Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-86 next last
To: sheltonmac
"FreeRepublic: A place for "grass-roots conservatism on the web" or not?"Yes, it is, and I'll tell you why: it is a place where grassroots conservatives - and others - can hash out differences in a forum of open and (mostly) civil debate. So what if we don't always agree? Maybe YOU don't mind the thought of 80+ thousand blind party automatons posting to the same forum (as long as they all hold the same point of view as you)...but I find the idea FRIGHTENING. And extremely boring.
To: sheltonmac
I will agree, that some of the, "support Bush at any cost" is truly pathetic and very Clinton like. I have a strong feeling some will live to regret that blinded support.
To: sheltonmac
Observation. The more the anti-bushies type their hysterical rantings the more most on FR realize that Bush made the right call.
Since last week when I was alone in saying that the best route for both the constitution and the GOP is for Bush to sign and let GOP rep's kill it in the courts. Each day more and more FReepers come to see the wisdom in it. I attribute much of the success of this migration of opinion to the absolute hysterics of the anit-Bushies. "He committed treason, the constitution is no more, he lied to us. "
To: sheltonmac
..."
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"...
This is one area where I will fault the President....and also every member of Congress, both the Senate and the House, who voted for it. We have finally reached the point in American history where they don't care, and apparently many of the people who should know better don't care what happens to the Constitution.
And it isn't just this issue....recall back when New Gingrich testified before the House Ways and Means Committee about WTO.....he said we would be giving up a large chunk of sovereignty....apparently it was worth it to him and the GOP members he convinced to vote for it to give the Perverted President his desire!!!
Newt took an oath also.....but you see, they are as bad as the Perverted President because he, too, violated an oath [actually more than one, but thats immaterial]....those who are supposed to represent the conservative element of society have done just as badly as that liberal scumbag......and so many close their eyes.
America doesn't have a chance when both sides act like each other.
124 posted on
03/28/2002 9:04:14 AM PST by
Rowdee
To: sheltonmac
For the first time in a long time, I really don't know what to make of this whole CFR debacle, or our President in general.
On the one hand, I guess it could be argued (as some have done rather eloquently) that this was all the President's "plan". I suppose that does put him in a more favorable light then being just a doofus, and signing the bill for another stupid reason. But the fact is that it is an unconstitutional bill. Do we want our politicians signing in (or supporting) laws/bills that are unconstitutional in the first place?
When I first came to FreeRepublic, I was under the impression that those here are critical of any breech of the Constitution, by any elected official. I feel I must support the crowd that is critical of Bush, right now, because this is a clear violation of the First Amendment. (CFR) I still can't believe he signed it. It's almost as great a shock to me as the bombing of the Murrah building, or 9/11. This is an attack on our livelihood, just like those incidents. Maybe no blood was shed, or buildings destroyed, but it's just the same, I believe, if you really think about it.
Sure Bush has done some good things as well! I myself was perfectly happy with his performance. But this is serious, and some naysayers may say, "You're just making this a 'one issue' type of thing. You have to take it all in perspective; not every president is going to agree with you 100%".
I agree with that, but I think a president should agree with the Constitution 100% of the time. Sorry if that's too hard line for some.
Will I vote for him in 2004? I don't know. I really really don't know.
To: sheltonmac
Said it on another thread, I'll say it again here. Many FR posters think an "r" or "d" after a president's name is more important than the president's integrity. Says a lot about those posters, doesn't it?
To: sheltonmac
In the interest of bi-partianship, I will quote the part of your post with which I heartily agree:
"President Bush is smarter than his critics."
To: sheltonmac
Here's a list of some of the things Bush has done/endorsed during his presidency. All of these issues have been discussed at length on this forum, and still, some are taking a "wait and see" attitude:
Stem cell research
Faith Based Initiative
No attempt to prosecute Clinton crimes
EO to keep Clinton documents from release
No congressional declaration of war
MFN status to China
Back dues paid to the UN
Airline bailout
Patriot Act (pretty good rape of the 4th amendment)
Office of Homeland Security
Payoffs to families of victims of 9-11
Federalization of airport security
Education bill and lovefest with Ted "The Swimmer"
Shadow government (who are these people? did we elect them?)
