Free Republic

"Once again, the government tries to tighten its grip, resulting in unexpected consequences. IMHO, this will lead to more activism, not less."

My experience with activism is that very very few people will actually get involved. Our politicians know this. A few activist groups pale in comparison to the millions of magazines and newsletters mailed by organizations at election time.

Groups can try to jump through a zillions hoops, but they will fear the government lawsuits that will be thrown at them. Whose got the $$$ to fight a sustained battle even if they win? The laws are complicated and are meant to be.

There is NO silver lining. We lost freedom, and there wasn't a stir. Where was the activism when CFR passed? I heard alot of excuse making instead.

"GWB like everyone else "knew" the Supreme Court would strike this down "

How do you know that GW "knew" this? This is an assumption. I am part of the 'everyone else' - and I had NO confidence they would strike it down. Has GW apologized? Has he said that he was wrong and is sorry that it passed? I haven't heard him say anything that gives me the impression that he was anything other than in favor of it. There was no need for him to sign this. He praised the bill when he signed it, and if he is a man of truth shouldn't we have to take him at his word?

Did you forget about the "no chld left behind education bill?" - biggest education spending bill ever. (Hey, it wasn't Bill Clinton who pushed for it and signed it). Everything is fixed now. We are seeing great improvements - aren't we???

I've come to the conclusion that these guys aren't spineless - they just don't believe in their own rhetoric. They don't really care about the issues. They talk the talk so they can get elected. It's phoney and yet we get suckered time and time again by them.

"Are you implying your particular situation is Bush's fault? I don't think so."

My particular situation is not unique. Most of the people that I talk to cite very similar situations where they work.

As far as it being bush's fault - I blame ALL of them for spending us into bankruptcy. Bush is no exception. There is no real plan to cut spending and lower our tax obligations. You get a tax cut one day (I didn't qualify) and then the next day you are hit with the obligation of paying for free perscriptions for millions of people. There is no consistancy. Where is the money supposed to come from? The republicans and dems passed this. Bush applauded it.

When I see responsibility and sense coming out of DC then I will have optimism.

Last year my company laid off 20 percent of the workforce second layoff in a 100 year history. I am now on a four week "vacation" - forced furlough. It may go longer.

My husband got the news that there will be no bonus or raise - second time in 25 years. The first was in the first year of business. They also have downsized considerably over the last two years.

I really believe that the chickens are coming home to roost due to careless government fiscal policies such as massive indebtedness, socialistic intitlements and foolish trade policies. I don't see a reason why the economy will substantially improve. Do you? If so - what?? Tax cuts with increased spending?? I dont think so.

I think that there are a lot of people on here who are so worried that the economy will hurt the election of GW that they will not face the reality of what is happening to our once strong country.

Give me a reason for optimism.

The Kremlin highlighted its support by signing a £26 billion economic co-operation package with Baghdad last month.

Doesn't that make them a supporter of terrorism and an enemy of the US? We turn a blind eye to this? They did this at the same time that we were trying to convince our allies to back us in a war? I for one do not trust the Russians one bit.

Consider yourself not alone, as I am a conservative who doesn't support this.

Same here.

Sometimes at lunch I take a peek at the posts. I was amazed at some of the comments. People gleefully saying that going into Iraq is retaliation for what they did on 9-11. My first thought was - the hijackers were not Iraqis but Saudis (financed with Saudi money), as some have said here. But nobody finds it strange that we do not hold the Saudi's accountable at all?

I started thinking about the pending war and came to some of the same conclusions that Ron Paul did. But it depressed me because we can't have an open discussion about this as American people. I'm hearing a lot of what sounds to me like lynch mob mentality.

The war with Iraq is to accomplish what was left undone in the gulf war. Period. 9-11 is being used to do this.

For all of those who are indignant that the UN resolutions were ignored - better think carefully about that. One of these days the UN is going to pass resolutions against your right to own a firearm. Will you willingly give up this right? Will you then affirm their right to bomb the US if we don't comply?

At this point, it is hardly arguable that it's a matter of when, not if, Hussein has the capability of delivering nuclear disaster upon us. It's a chance not worth taking, IMO.

