Posted on 07/10/2002 11:27:06 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
This is an unofficial quick and dirty presidential poll. Apparently, there is a good sized contingent on Free Republic that believes that President Bush is:
Please list the numbers that best match the reasons you don't like Bush (or state other reasons if not on the list) and state whether you believe that President Bush should be defeated even if it means installing a Democrat in the Whitehouse.
Conversely, if you believe President Bush should be re-elected, please state why.
Please state who you would like to see win the Presidency in 2004 and whether or not you believe he/she has a chance of winning.
Thanks,
Jim
So what is your point?
Treason is a very specific legal term that is extremely difficult, rightly so, to bring against any person and the standard of evidence is so high that very few would be successfully prosecuted. That is why the charges and prosecutions of people for Treason is the most rare of all crimes. Just because charges are rare is not a sign that the government would shy away from it even now.
There are actions being taken right now in regard to border security. The Immigration reform bill was passed out of Congress with more money allocated to border patrol and in-country enforcement. The only thing not sent to the president was the 245i extension and so that is not in force anyway and Bush has not even mentioned it for months that I know of. That means that at least for now the “amnesty” issue is off the table. The Homeland Security Agency will also have a major role in border issues and security a greater emphasis on enforcement.
That is a very subjective term. What you may call “smaller government” can be quite different than how someone else defines it. There is an old axiom that people are willing to cut every government program but the one they are benefiting from. That holds as true for conservatives as it does for liberals. It is a rare person these days that benefit from some government program where it be social security, FHA home mortgages, Student loan programs, Home mortgage interest tax deductions, Earned income tax credits and an and on. While the term “small government” is an attractive term the devil is always in the details and whose ox is being gored.
Interesting item. The fact is that congress always passes “constitutional” laws. That may not be the case but in their minds the law is constitutional until it is challenged. The congress has the power constitutionally granted to it to pass legislation. The president has the power of veto that is true, However that veto power is rarely used on grounds that the bill is “unconstitutional” but on policy differences. In other words “politics”. There have been a few instances that presidents have vetoed on constitutional grounds but that veto only survives their term and the bill can be re-submitted to a future president more amiable to it. Like it or not, the USSC has become the venue for constitutional challenges to any legislation passed out of Congress. When the court rules a law unconstitutional it puts a certain finality to the question unless some future court takes the rare step of overturning itself.
Then offer said constitutional contract with America (CCA) to candidates and incumbents alike, to see how much actual support it gets.
Yes you could present such a document to the candidates and it goes without saying that they would voice their support for it. I am not sure how good it would do though.
Amazing.
That's the difference between the Left and the Right. The people who fight against our rights and our freedoms NEVER become whiney and pathetic because they worked hard and the outcome didn't go their way.
They NEVER require around the clock hand-holding and sympathy. They NEVER become discouraged.
And they NEVER trash other Democrats in print.
The people on the Right are the biggest bunch of cry-baby, fainting wimps that can be imagined. You need to change your name. You're no "Conservative". Reagan would spit you out of his mouth.
Click for source, but here is the post:
To: Windsong
A genuine conservative would know that having a degree from Harvard or Yale is more likely an indicator of someone groomed to be a socialist rather than being indicative of someone with credentials that imply ability or intelligence.
733 posted on 7/11/02 4:04 PM Eastern by B. A. Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 255 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
Ummmm....college....Keyes....help out a friend here, will you? Thanks!
Click for source, but here is the post:
To: Windsong
A genuine conservative would know that having a degree from Harvard or Yale is more likely an indicator of someone groomed to be a socialist rather than being indicative of someone with credentials that imply ability or intelligence.
733 posted on 7/11/02 4:04 PM Eastern by B. A. Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 255 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
Ummmm....college....Keyes....help out a friend here, will you? Thanks!
They missed it by that much
I'll post something later to clarify my ideas, and we'll see where it goes from there.
Harvard and Yale are both excellent schools and although they may employ some real liberal professors, that does not mean that their students have to agree with everything they say.
George W. attended Yale and I do not believe him to be a socialist, but a moderate conservative.
Education should always be what the individual chooses to make of it, not vice-versa.
Sounds like sound advice given you have no clue about the subject.
You start with a false premise; therefore, there is no need to respond.
Then wipe your eyes.
I think he has been terrific on foreign policy - particularly the war on terrorism and his handling of obnoxious treaties. On the home front he has disappointed me again and again. I think that this may be a reflection of his cabinet and other appointees. Rumsfeld is outstanding - IMO the best Defense Secretary in my lifetime. Powell is doing what he is supposed to as Secretary of State. His job is to negotiate and, while I disagree with him on may things, I think he has done a pretty good job at what he was hired to do. On the homefront, to me they all seem like lightweights. Mineta, a Clinton holdout is awful, Whitman is even more disappointing at EPA than she was as Governor of NJ, Ridge is simply an embarrasment, and I don't have much confidence in O'Neil at Treasury. The rest have been largely under the radar screen.
One would think that with his approval ratings he would take to the bully pulpit to get some of his domestic issues through but so far all he has done is do the Democrats' bidding.
I think he is a decent, honest person and that is a huge improvement over Clinton, but his "go along to get along" attitude needs some adjustment. Well, he is what we have so we have to make the best of it - certainly a lot better than having Gore in office.
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.