Volunteer corps
Steel tariffs
50% increase in foreign aid??
Amnesty for illegals???
I guess we're supposed to be happy because we got a tax refund.
To: sheltonmac
OK...but first?
Let's answer the first question,
first:
"FreeRepublic: A place for "grass-roots conservatism on the web" or not?"
Well.
Maybe; maybe not.
Depends.
What day is it? :o)
169 posted on
03/28/2002 9:26:56 AM PST by
Landru
To: sheltonmac
I agree with you 1000%.
In Brewster's Millions, a movie from 1985, Richard Pryor launched a political campaign for mayor. It was an attempt to spend as much money as possible. Pryor had been willed hundreds of millions of dollars with one stipulation. He had to spend $30 million dollars in 30 days in order to inherit around $300 million total.
His political campaign turned into an effort to encourage people to vote for, "None of the above." Now there's an idea!
It goes without saying that most of us couldn't vote for a Democrat on a dare. What is less accepted is that most of us are finding it impossible to vote for the lesser of two evils. What this has found us doing in the past, is voting for a man that would by all intents and purposes be called a liberal if he wasn't run against someone like Walter Mondale, Bill Clinton or Al Gore.
Was George Bush Senior a Conservative? Was Bob Dole a Conservative? Is George Bush, our current President a Conservative? My requirements for qualification to be a Conservative aren't all that high. Here they are:
1. This person must not do anything that doesn't adhere to the Constitution of the United States.
2. This person must not do anything that doesn't protect the United States above all comers.
3. This person must not do anything that doesn't protect the citizens of the United States against all dangers.
There you have it. It's not what I'd call an extensive list of requirements. I consider them to be rather simple. However, I have found that I am in a minority with regard to this opinion. You'd be surprised how many people find these requirements to be unreasonable. Well, screw 'em!
I have come to a place in my life where I will no longer vote for someone that doesn't recognize the validity of me requiring that they adhere to these three tenets.
Think about this for a moment. In the spectrum of far left to far right, where would the above three requirements come in? Are they really Conservative? In my opinion they're about as middle of the road as you can get. What's Conservative about asking someone to adhere to them? In reality all I'm asking is that people love this nation and it's citizens. Run even a middle of the road (a moderate) candidate and I'll vote for him. Is that too much to ask? Evidently it is when it comes to Democrat and Republican leadership.
CFR violates rule one, two and three. It's unConstitutional. It doesn't protect the United States against sheister politicians. It doesn't protect the citizens of the United States from their evil effects.
Illegal Immigration is another such issue. The President swears an oath to faithfully protect the borders of the United States. An effectual disolution of our borders does not adhere to the Constitution, protect the sanctity of the United States or protect the citizens of the United States from all dangers related to illegal immigration. It does not protect this nation from the subversive and corrosive effects of illegal immigration.
For this reason, I say that our current President doesn't even qualify as a moderate, let alone a Conservative.
Until the Republicans run someone who will adhere to the above three requirements, I will not vote for their candidate. Frankly a vote for None of the Above is exactly what is called for. If the Republicans didn't recieve one single vote for an election cycle or two, it would be good for the United States. It would send a message that the days are over when we'll vote for a liberal and canonize them as a Conservative to pacify our requirements. Then the party would swing back to obatin our votes. Otherwise, they NEVER will. Is that what we want? Evidently so, because that's the message we send every time we vote for a liberal in sheep's clothing.
Anyone that can't see this is damning this nation to the ash heap of history. If the Republicans don't swing back toward the middle, and soon, we're damned.
To: sheltonmac
"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."
Every one of those people have just as much Right to have an opinion as any of you Bush bashers! Bush bashers tend to be long on criticism, and short on solutions!!
To: sheltonmac
Enough already!
Bush got the Army beret controversy solved, didn't he?