- what about using this logic with Communist China? Isn't Russia signing a multi billion economic pact with Iraq? Doesn't that make them our enemy now too? Both China and Russia have weapons of mass destruction. China has threatened us in the past. But in their case we help make them "rich." We ask for their "help" in this war. Doesn't anybody find this ludicrous? Does anything we do make sense anymore?

I fear China far more than I fear Iraq.

The party that says YOUR money is NOT YOUR MONEY vs the party that say YOU know best how to spend YOUR money.

Tax cuts HAVE to be combined with spending cuts not spending increases. Huge Farm Bills, education bills, and mega perscription bills have to be paid for by US. To charge more to the national debt instead of billing you directly is merely hiding the damage so you don't notice it. This will not bring lasting prosperity.

The website I am posting opened my eyes. Don't listen to "politicians words" but look at the whole picture and see what they are doing. They buy votes with our money - both parties are doing this. I voted for GW because I thought he was for limited government. I am a taxpayer who is angry at the debt that is swallowing this country up.

http://mwhodges.home.att.net/

Thanx for the laugh.

As if CFR had anything to do with the budget, or the education and farm bills had anything to do with the war.

I'm glad somebody remembers. Now that the critical November elections (for house and senate) are coming up the administration is talking about controlling spending and limited government. That's a joke, nothing more than rhetoric. It is geared to all those who don't pay attention or those who close their eyes and desperately want to believe it's true. It simply isn't. This administration has had no trouble spending billions on domestics in addition to the war. (They also want a very expensive perscription bill). In a time of war and recession - domestic spending should have been reduced across the board. I saw NO attempt by anybody to do this.

I hate to say this, but in some ways the dems are more honest. They want to spend taxpayer money, and they say so. Our side pretends to be what they aren't. This has become very clear to me over these past two years.

American Airlines lays off 7,000 - gee I wonder why people don't want to fly?

But I thought "Federalizing" airport security was going to fix everything - hmmmm.

But times have truly changed. I've spoken with so many of our friends about this.. NONE OF us can remember ONE Child being kidnapped in any of our home towns growing up. Not any of us.

Have any of you had it happen in your home towns now?

`(b) As used in this section, the term `born alive' , with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.

A partial birth abortion is a complete expulsion of a dead infant. They kill it before it is completely born. Obviously the purpose of partial birth abortion was to produce a dead baby - why? Could it be killing after birth was already a crime? This will do NOTHING to stop partial birth abortions since they define a baby as a "live birth." Partial birth produces dead babies.

I really don't see what huge gain was made here, except that an abortionist will be more careful to kill it prior to birth. They've actually now defined that life begins after birth. This is good??? What am I missing here?

`(a) In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words `person', `human being', `child', and `individual', shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.

It is hard for me to believe that many Americans would be in favor of smothering a baby who survived an abortion. It is my guess that few know that this is even going on. I doubt the politicians figure they'll get much critisism for passing this one.

How many children are killed by human predators versus killed in automobile accidents? Where is the real danger? Maybe we need to put this in perspective.

There have always been murderers - this is nothing new. Most people do not get murdered. Take sensible precautions.

This is still not a substitute for the bill against partial birth abortion. If you read the language - the baby has to be alive when completely expelled. It seems to me that partial birth abortion, which kills the infant before it is born, is performed to keep from getting into the dilemna of what to do with a live birth. I don't think sufficating babies has ever been really legal.

My concern is that this bill will make partial birth abortions even more necessary to the abortionist.

It seems to me that this was an easy one to pass - and evidenced by support by both parties. The next step is going to be the tough one - but it was promised. Don't accept this as a substitute - it isn't.

How do you know that? Am interested to know more.

The women were also fined and their children's identification cards were confiscated as punishment for violating China's family planning regulations.

Did anybody else pick up on this? Government issued id's turn into something that is used to control you. The children probably have no future without them.

I told my husband about this article and his first question was - "what is this going to cost?" Is anybody asking? Building cities? His next comment was interesting - don't we have abandoned military bases that could be used? They are already equipped with housing etc.

But that is too practical, might mean we don't have to charge another trillion to the taxpayer credit card.