Posted on 11/16/2004 7:24:17 AM PST by gopwinsin04
Tony says his sources are telling him this..
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Bears repeating.
I thank Ridge for his service.
Whomever is his replacement, be it Rudy or someone else, I am sure I will be content with the President's choice.
Army.
No..this is GRESAT strategery..get them all out at the same time..the MSM can't fixate..
EXcellent!
The good news just keeps piling up!
Bush is ridding his administration of the RINO's!
Dude, run. The black helicopters are coming...
"Probably"?
Rudy is "probably" too liberal?
How about "certifiably, absolutely, no question about it too d@mn liberal?"
And out of that list of Clinton's cabinet:
How many are dead?
OK, when the HELL is Norman Mineta going to get the ax?
He was Clinton's secretary of Commerce, for crissakes!
While a large number of Freepers are advocating just the opposite. And pining for a RINO Presidential candidate next time around. Go figure.
Abe was a moron.
So you think Abraham Lincoln was a moron? Please elaborate.
If you need the Feds to tell you what marriage means, you've got serious problems.
I have two words: Tom Tancredo
Sure you want to do this on this thread? It's off topic and there are lots of those kinds of threads around. I made my comment in response to someone else bringing it up.
I'd be happy to ping you to the next thread on the topic if you would like.
Yesterday, President Clinton outlined his proposals for more stringent, federal gun licensing requirements.
I applaud the President's proposals, and I will support them any way I can. I only hope that he is right, and that Congress is finally ready to recognize that the vast majority of Americans want more gun control.
Here in New York, we have seen more than a 50 percent decrease in shootings since 1993, but to complete the job we've started, we need the help of other states, and of the Federal Government to promulgate more rigorous gun purchasing requirements nation wide.
I know many people argue that keeping and bearing arms is federally guaranteed right as stated in the Second Amendment of the Constitution.
But even in the Second Amendment, it refers to firearms in the context of a well regulated militia, and well regulated is what we're trying to accomplish.
Sure you want to do this on this thread? It's off topic ...
You made the assertion on this thread, so I thought you might want to elaborate. Just curious. But no need to pursue it here.
As previously explained, it was a response.
Suffice it to say I think it's moronic to trade 600,000 lives (and unknowable progress and loss of property) for a nebulous claim.
I'll second that emotion.
It's hardly tin foilish to point out (R)udy's aversion to the 2nd Amendment.
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.