Oh, that's right, he didn't do anything on that, did he?
To: sheltonmac
not
211 posted on
03/28/2002 9:43:23 AM PST by
jpsb
To: sheltonmac
bump for later shelton and yes I wholeheartedly agree with your statement
To: sheltonmac
Many Freepers seem to think that earning Presidential kneepads is something only Democrats can do. Party over principle. Sheesh.
218 posted on
03/28/2002 9:45:54 AM PST by
Sloth
To: sheltonmac
This is my first post, being new to FR, so bear with me, please.I wholeheartedly concur with what you are saying. I don't know about the history of these forums or the kinds of differences between conservatives that have arisen herein, but I do know that criticizing our President is certainly nothing to be ashamed of and, furthermore, is our moral and constitutional responsibility, when the necessary.
Regarding CFR specifically, I certainly understand that politics is often "the art of compromise" and that no one gets everything he or she wants. President Bush, particularly with a hostile-controlled Senate, is limited in the size and scope of measures he can enact. However, signing the CFR was a breach of his oath of office. The constitutionality of legislation, naturally, is the exclusive purview of the Supreme Court. Particularly in view of the last half century or more, if we cannot expect the Supreme Court to adhere to a strict interpretation of the Constitution, how are we to expect our national executives and legislatures to do so?
Signing CFR was a bad move. I fail to understand the constant move of Republican leadership towards the left. Ostensibly, this is for political gains (which are never realized). From a practical standpoint, these manuevers only succeed in alienating the conservative base which is the foundation of Republican electoral success. Anyone remember the left-moving "conservatives" who lost the '98 election because their supporters stayed home? (A' la Alfonse D'Amato?)
Moving towards the center neither secures votes from liberals nor secures votes from moderates and it only succeeds in angering conservatives, from which our President owes all his electoral victories.
Perhaps it is Bush's inexperience in Washington these past seven years, or maybe it's his wealth of experience in Texas politics that makes him expect the tariff issue, CFR, increased education bureaucracy, etc. to win popular support from the enemy camp.
Who knows? All I know is that it doesn't work.
If conservatives in the Republican Party hope to court women, hispanics, blacks, Jews, blue collar workers, etc. then they must do it by adhering to their own - conservative - beliefs. How can we expect people to distinguish between conservatives and those we claim to oppose when we endorse their policies. EVEN if it's for the sake of political expendiency.
In the long run, these poorly contrived tactics and political power games fail the President as well as his supporters.
After the President's initial success with the tax cut, we really haven't seen any major conservative initiatives signed into law by the President, have we? And those tax cuts are (a) smaller than most conservatives wanted, (b) smaller than the President asked for, (c) back-loaded so they will only take effect towards the end of the decade, and (d) time-limited so that after 2011, the tax code returns to its pre-2001 form.
Could it be that Bush is only a "great" president when we compare him to his predecessor? Could it be that Bush is only a "conservative" when we compare him to his father? Or are they more alike than they realize?
Bush signing CFR really makes me wonder. You can't argue that this was smart politically because the smart thing to do, if you want to remove the issue, is to tackle Campaign Finance (and through in Electoral) Reform from a conservative point of view. Why not come up with a counter-proposal? One that protects our rights to participate in the political process, to be heard - both vocally and through our wallets? Why not initiate legislation designed to bring the kinds of conservative reforms campaign finance needs? That would remove the issue from the Democrats and McCain (who isn't nearly the threat to the President's 2004 run that some of you apparently feel he is.) No...Bush didn't even try to derail the legislation, as is often done, by adding things to it that would make it too unreasonable, as a whole, to pass. Congress does that all the time to kill a bill that otherwise would go through.
Don't get me wrong...I support our President - as our President. But I don't blindly endorse him, nor do I bite my tongue when I feel he needs to be reprimanded, held back and reminded who got him elected and what he's there to do.
The further into the Bush administration we get, the more I begin to wonder. Is "Dubya" a true conservative who moves left to court votes? Or is he something worse and he only moves towards conservatives when he thinks he needs our support?
