Just something that popped into my mind.
Who stated the following:
"Government ought to have a policy that helps people with a downpayment."
A. 
- OR - B. 
Posted on 08/25/2002 12:50:21 PM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
Recently, I did an interview with Focus on the Family in which I stated that pro-family conservatives are not motivated to vote in the upcoming elections in November 2002. While I stand by that statement - because it is true - I was contacted by a high level White House staffer who pointed out all the reasons he believes that pro-family conservatives should be motivated to get out there and support President Bush. Taken together, it is a pretty impressive list. I will mention some of the items on his list, but by no means all of them, for purposes of discussion.
First there is the passage of the tax cut and the effort to make it permanent. Then, there is the nomination of excellent judges and the defense of those nominees who are encountering opposition for partisan purposes. President Bush rejected the International Criminal Court. He got us out of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, and thus paved the way for a missile defense system. The Ashcroft Justice Department, directed by the President, opposed partial birth abortion in the Ohio case and opposed euthanasia in the Oregon case.
The President opposed human cloning and has pushed for the right legislation in the Congress to ban it. The President opposed taxpayer-funded embryonic stem cell research. The Justice Department has supported the correct view of the Second Amendment.
The President has pushed for energy independence. He signed the parsonage tax credit bill and the Born Alive Infant Protection bill, during which, at the signing ceremony, the President made the strongest pro-life statement coming out of the Oval Office in a couple of decades.
The President signed the Child Custody Protection Act. In the Prenatal Health Insurance Bill, he insisted that the definition of eligibility include the fetus. In the House he pushed for a welfare reform bill where marriage, work and the family are central.
The President rejected the United Nations Rights of the Child Treaty. He rejected funding for the United Nations Population Fund. He raised abstinence education funding to a record $300 million.
In addition, the President has praised single sex schools, highlighted the Boy Scouts, and condemned the Ninth Circuit Court's ruling removing "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance.
My White House friend says that the whole demeanor and atmosphere in his place of work has changed. He is right about that. No more pot smoking, condom swinging, late night liaisons with teeny-boppers at the White House. It is a dignified place to work once again.
Now, in fairness, all of this has to be weighed against the sight of the president and Teddy Kennedy working together to pass the budget-busting education bill that threw out vouchers on day one. And there are liberal holdovers at the Justice Department and others departments pursuing policies that should be rejected by a conservative administration. Moreover, the administration seems to have a weakness toward homosexuals. Not only have there been a number of high level appointments, but the Justice Department, under the leadership of one of the heroes of the religious right, had a so called Gay Pride event. The President signed into law the so-called campaign reform law which has hurt the ability of every pro-family organization to explain to the voters the records of the Members of Congress or the positions of the challenger candidates. Then there is the huge agriculture subsidy bill that undoes most of the excellent "Freedom to Farm" reform effort of 1996, with most of the money going to big farm conglomerates, doing little for the family farm.
And now the Department of Health and Human Services has ruled that the government can share medical records with employers and insurance companies without your consent. And HHS is pushing a plan to deal with 9/11 type medical emergencies that all but does away with any remaining states' rights.
Again, I could go on. You will have to determine which list means the most to you.
But of the many good things the president has done, almost no one knows about them. I was speaking with some Midwest grass roots activists, who pride themselves on knowing what is going on. I read them the list from the White House staff member. They were shocked. They had heard of only about a quarter of the items mentioned. If folks like this haven't heard the good news, it is a lead pipe cinch that folks in the precincts know less.
If the Bush Administration expects to motivate voters for this fall, it had better learn to tell its story, short and sweet. One way that might be done would be for the president to cut a series of radio spots to be played in states where the stakes are high.
But what the heck, my advice on such things is never followed anyway.
Just something that popped into my mind.
Who stated the following:
"Government ought to have a policy that helps people with a downpayment."
A. - OR - B.
Why the deliberate misrepresentation of the facts here?
You should have sufficient ammunition to support your argument without distortion and near-lies.
Or maybe it was Fox's statement about us needing to get over our "notions of sovereignty" that I was thinking about when I typed that distortion.
(God bless you for the spoonful of sugar that is your more amusing graphic presentation of the truth these days ... Tasteful. =)
Let's not forget that all of our elected officials are "public servants" not Dukes, Princes, Kings and Queens. Thus, it is for elected representatives to show "respect" to the citizens that put them in office. If they do their job well their "respect" then becomes earned. Too often I've noticed that many people treat their elected officials as Royalty. If that is the message our politicians receive from their constituents then we shouldn't be too surprised when they start acting like they are royalty.
I love that statement. It's supposed to be the conservative coup d'etat in a discussion of the merits of Bush II and his presidencey.
One should quietly agree, and forfeit the match.
I revere Ronald Reagan, I believe his face should be set into stone on Rushmore.
But we forget a lot sometimes.
Ronaldus Maximus knocked down the Berlin Wall, and then brought down the Iron Curtain on an Evil Empire.
He made us feel good about ourselves for the first time in quite a while.
And he quietly "forgot" campaign promises such as the abolishment of the Department of Education, and the Department of Energy somewhere along the way.
As far as bargaining with the Democrats on his terms, Ronald Reagan had landslide elections, that's a mandate, it gave him firm ground to stand on. But a contested election and a Democratic Senate do not. Let's nt mention 9/11 and the economy.
Even at that, Reagan obtained congressional funding for anti-communist guerillas around the world by trading away control of the domestic agenda.
The criticism of Reagan was every bit as intense then, as the one towards Bush is today.
"There is only one problem with that Luis, George W. Bush is no Ronald Reagan."
Playing for the Miami Dolphins must suck.
If you're a quaterback, you will never be Marino, and regardless of how many Superbowls you win, you will never be the '72 team.
If you're going to compare Bush to Reagan, then level the playing field.
Remember the history, not the hype.
No, unfortunately it is fact. Spin as you must, Bush has yet to veto ONE piece of legislation coming out of the Democratically controlled Senate. Nor has he done ANY tough bargaining with the democrats to get some of his supposed "conservative" agenda enacted. The kicker is that Bush has given the democrats carte blanch on their big spending programs choosing instead to go along to get along. Your sports analogies to contrary..
Oh, your saying Bush doesn't encourage Fox's "crap"? Seems to me he whole heartedly agrees with it. Or didn't he mean it when he said, "If you make 5 bucks a day in your homeland of Mexico and can make 50 bucks a day in New Jersey, your going to come, aren't you?" sly smile at the crowd.
Yes, I long for the "old America" where giants of men like George Washington warned us against becoming involved in entangling treaties that would threaten our sovereignty. When a body, agency, of appointed men can fine the USofA and demand that we open our borders to Mexican trucks and act against our own best interest, our sovereignty is in the toilette.
When an out of control court like the ICC can tell, not only the USofA, but the United Nations that founded it, to go take a flying leap we are under their jurisdiction like it or not, our sovereignty is in the toilette.
If you think for one minute that Mexican, Chilian, Argentine truck drivers are not going to move to the USofA illegally, along with their entire families then I don't know what world you live in. As for "free trade" all trade seems to be one way, we import more than we export and that is not going to change with NAFTA. The goods and services we are able to export are already at their max potential, and our savings on imported goods are at their max potential, we have nothing to gain and everything to lose with NAFTA.
There is nothing wrong with the "old America" that it should be supplanted by the "new America". The "new America" is a pig in a poke. And yes Luis, given that terrorists can import anything from nukes to tootpicks across our borders I do want troops on them. I do want the flood of illegals stopped dead in it's tracks, these potential voters and welfare recipients can go home and stay there.
It's shocking that an American President would say this. To ignore his sworn duty to protect our nation's sovereignty is abominable in and of itself. To "encourage" a foreign nation to violate our laws and sovereignty is beyond comprehension.
Ain't it though? Yeah, his compassion seems to come up short for American citizens.
Hey, leave us Grape Stompers alone. Even Germany didn't like my family tribe.
And yet, we revere Ronaldus Maximus (I certainly do), and hold everyone up to his light.
A different poster just longed for leaders like George Washington.
Would it be fair to say that Reagan was no Jefferson, no Washington?
Would that diminish him in your mind?
BTW, could you please point out the "spin" you referred to on your response?
