Posted on 06/04/2002 10:06:01 AM PDT by CoolGuyVic
What? The President didn't check with you to make sure that he says just what you want him to say? I am shocked. Surely that is all the reason we need to take to the ramparts. Good grief. You folks sure are easily peeved.
Bommer, why don't you explain to all of us what George W. Bush should do RIGHT NOW ... going forward ... to "make it happen." How can he get, say, a Capital Gains tax cut to ZERO, or any other conservative legislation you expect him to make happen? I'm all ears. I see a divided Congress. I see a Constitutional separation of powers. I see impasse. But, then, I'm a gloomy Gus.
Tell me your strategy. Bush would like to know, too. Any issue you choose, give us the formula.
I'm all ears also .. I keep asking this question but yet to get an answer
Tuor
Still at it, huh Bill? Which one do you want followed? The one that Jefferson saw or the one that Hamilton believed? Madison's or Monroe's? Jay's or Jackson's? Bill, you know that there are honest differences about what the law means. That's why we have courts. Likewise, there are honest differences about what the fundamental law--our Constitution--means. Every disagreement over it does not mean that the parties who disagree are trying to tear down the Republic. If that were so then the founding fathers could all have been said to advocate tossing out the Constitution and with it, the nation.
You're describing the qualities of the act, but not the act itself.
If this was a military act, then there would have to be a foreign military involved. We would (or should) then declare war on that military and obliterate it. Japan used their military to attack us. We declared war on Japan and attacked its military.
Some people don't want a declaration of war because that would limit our response. But, that is *exactly* why we need to do so. We need accountable action, not vieled threats and ghostly enemies.... That is, unless you want to make American so paranoid that they invite a police state upon themselves so that they can feel safe and protected.
There was a reason the founding fathers seperated the duty to conduct the war from the ability to declare and pay for it.
Tuor
Bah. We have to get rid of about 3,000 nukes to comply with our new treaty with Russia. It would be expeditious to expend them in the Middle East rather than disassemble them.
Kill them all and let God sort them out.
So9
The assignment was to find and post Bush's "flip-flop", not find and post portions of the report. Now think real hard and try to see where you went horribly wrong.
Hint: It would involve Bush quotes.
THE REPORT WAS MANDATED BY TREATY. BUSH COULDN'T HAVE STOPPED IT. ALL HE COULD DO WAS STALL IT, WHICH IS WHAT HE DID.
Do you understand now? Every five years a report must go out on Climate Change because it is mandated by treaty. Yes, it's a stupid treaty and a useless, pointless report to everyone except enemies of this president which, unfortunately, now includes Rush.
that is absurd. rush said today that he is a CONSERVATIVE, not a REPUBLICAN. he said he is ALWAYS going to remain loyal to his IDEAS and PRINCIPLES and not to PEOPLE--not to who is in office. rush also said that he cannot LIE about what he thinks.
how can you NOT respect that? if you think that makes rush an ENEMY of president bush's, then the president has a lot of enemies. again, that is absurd.
Is this factual?
Deb's statement enemies of this president which, unfortunately, now includes Rush is opinion. Likewise, your implying that because Rush says he is ALWAYS going to remain loyal to his IDEAS and PRINCIPLES and not to PEOPLE ... (and) that he cannot LIE about what he thinks makes him deserving of one's respect is also opinion both as to the sincerity of his statements and as to whether they merit respect. For if one doubt's the sincerity of Mr. Limbaugh, his statements no matter how noble sounding would not merit one's respect.
I would not disagree with that statement or the overall gist of your entire post. However, I can find many, many specific examples wherein the Constitution is being flat-out violated by government. You may not want to get me started on this one because there's one particular area where I could write volumes. Anyway, I don't think we need to go down that road right now.
I believe the earth is warming, as it has since the last Ice Age.
I do not believe anything man has done has contributed to it in any way.
I do not believe the theory of global warming is in any way consistent with conservatism.
I do not believe Bush believes it either. But he brilliantly muddied the water of the wackos by stating "green house gases" might/may be contributing to warming and requested that companies voluntarily explore ways to cut the gases.
I believe this is a way for him to dodge the nuclear bullet Bob Dole walked into when he said he didn't know if smoking was addictive.
As you must know by now Bush has renounced the EPA report (which was mandated by the Rio Earth Summit and created under the Clinton administration). It is not his report.
If you do not understand anything about the entrenched environmental wackos who people the EPA (and cannot be removed until their various contracts expire), I recommend you look into it. A good place to start would be the current edition of Insight magazine which has an excellent piece.
I believe Rush was wrong to site a hit piece in the NYT when he used to know it was a mouthpiece for the Democrat party, which spends every waking hour concocting schemes to damage the President as much as possible before November.
If you feel the Bush strategy is a sell-out...don't vote for him.
LIKE I SAID, IF YOU DON' LIKE IT...DON'T VOTE FOR THE MAN!!!!!
Now get away from me.
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.