush was wrong both on the tarrif issue and on CFR. I suspect that in my (future), opinion, he'll end up blowing it on a few other things that will come down the pike. But my choices in the next election are effectively Bush or Democrat X. I'm ruling out everyone else because those other people can't win. And that's why, in general terms, I'm backing Bush. That's the point I'm trying to make.
83
posted on
03/28/2002 8:44:46 AM PST
by
Gumlegs
To: ThomasJefferson
Like it or not, in this day and age, Politics is Strategy.
Being right is no consolation for losing. Ask those principled Aholes in Washington State how they feel their interests are being served by Senator Cantwell.
Net gain of one in 02, means the Senate will be ramrodding steadily more conservative judges to higher and higher courts. No blue slips, no character assassinations. That is called Effecting REAL CHANGE. What you and the others are doing, and hiding behind principle is called POSING.
84
posted on
03/28/2002 8:45:15 AM PST
by
hobbes1
To: hobbes1
"Your way stalls the passing of the bill, His way Kills it, and helps to solidify Conservative Ground for the Next 2 election cycles. "You better hope so buddy, cause if the SC doesn't kill it then you have just witnessed the gutting of the constitution. You realize that the decision rests on one or two people and they are not the most reliable people on the planet.
85
posted on
03/28/2002 8:46:12 AM PST
by
monday
To: Harrison Bergeron
That is knee jerk. Call me when they shut down the net, and start confiscating printing presses.
86
posted on
03/28/2002 8:46:20 AM PST
by
hobbes1
To: Carry_Okie
Ummmmm, yes, the end does not always justify the means, in evidence I give you the Senator for Washingtons states dedicated voters. Maria Cantwell.
87
posted on
03/28/2002 8:47:26 AM PST
by
hobbes1
To: Dog
Doggie..one could almost assume that the Dems hope that the Supremes kill the bill..then they can run against the Court, and Bush's ability tp appoint future Justices...in the 2002 and 2004 elections..they don't have any other issues....visualize it....."Today the Supremes overturn CFR, tomorrow they'll overturn Roe v. Wade, unless we elect a Democrat controlled Senate..."
88
posted on
03/28/2002 8:48:29 AM PST
by
ken5050
To: ThomasJefferson
Well, you don't support the Thirteenth anyway.
Comment #90 Removed by Moderator
To: hobbes1
Like it or not, in this day and age, Politics is Strategy. Ah yes, I like that justification. "The Founders needed their guns for protection, but in this day and age we live in a safe society."
To: hobbes1
Yes, there is. The Unconstitutionality of it, and the Supremes decision will be pointed out, LOUDLY, everytime the issue comes up.
If you were awake, you would notice the beginning of the accompanying argument.The argument that will go with it, will be, we should be conducting the peoples business, not chasing this crap.
I was awake, saw your argument, and it only highlights the fact that what the President did was supremely cynical. If the signing of CFR was great principle, then he should have campaigned on it, instead of the other way 'round.
And the bill has not been declared unconstitutional, yet, and you have no guarantee (or recourse) if it isn't.
Nice touch, though, calling Constitutional issues and concern over them 'crap'....
To: hobbes1
"Call me when they shut down the net, and start confiscating printing presses." If you applied some "actual THOUGHT," you'd have realized it will be too late by then.
To: monday
You better hope so buddy, cause if the SC doesn't kill it then you have just witnessed the gutting of the constitutionYou know this is another problem i have with these so-called constitutionalists... Gutting the constitution? Are you insane? Tampering with the First Amendment yes. But allowing the courts to become More liberal, does much more damage to the document than this bill can do in a thousand years.
94
posted on
03/28/2002 8:50:45 AM PST
by
hobbes1
To: sheltonmac
There is even one poster who said that Conservatives should leave this forum and start one for themselves because this is a Republican forum.
Amazing.
To: hobbes1
He could have taken to the cameras the way he did on the stem-cell research issue. We got what we wanted and he hushed the critics. He is capable of it when he wants to do it. He just didn't want to.
To: Sabertooth
Libertarian! That's my fave! Especially when, if you ask the "one" question, you end up with a LibTar answer.
EBUCK
97
posted on
03/28/2002 8:52:05 AM PST
by
EBUCK
To: Physicist
, and he can say to the voters, "Hey, I did everything I could. I signed it into law, but it didn't stick. What more do you want?"It's all about what he says and how much power he can get from the Dem voters over things. Not the actual issue.
He either punted to the court, like a coward, or he actually likes the bill, it protects him too. Either one is despicable.
It is time for all the armchair strategists to ponder what the political reaction would have been to the following statement and stand it represents:
"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.
To: Howlin
This is a perfect example of the Bush bashing In other words, being critical of a decision = bashing.
To: ThomasJefferson
Well, unfortunately I may have to vote for the lesser of two evils...I can't say this is enough alone to make me stop voting for him. Sadly, his views on the constitution are probably conservative compared to the opposition...(I still think he is a good man and C 'n C.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-80, 81-100, 101-120 ... 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson