Posted on 03/20/2002 4:33:41 PM PST by erk
"Thanks Exodus ... I'd love to track down that quote.."
# 517 by Askel5
****************************
I don't have a link, Askel5, sorry.
I was watching Fox News and witnessed Lott's remark myself, though.
I promised I would not vote for him again if this passed.... Unless something happens to change my stance; I will hold to that promise.
I will not be silenced by the federal government. I hope I can get involved in that lawsuit being brought by ??Senator McConnell????? (I heard it on the news an am not sure which one it was). I will also be working with others (to form a group) to run a TV ad 1 MONTH before an election and mention a candidate (a couple of times). What are they going to do?
I "dropped" my cleaning rag, so sorry.
A pox on both their houses.
Gore could never have done as much damage to our governmental system.
We would have been watching too close, not trusting ANYTHING,
because of his association with Clinton.
We trusted Bush.
Well, most of us did.
Not as many now, thank God.
To: exodus
You make private enterprise sound like a gov't budget. As long as there is the prospect of a profit the the private dollars will be there. In fact the carrot of making federal dollars available gives the federal gov't a say in how laboratories do the research.
Option A (your option) is no federal involvement and the result is unrestrained research. Option B, (Bush's option) is federal involvement to the extent of already existing stem cells and the result is restrained research.
Even Jesus taught us to be wise in the ways of the world. Bush is.
# 520 by VRWC_minion
****************************
Okay, replace the word "research" with what it allows, "killing."
The government, by virtue of federal funding of embryo killing,
now has the power to regulate the previously un-restrained killing of embryos.
Your revised quote...
"You make private enterprise sound like a gov't budget. As long as there is the prospect of a profit the the private dollars will be there. In fact the carrot of making federal dollars available gives the federal gov't a say in how laboratories do the killing.
Option A (your option) is no federal involvement and the result is unrestrained killing. Option B, (Bush's option) is federal involvement to the extent of already existing stem cells and the result is restrained killing."
"I too thought that as of yesterday but that isn't true.
He can choose to announce he won't enforce the parts he believes are not constitutional."
# 92 by VRWC_minion
****************************
I'm sorry, but what kind of defence is that?
Bush is going to sign an un-Constitutional law into effect,
and your evidence that he's not actually evil
is that you don't think he will enforce the law
that he has sworn to uphold?
Is oath is to the constitution and his obligation is to not enforce laws that are unconstitutional.
Yes, VRWC_minion.
However, it's not just enforcing already passed laws,
or actively refusing to enforce bad laws.
His oath also requires signing into law bills that are NOT un-Constitutional.
Every time he signs an un-Constitutional bill into law,
or fails to veto an un-Constitutional bill,
the President violates his oath.
I'm willing to listen.
How did federally funded embryonic research slow the rate of embryonic death?
Remember, private funds have not been curtailed.
The new restrictions are only on the federal funds.
The rules for private research are unchanged.
Do you have a different understanding?
A citizen's money is his, an extension of his power.
Money IS power. To restrict a man's right to speak is wrong,
INCLUDING restricting "hard money" contributions.
Put limits on corporations, fine. A corporation is not a citizen.
Put limits on union contributions. A union isn't a citizen, either.
But tell a man he can't put all HIS money, all his power, behind a cause he believes in?
No, ANY restriction on a man's political speech is tyranny.
Wrong-doing didn't effect Clinton's numbers, either.
It's still a violation of Bush's promises to his supporters,
a violation of his Presidential oath, and a violation of the Constitution.
Clinton is laughing, I'm sure.
Stupid sheep.
No, sinkspur, the bill IS un-Constitutional.
I don't have to wait on the Supreme Court to know that.
And, going beyond the Constitution,
the bill also violates our right to free speech.
I also am in favor of a line-item veto,
and I fully support a Constitutional Amendment to make it legal.
Engler beat Blanchard election day.
To: rwfromkansas
RW we're all angry bout this but watch your words...
U don't want the Fed Gestapo coming to question you.
# 96 by VAwireguy
****************************
You're joking, VAwireguy.
But under Clinton, it wasn't a joke.
Think on this...
With the power granted by the un-Constitutional War on Terror,
Bush has more power than Clinton did.
And even IF Bush was a good man,
the following Presidents will not all be good.
You're right, watch what you say.
Years from now, the record of what is said today will still be available.
Imagine Clinton and what he could do with the mandate Bush has.
To: VRWC_minion
I agree.
Bush seems to have a big picture perspective which I confess I don't often see.
Of course, the perspective from which he views things is rather unique..."
# 98 by erk
****************************
Okay, I just have to.
Can you two see how the epithet of "Bushie" came about??
At least David Koresh had to TELL his followers about his position.
Bush's followers just instinctively KNOW how special he is.
you are off your medication...
report immediately to the nearest Hospital!!!
There is no difference between the political parties, anymouse.
Democrats are socialists, and Republicans are socialists.
Socialists don't like free speech.
Free speech is counter-productive.
"As for myself I would much rather that the President take an "unpopular" stand,
based on Contitutional PRINCIPLES and not brush it off on someone else (SCOTUS)..."
# 101 by davidosborne
****************************
True, but this President isn't even taking a "popular" stand.
Nobody cares about Campaign Finance Reform, as John McCain found
when he made it the focus of his campaign.
Bush is supporting this tyrannical measure because he wants to limit our ability
to effectively fight the un-Constitutional actions of our government.
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.