To: sheltonmac
This past week Jim Robinson made a virtual reply in response to one of my replies on a thread. I could be wrong, but I suspect that no one but me could actually see his reply to my comment. At any rate, I sent him the following email to which he has not yet replied:
To: B. A. Conservative
To: Orion
Robinson's Maxim: If you vote for anyone other than a Republican you are supporting a Democrat.
Good luck.
106 posted on 3/19/02 2:53 AM Eastern by Jim Robinson [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
22 posted on 3/25/02 11:49 AM Pacific by Howlin [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
I am a sixty year old retired physician that first voted in 1960 for Nixon. The erosion of our Constitution began in earnest in 1913 with the creation of the Federal Reserve. Since that time we (conservatives who believe in the Constitution and the rule of law) have lost big-time when the Democrats have won. If you look closely at our history, you will see that with the exception of the Reagan years and 1994, we have lost when Republicans have won, but at a slower pace. The benefits of 1994 were erased in 1996 by the subsequent failure of Impeachment in the Senate. You as much as any other person on the planet through your founding of FreeRepublic deserve the credit for the House finding enough backbone to do the right thing on the Impeachment vote. Thank You.
All that is now ancient history. Ask yourself which way the country is moving now. Under Bush, has the country moved back toward restoring the Constitution or have we lost additional Constitutional rights and are we enacting the Democrats agenda rather than our own? If you honestly think Bush and the Republicans are leading us toward the conservative agenda or more likely simply trying to slow the speed of the lurch to the left, then my arguments are going to fall on deaf ears. On the other hand if you want FreeRepublic to once again lead the fight for restoration of the Constitution and would like to see the United States saved, then prompt and significant action is needed.
The unfunded and unfundable liabilities of Social Security and Medicare will exceed the realm of the possible before the president elected in 2012 finishes his term. The sacrifices needed to even make some dent in the problem contain the seeds of revolution between young and old. The Democrats have poisoned the well and the United States is going to pay the price. The problems of Social Security can be solved and relatively painlessly if we act quickly under the Cato plan and do so by 2008. Medicare cannot be fixed. But it is by far more politically sensitive and no one will allow anyone to tackle Medicare without first haveing demonstrated their ability to fix SS.
It is my personal opinion that things have progressed to the point that only significant political shocks that cannot be ignored are going to have any effect on politicians who want nothing to do with facing these responsibilities and their accompanying repercussions. Like the ostraches they are, they would rather hide their heads in the sand hoping no one will recognize them or their roles and that the blame will fall elsewhere. For the near term assigning blame will not stick with a populace that functions at the sixth grade level. If you have read any of my stuff, you can see where I think this is headed. I don't for a minute profess to have the answers or solutions. For one thing I don't have any political base at all and no one is interested in hearing what I have to say. But I do think I have a pretty good read on where we are and what is likely to result from the interplay that is likely to unfold from this point forward. I don't think there are very many Americans that are going to like the end of this story. And the end of the story is much closer at hand than almost any Americans can imagine. Most haven't even considered the possibility that the story could have an end after the cold war ended. And there are only a handful of Americans that are even talking about the fact that our downfall is coming from within and that it could be soon. Sobran and Walter Williams are the only voices that people recognize that are talking about the "S" word for secession. And to a large measure they aren't talking about why except for personal freedom. I don't think they are considering that the US is as fragile as it actually is or how bad the demographics of SS and Medicare actually are. My prediction is that there will not be a presdential elecion in the year 2016, because the US as we know it will no longer exist. And if the truth were known, as much my patriotism and love of country has struggled against it, I don't think it will be a bad thing. And I suspect that in a few years, I will be actively working to bring exactly that result about. I doubt and don't think the US can be saved.
So far my efforts at posting on this site convince me that there is little hope. Certainly the Democrats are going to fight Constitutional restoration with every fibre in their souls. The fiascoes of the aftermath of the 1996 and subsequent elections would seem to indicate the Republicans don't really want it fixed if they might face the possibility of losing their own personal seats in Congress. Just like the drug addict or the alcoholic, sometimes you have to hit bottom to have enough self introspection to realize that you are going to have to change or simply die. In my opinion, we are at that point for the Republican Party and in turn the United States itself.