Yep, like in WAY short. To listen to Bush you'd think he was running for Fox's job. Funny how all this hemispheric baggage of Bush's fell out AFTER he was elected. I guess I'm old fashioned to expect a president to put the interests of American Citizens first and foremost before that of any other nation.
The spin is to equate Reagan's highly articulated and sometimes enacted conservative agenda with Bush's unarticulated conservative agenda but often enacted democratic agenda. Reagan could not get much of his domestic spending cuts passed because of the Cold War Military build up but it didn't stop him from talking about the need to cut non-military spending and the virtues of limited government.
With Bush, it's all about expanding government in WORD and DEED. When was the last time Bush said something like "Have we the courage and the will to face up to the immorality and discrimination of the progressive tax, and demand a return to traditional proportionate taxation? . . . Today in our country the tax collector's share is 37 cents of every dollar earned. Freedom has never been so fragile, so close to slipping from our grasp"
It is all the rage to sit back, and blame "them" for screwing up America.
To bitch about taxes, while driving on the best road system in the world, while enjoying the reasonable protection afforded by a well-equiped, well-trained Army, to rage against illegal immigrants, while dining on the fruit of their illegal labor, to point fingers at DC, while the vast majority of elegible voters sit it out on election day, to bitch about the Deoartment of Education, as we drive our kids to public schools by the millions because we are not willing to undergo the necessary sacrifices, and disruption of out lifestyles to homeschool.
You stand by and bemoan the loss of an America that you yourself helped sell down the river. Like we all did.
The Constitution did something far greater than detail the functions of government, it spelled out our duties as self-governed people.
We have failed.
George Washington may have warned us about treaties, by the Founders themselves entered into treaties. He never warned us about ourselves.
If America is not willing to fulfill its end of a treaty, it should move to dissolve that treaty. NAFTA is law! And we're not in compliance with that treaty. Acting on our own best interest could possibly be acting responsibly, and either fullfilling the agreement we willingly, and freely entered into, or oficially cancelling it. Act like grown ups.
The general idea, is to use our trade strenght, to strenghten the economy of the nations on this hemisphere, not across the world, not the ChiCom. The fact that we import more than we export is the very reason WHY we need something like NAFTA, we are a consummer society. What I find amusing at your "rant", is that you base your opinion on what someone else says about the US.
Who gives a rat's ass what the UN says?
Troops on the border...
The "old America"?
When?
Your version of a "new" America?
In George Washington's time, entire armies could sneak across the borders...did George militarize them?
Your idea of America, is to restrict our freedoms in trade for safety.
George Washington and his friends would not think very highly of you.
Now, THAT'S spin!
"...but it didn't stop him from talking..."
Is that what you think makes for a great president?
HOW CONSERVATIVE IS PRESIDENT BUSH?
GEORGE W. BUSH: CLINTON'S THIRD TERM © - Norman Liebmann
Please, make this all go away
Reagan passed a Farm Bill. Reagan expanded the Dept. of Education.
And speaking of speaking, want to compare notes on Reagan's pro-life statements versus Reagan's?
Did Reagan ever say...
"We've got responsibilities here at home, as well, and it starts with our borders. Our borders process an incredibly huge number of people. It may come as a surprise to some of you, but there's -- over 500 million people a year enter America, and half of those are our own citizens that may have been traveling. We have 11 million trucks come across our borders. We have 51,000 foreign ships call into our ports. It reminds us that no nation can be totally secure, or more secure, unless we're well protected, and unless our borders are well screened. We must know who's coming into our country and why they're coming. We must know what our visitors are doing and when they leave. That's important for us to know. It's knowledge necessary to make our homeland more secure.""America is not a fortress; no, we never want to be a fortress. We're a free country; we're an open society. And we must always protect the rights of our law -- of law-abiding citizens from around the world who come here to conduct business or to study or to spend time with their family. That's what we're known for. We're known for respect."
"But, on the other hand, we can do a better job of making our borders more secure, and make our borders smart. We must use technology and be wise about how we use technology, to speed the flow of commerce across our borders, and to identify frequent travelers who pose no risk. We should be directing resources to risk. We ought to be routing out smugglers and focusing on criminals -- and, of course, stopping terrorists from coming into the country."
