Huh the fact that a demo controlled Congress(1993) passed a law that forbade a President from witholding funding and that a demo President signed it is an arguement of fact.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but it is.
Oh that's right your bubble is never burst over at LF(Lunatic Fringe). I can understand your outrage over the little peons at FR who dare to challenge you.
Assuming they still exist, I've no doubt I can pull up threads where I'm yet defending many GOP ... including Bush and his Dad. In fact, I'd planned on voting for Bush (knowing as I did that Keyes didn't have a shot). That changed during the Potemkin pro-life legislation that was SB-30 and upon Bush's changing his tune on global warming upon "briefings by my advisors". (As of June 5, he made the critical admission -- where the Deep Ecology folks are concerned -- that humans are responsible for global warming. Talk about your "marxist propaganda". Very sad and truly alarming.)
In any case, let's not forget that it was a Republic Congress who confirmed Roe v. Wade (on a date "McKeating" was suitably absent). They've gone out of their way more than once to telegraph their true stand on human life. If you wish to stick your head in the sand and pretend that it's all Bill Clinton's or some idiot Dems' fault, that's your business.
I can't help but note that the Dems probably have the edge primarily to the fact that -- when they state they've got a "personal conviction" on a subject as critical as abortion or the Environment or some other artificial reality or Hate Crime -- they ALWAYS vote in accordance with same. As opposed to our guys who manage always to find some way to compromise the Objective Truth and give in to what they'd like you to believe are "political realities".
When it doesn't make me cry, it does make me laugh at how simple they know we are. No worries in declassifying documents such as NSSM-200, NSDM-314 (both of which put teeth in Kissinger's work on Carter's Global 2000). As Brzerzinki has noted, we "don't read" anyway.
____________________
If you've got some beef where LF is concerned, start a thread or post to the one Jim's put up already. I fail to see what your opinion of my posting at LF has to do with the question of fetal tissue as federally-funded research commodity.
You don't do Jim or this site any favors with wild-eyed statements that give the impression it wigs you to think that some who post here are somehow obligated to post only here or on Approved sites. I realize it's the fashion to paint LF as some sort of AF site simply because there is no censorship and there are a handful of wingnuts over there having trouble letting go the nipple over here or posting on something other than Israel (regardless the fact Israel is indeed at the epicenter of world affairs).
I think that shows a real lack of discerning, if not a preordained desire to "make it so", by concentrating solely on the disruptors and ignoring entirely the body of articles posted and discussion ensuing. Some good stuff over there, Dane, just as here.
Many of us who've been around here four years or more became faithful to this site as a place to get detailed research (from all manner of sources), unexpurgated opinion and the spectrum of sources as to factual detail about US policy, foreign affairs and assorted moral, historical and philosophical and even theological questions. I can attest that it's also been a lot of fun to realize I could participate in many events ... flying to DC or elsewhere to FReep or support the House Managers or attend FR's early rallies.
But popularity exacts a price. This place has been targeted for censorship by major media players (whose control of the media is only expanding, per the excerpt rule in force on this Chicago article and the deletion of Boston articles). Even more upsetting in a way, management must take steps to shield the ignorant from "marxist propaganda" lest its own reputation be impugned in the process. Given those realities and restrictions, it's only natural some will gravitate to a site that reminds us of the old FR.
It's a compliment to this place, Dane, that others are interested in emulating what they loved here at places like LF. Surely the world has room for more than one forum for intelligent discussion ... regardless the inevitable "moose and cheese" or the occasional food fight in the cafeteria.
Don't let the existence of LF grate on you so. Most of the folks over there, like me, are SICK TO THE DEATH of the bitching about FR ... particularly where it smacks of AF-style invective and hate (much less Obsession).
But, not only is it a free country where folks are entitled to speak their minds (however simple or foul) ... the site is specifically dedicated to little or no censorship and must roll with the punches and rely on self-policing. I admire that, actually, and look forward to watching how things take shape over there as a result.
And when LF gets too popular ... I'll probably see if I can't find another nook in which to hang out under the radar. Nothing would make me happier than looking back to see a string of highly successful places of which I'll always be fond for having learned from and met so many fine folks whose love of liberty inspired me not only to educate myself but do more than just talk about it.
I don't like to harp on the disagreements but rather -- taking a "never know what's working for you" approach -- am thankful for the way FR's ended up inspiring many to launch their own sites and attract new folks whose cup of tea may be LF or Liberty Post as opposed to FR but whose essential thirst remains the same for all.
Please share the link to LF. I think I might like it there.
TIA
Huh the fact that a demo controlled Congress(1993) passed a law that forbade a President from witholding funding and that a demo President signed it is an arguement of fact.
Please, enlighten us all as to what Constitutional authority the President has to fund anything at all, funding is a Congressional responsibility, not an Executive responsibility. The President can veto any funding bill which might have anything he objects too in it. Secondly, Congress passes laws all the time which are in effect Unconstitutional, President Bush could challenge that law in the USSC, but then again he might have to actually take a stance on a henious activity.
It is you who apparently needs to deal with facts, however to do that, you have to be able to recognize one.
Keep pointing the finger.
---max