It took one hundred years to free the slaves in the South. It took another hundred years to turn us back into serfs. I don't intend to wait another hundred years to see if we can recover what we have lost. I hope you will think about this very carefully. There is a lot at stake. Reagan was right about the United States being the last best hope of freedom for the rest of the world. FreeRepublic may be the last best hope for freedom in the United States. So far we are at best holding our own. More likely, we are still losing and more seriously than we dare to imagine. Winning elections is meaningless if you enact your opponents agenda rather than your own. If the Republicans sweep the elections this fall, is Bush going to come back and repeal CFR? The steel and lumbar tariffs? Am I going to be able to get on a plane with my sidearm? Is he going to kick the illegal Arabs out of the country then? Is that when Ashcroft is going to do a real investigation of Waco and OKC? Are we going to see the Clintons charged next Feb? Will the Flat or Fair Tax be enacted in 2003? And is SS going to privatized under the CATO plan without debate or a political campaign? I think I can read his lips, and they aren't playing my music.
There is no part of life that is not governed by time. No one knows exactly how many grains of sand are in their hour glass. But once the sand starts to drain, time is running out. You don't need very much vision to see that there is not that much sand left in our glass. The status quo is not going to allow us to turn the glass upside down and start our time over. It is going to take action, and probably inspired action. Freepers are going in a dozen different directions with thousands of individual agendas. Some how, in some way I think we need to look for a way to focus the efforts on some key thinking and principles. The right out come of this fall's elections is one. And it must be for the right reasons with the right agenda. The Contract with America worked because it was a positive program. The Republcians completely abandoned the technique after Dole killed the balanced budget amendment and the rest let Term Limits fail with many Republicans abandoning it. Now they have moved away from responsible leadership, moved away from tax simplification and away from tax reduction. I don't think we can count on them doing the right thing unless they get clubbed over the head with reality. Reality would return quickly, if they lose the House and the Senate in 2002. Bush will get the message as well. And we will test his mettle and leadership with a Democratically controlled Congress. If he stands up to the test, he should be willing to lead the fight to restore conservative control to Congress in 2004. If he doesn't stand up to it, we will have answered the question to our own satisfaction. From 2004, we will still have until 2012 to privatize SS and to begin looking at options of how to address Medicare. With the right government in place, our people can do almost anything. With the heel of government standing on their brows, most are struggling to get from one day to the next. This is a time for leadership. You have launched a potentially powerful ship. And so far you have been a reasonable captain. Now I am suggesting that you consider a Navy. Some of us would like ships of our own and would like to be involved in strategic planning. There is a tremendous amount of talent and thought on FreeRepublic. Most don't have the time to devote that it deserves. But in some fashion, and in some way, I feel in my heart that our best chance to save the United States, if it is still possible probably lies here. Frankly, I don't know where else to turn.
To: sheltonmac
I'll respond to this great post of yours someday, but first I have to go dig up a few (3-5) less-than-unassailable quotes from random unnamed people to criticize and pick apart.
From there I shall proceed to extrapolate these 3-5 selected quotes so as to impugn the intelligence and sincerity and tolerance of all other people who participate, however tangentially, in the same internet forum as those unnamed 3-5 people whose quotes I selected for criticism and decided to employ as representative of the entire forum. As well, I will use those 3-5 quotes to prove that the people who run the forum from which the quotes were extracted have departed from its stated mission (by, uh, allowing the quotes to be posted. Or something. I'm not too clear about this part but I'm sure I'll figure out how it all fits together... just as soon as I find some great quotes to pick on!).
That, I think, should prove to be an appropriate response to your little article.
To: sheltonmac
Your missive is based on a lie: "we must support the president at all costs crowd" Which, of course, no one on FR has ever said.
To: sheltonmac
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-86 next last
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson