Free Republic

In a sense, Newt is right. This war has consisted of refusing to conduct profiling, fearing the display of cartoons, no listening in on the enemy's phone calls, hand wringing over treatment at Gitmo, and even denying who the enemy is.

I do disagree with him on this:
A more effective approach, said Gingrich, would begin with a national energy strategy aimed at weaning the country from its reliance on imported oil and some of the regimes that petro-dollars support.

The terrorist attacks were done with very little money. So while it would be a good thing to get ourselves off of imported oil, it would not be an effective way to stop terrorism.

"The discretion of the judge is the first engine of tyranny." -- Edward Gibbon

I really wish somebody would stand up to these judges and tell them, "NO! Take your ruling and shove it."

why not - they are law breakers, aren’t they?

Because if they wanted to join MS-13 all along, they'd have already done that long before they ever got to the US.

I was talking about the illegals who are here for the money and the benefits.

Most illegals are not MS-13, and those that are should be dealt with like any other criminals.

Build a wall and deport 'em all!

Better yet, turn off the magnets that draw them here.

If they had no access to jobs, money or social services, then no walls would have to be built, because they'll have no reason to come here. And there'd be no reason to deport them, because with nothing keeping them here, they'll leave on their own.

I'm afraid that I'm one of those in the disapproval category, but not in the sense that the MSM and the Dems think.

I do not approve of:
- his calling the Minutemen "vigilantes".
- his border policy.
- his signing Campaign Finance Reform.
- his appointment of Harriet Meyers.
- his appologizing for the "delay" in getting aid to New Orleans.
- his silence on Iraq's WMD's. He could have cited the revelations of General Sada, but he said nothing. When the Saddam tapes came out a couple of weeks ago, you could hear crickets chirping.
- his response to the ports deal. The next day after this first came out, he should have explained exactly what was happening and what was at stake. Instead, by not saying anything except to threaten a veto, he's allowed the discussion to descend into hysteria.

"If you torture somebody, they're going to tell you what they think you want to know in order to make the pain stop," he complained.

Unless the person being tortured is totally innocent, I don't see the problem with using torture to get information that could save the lives of many innocent people.

In that situation, there'd be no reason to torture someone to get them to lie. So if the interogator just wants to know the truth, and the tortured tells what the interogator wants to know, we'd be getting some useful information that could stop a catastorphe.

Why is George W. Bush's utterly unremarkable evangelical Christianity so self-evidently risible but complaints from British Muslims hung up over the 11th century are perfectly reasonable and something we should seek to accommodate?

The reason is fear. The world has seen the results when Muslims get offended. Heads get sliced off, tour buses get bombed, and passenger jets get flown into office buildings.

But there is no such fear of Christians, so they can be ridiculed with impunity.

I know a man who doesn't fit the profile. He said his total cholesterol level is about 130, but he's also a member of Mensa.

My heart aches for what is happening to Terri, but it is also aching for the animosity that I see directed at fellow FReepers.

I miss the pre-election friendliness displayed by all. I say this with the most sincerest respect.

Bingo! I agree 100%.

If Bush is ignoring the judicial crisis and not standing up to it, there is no judicial crisis. If the states are trying to push immoral laws on us, that's okay because we must support states rights issues...the koolaid makes us do this. Sheeple.

My concern isn't about koolaid or sheeple. It's about posting threads that are based on heresay, inuendo, and laced with over-the-top insults. I think there is a way to express concerns about Terri Schiavo and the issues around what's happening to her in a civilized manner. Instead, people on the political left have accused FR of being a hotbed of "rightwing freaks", and I'm sorry to say that the Terri Schiavo threads are proving them right.

We are a very forgetful society and maybe if we get blasted out by the number of Terri threads it will make us actually look at the issues surrounding it rather blowing it off as another thread.

I would agree, but these threads have degenerated into insult fests. It's not worth trying to find a few gems of wisdom, when you have to slog through a tangle of "You're a liar", "You're not a Christian", "Bush is a coward" crap that gets in the way.

I am very conservative but care for my fellow beings.

Then do it on your own dime. I, for one, get really tired of people who measure their compassion with other people's money.

I have several friends who have been out of work and do not think highly of this administration.

Do they really think it's the job of the president to maintain their standard of living?

The Fed should offer protection to citizens from the harmful effects of said corporations on the general welfare as per the Constitution's "promote the general welfare" clause.

You're misreading the "promote the general welfare" clause. The Fed is to do that only by following the requirements specifically listed in the Constitution. Nowhere in the Constitution is the requirement that corportations conduct business within U.S. borders.

The anti-free traders of today are just as backward as the Luddites were about 200 years ago.

If Business doesn't want to be patriotic, then Government should not be Pro Business. Kick em out of the country, confiscate their money and assets.

You've just displayed all the ethics of a looter.

When the will of the people, whether it involves California's Proposition 187 or Colorado's Amendment 2 or telemarketing or prayer in schools or election laws, can be so easily overturned at the whim of someone in a black robe, then it's no longer a nation of, by and for the people.

I wish someone had the guts to tell these judges, "No!"

People who believe that Bush's fate rests on his economic policies are, I think, reading waaaay too much into it. I, too, am one of those people who're not completely satisfied with Bush's economic policies, such as imposing tariffs on foreign steel and backloading the taxcuts. But that's not enough to make me vote Democrat.

23) "War will cost billions!"

I don't see it. People in the military get paid their salaries and given food, housing, supplies, etc whether they are in Iraq or Korea or Texas. Mile for mile, it costs no more to sail a ship through the Persian Gulf than it does in the open Pacific. Mile for mile, it costs no more to fly a plane over Iraq than over California. Munitions cost the same whether they're used in a war or a firing range.

The only extra monetary costs I can see of any significance coming out of a war would be healthcare for those who get wounded and to replace the plane or two that get shot down. But compared to the overall federal budget, that's pocket change.