Free Republic

Good to see a REAL conservative in DefSec, even better that he places American interests above Israeli interests. I think only the sheeple will be displeased with this pick.

Call me a RINO if you like, but he was the only GOP candidate out there that made me seriously want to vote for him. I voted Republican in every presidential election since I could vote (even Dole in 96!), but I don’t see it happening this year. If Hillary’s the Dem nominee, maybe. He’d have brought in new voters to the GOP, but, considering how he was treated, those new voters did not seem welcome in today’s GOP.

He was basically running on the very same foreign policy W ran on in 2000, not being the policemen of the world, etc. That’s how crazy things have become, now he’s seen as a ‘loon’ for basically having the same foreign policy positions Bush did in 2000.

And he seems to understand the root of the economic problems coming down the pike, both because of an unsustainable foreign policy and profligate spending. The other GOP contenders barely talked about the economy at all, and none, not even Romney, to his level of depth.

Libertarians might certainly prefer legalizing all of the illegal drugs (or are there some they would still outlaw?), but I would think attempting to use the power of persuasion to appeal to people in making their own choices fits into libertarian thinking.

As a libertarian kind of guy, I think you can do both. If I had my way, I'd keep the products like crack, heroin, meth, and probably pcp as well, keep them all illegal, treating it kind like we do moonshine today. Legalize the base products (coca and opium, et al), which would allow companies to make products that would be both safer and probably cheaper than they could find with dealers. Demand would naturally crash for the illicit substances, and since the work would still be illegal, there'd be a lot fewer people accepting the new risk/reward conundrum.

I think these PSA's are a fine idea, but usually more ineffective than we want to believe. Basically it's telling kids, who are naturals at rebelling against authority, that the authorities don't want them trying these substances under any circumstances. In other words, a recipe for disaster. Remember the laughably bad "marijuana smokers are funding terrorists" campaign after 9/11?

Those people are missing some points though... his prison term had nothing to do with anyone else, only him lying before a grand jury. The very same crime that got Bill Clinton impeached and disbarred. Like Clinton’s case, there was no underlying crime here. But lying to a federal grand jury is still a crime, underlying crime or no.

And no matter the circumstances, it’s still disingenous to rail against an immigration bill by calling it amnesty when it isn’t, than supporting amnesty for one of your own when it clearly is. It’s off topic, no doubt, but that’s cronyism.

I don’t have a problem with the clemency in itself, even though there are a lot of people in the federal prison system much more deserving, but without Libby’s money, legal team, prestige, or connections. Maybe that’s what really bothers me about all this. President Bush has run as tough on crime going back to his governor days, but with this pardon and his signing statements declaring himself above certain laws, he clearly does not hold himself or his friends feet to the same fire he holds the rest of the country’s to...

Bush’s commutation was pure and simple amnesty for a convicted felon and perjurer. Not that the commutation was wrong, but it is what it is, and it is amnesty. It is ironic that so many people who supposedly hate amnesty for millions suddenly support it for one person.

They have no power to subpoena the President. Let them impeach him if they disagree.

But they're not subpoenaing him, are they? I thought they're just subpoenaing documents.

While technically this administration may have a legal point, in reality I can't imagine any administration being so uncooperative unless they are 1) trying to run out the clock on their time in office, 2) hiding something big enough to justify the political damage or 3) just don't care in the least about the future consequences for their party. At best they seem tone-deaf politically. Reagan was never this uncooperative with his Congress, despite it being in the Dems hands his entire administration (minus his first 2 years with the Senate).

If it keeps quacking, eventually we have to admit it's a duck. These guys consistently act like they have something to hide.

I didn’t write the verse, you’re gonna need to bring that up with the guy who did. ;-)

Maybe that logic, a linchpin in the reasoning behind this whole ‘illegal’ brouhaha, would be better explained to the five year old who won’t eat because his mother was shipped off to Honduras for committing the dastardly crime of working. (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/01/us/01deport.html)

And when they’re done explaining it to him, maybe they can explain it to me. They can explain to me how we’re pro-family by breaking up theirs. They can explain how we’re pro-God by ignoring his word.

“The alien living with you must be treated as one of your native-born. Love him as yourself, for you were aliens in Egypt. I am the LORD your God.”

Leviticus 19:34

That's what the Supreme Court is there for, to determine what's legal. I fear the day we look to the government to arbitrate what is moral. Replace "Bong hits" with "High school students" and ask if you still support what the principal did. Both banners would be equally abhorrent to todays school orthodoxy, the second one perhaps even more so.

Yes, her accusations clearly seemed questionable, and hopefully these accused will learn a lesson about the dangers of unrestrained drunken partying. But the attention this case got was ludicrous, especially from the talking heads. There are so many other cases of police/prosecutorial overzealousness that deserve more attention, people that are either dead, going to die, or serving ludicrously long sentences. Cory Maye, Richard Paey, Weldon Angelos, Sal Culosi, Kathryn Johnston. Why these cases are mostly ignored, and this one makes headlines everywhere, I guess I just don't understand.

There are also many rumors in the Chinese Jilin province, which borders North Korea, about what goes on there. Starvation, cannibalism, etc. Rumors are just that of course, but it does show the lack of information available and the depth of poverty in North Korea.

Ignoring for the moment the nuclear dangers, the debate of whether we should endanger the lives of American soldiers in a war to support strictly humanitarian causes is an important debate without an easy answer.

How much help would reversing the executive order banning assassinations be? Would simply cutting off the head of this monster be enough to neutralize the threat?

A technological solution seems to hold the most promise. Establish a network that works like Freenet(anonymized traffic), or use programs that encrypt network traffic. That's not a cure-all, because China can simply respond by dropping any traffic it can't understand. Maybe they already do. They can go from a block-out system to an allow-in. But it's a start.

The techniques being developed in today's P2P networks (decentralization, anonymity) do hold a lot of promise for ensuring information remains free. That is, of course, unless the Supreme Court puts a stop to that in the next week or two (RIAA vs Grokster)...

So you figure we should keep the illegals, the ones that are here and the new ones as they sneak across...Cause it's just not right to ask to see some ID...

i say the ones that are here can stay if they prove they're working. kick the ones out who get arrested. keep the good, return the bad. what's so hard about that? maybe we won't have the police state everyone here is clamoring for, but i've yet to hear a solid proposal for kicking out 11 million people. only vague notions that it 'can be done'

When an illegal trys to make any kind of transaction; driver's license, savings account, getting electricity turned on, rent or lease a house, etc, etc., the person requesting the SS number calls the INS if the numbers don't match...Pretty easy...

you mean when ANYONE tries to make any kind of transaction. that includes you and me. what, do you think they'll just implement this for people with brown skin and dark hair? sorry, but I'm not willing to accept having my every movement tracked. this proposal is the very definition of a slippery slope.

So one again can safely assume you know Bayourod is the poster boy for the illegal alien invasion...

don't know anybody on here, and I'll let them classify themselves. me, I feel the way I do because I'm not as eager as everyone else to give up any liberties, no matter how small, at the drop of a hat until I'm truly convinced there is no other way. I'm starting to believe that there are plenty of people on the left AND right who will give up liberty for security (see Ben Franklin). once you give up your right to not have your every movement tracked with an SSN, you're not going to get it back anytime soon. that's reality, which is what I'm worried about. not a fantasy of kicking out 11 million people which will never happen.

So you propose that we don't try? Sounds like what a liberal pervert would say. I propose the death penalty for pedophiles.

i still don't hear a proposal for deporting 11 million people. honestly, if that is the proposal, it has to get off the ground. you need a way to logistically move out 11 million people who aren't going to volunteer to leave. if you can't even propose a way to do that, it's time to stop simply complaining, acknowledge reality, and work on a real solution. GWB understands that.

They ban liars and idiot.

doesn't appear that way. speaking of grammar, i assume you mean idiots.

of course not, but we'd have a helluva time arresting all of them, wouldn't we? especially since we have only TWO million in our prisons and they're already overcrowded. so just what do you propose?

i don't live in a border town or state, admittedly. but doesn't a local problem beg a local solution, instead of running to washington dc to ask them to 'fix' things for us? the minutemen are a great example of what WE can do, without depending on government. i DO live in what is called the 'little mexico' part of my city. none of the people I've had trouble with have been mexican.

banned? never, new to freerepublic commenting. is banning what they do here to people who don't follow a certain line?

so a cheap labor agenda is selfish, while an 'america for americans only' one is not?

maybe 'kicking em all out' will make people feel better, but has anyone actually worked out the logistics of kicking out 11 million people? or the logistics of getting the work done that they are presently doing now? or of making up the economic loss any economy suffers when 11 million people disappear? grocery stores, restaurants, apartments, everyone loses customers. work at the bottom rung of the economic ladder goes undone because our economy was bustling and unemployment is low. but that'll just be a temporary problem. those bottom rung jobs will find workers when the middle rung jobs start disappearing.

but hey, they're here illegally and they should be kicked out. and kicking them out WILL make us feel better, after all.

i'm not saying amnesty for all (even IF Reagan did it in 86), but there CAN be a middle ground. how about kicking out the criminals and keeping the hard working families? or is that too crazy?

woops, I meant thanks to bayourod! can you tell it's my first reply?

thanks Shellshocked! I agree completely and for the same reasons. I've been wondering if I'm the only conservative out there who felt this way. this anti-immigrant fervor has a lot of anger attached to it, and when people get angry, they're more willing to accept dumb laws that infringe on everyones freedoms ...