Come on Luis, I said "something like"...not "exact". Fact is Bush doesn't talk about anything to do limited government, just what government can get itself into.
"...but it didn't stop him from talking..."
Is that what you think makes for a great president?
Yes, absolutely. It's called leadership Luis. It's shaping the public's opinions towards conservatism.
No he didn't and I'm glad. He did say though that "countries that don't protect their borders are not countries".
Those are YOUR WORDS, not mine. I've already made myself clear.
Are you a Car salemen? "Used" perhaps? You certainly comport yourself that way.
"Now let us work toward the goal of using the assets of this continent, its resources, technology and foodstuffs in the most efficient ways possible for the common good of all its people. It may take the next 100 years but we can dare to dream that at some future date a map of the world might show the North American continent as one in which the peoples and commerce of its three strong countries flow more freely across their present borders than they do today. "
Did he say that while signing the amnesty of '86?
That comment (sans the editorial remark about the smile...MAP, do you work for the NY Times?) is about the fact that Bush UNDERSTANDS the REASONS why we have a problem with illegal Mexican immigrants.
Of course, by using NYT tactics, you try to turn it into something other than what it was.
To claim that it was giving some sort of carte blanche to Mexicans to violate our laws, and our borders, is spin worthy of Carville.
Congratulate yourselves.
"I got an offical letter today from President Bush, post marked Crawford, Texas, has the white house seal on the letter head. Did any of the rest of you get one, has to be from the faxes at numbers I have sent.
He says, *I expect to continue to work with the Congress to ensure passage of Section 245i, of the United States Immigration and Nationality Act, which would allow qualified immigrants eligible to become legal residents to obtain residency in the United States with out being forced to leave the country and their families.
Signed George W Bush"
Twice now this President of the Western hemisphere has tried to sneak this through a flurry of phone calls and faxes from irate and frightened American citizens, looks like he's going for the third attempt.
Removing the Clinton/Gore stain from the White House is enough for me for 1st term. I'll decide on merits of 2nd term in 2004 when the big picture of his accomplishments is known. Too soon now for hand-wringing.
"I recieved this post last night from poster calawah98.
"I got an offical letter today from President Bush, post marked Crawford, Texas, has the white house seal on the letter head. Did any of the rest of you get one, has to be from the faxes at numbers I have sent.
He says, *I expect to continue to work with the Congress to ensure passage of Section 245i, of the United States Immigration and Nationality Act, which would allow qualified immigrants eligible to become legal residents to obtain residency in the United States with out being forced to leave the country and their families. Signed George W Bush"
Twice now this President of the Western hemisphere has tried to sneak this through a flurry of phone calls and faxes from irate and frightened American citizens, looks like he's going for the third attempt."
184 posted on 8/28/02 6:14 AM Pacific by MissAmericanPie
Un El día En El la vida de Jorge W. La arbusto
Darkness by design for amnesty move
"At the precise directions of Mr. Bush — the House sneaked through a bill directly related to the student visa fiasco."
But deliberately cloaked in the bill — the first attempted passage was, in fact, to be by unrecorded vote — was the highly controversial Section 245(i) amendment to the immigration law, which allows "undocumented" immigrants (who, to employ plainer talk, are really illegal aliens) to immediately get permanent residency. All they need to do is pay the federal government $1,000 and have a close relative or employer sponsor them.
This decision gives people who come here illegally the ability to skirt American law, to move to the front of the line because they have skirted that law, and to avoid any real check on their past. Without it, they would have to return to their own countries, apply legally, probably wait up to 10 years and go through at least the minimal check of experienced visa and consular officers in the American Embassies.
The fact that this entire scenario was cloaked in the secrecy and deception of a spy novel — it was included in the day's "suspension calendar," which is generally reserved for noncontroversial matters — demonstrates the degree to which the administration is trying to advance its idea of amnesty for hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens in America, perhaps up to 9 million."
I don't understand. Mexicans who've obtained citizenship legally ARE well-respected.
Idiot ... he threatens to turn the lot of them into pariahs with this. Why don't Americans of Mexican origin understand this?
I know ... I know ... might as well ask why women, homosexuals, blacks and disabled don't understand they're being Used either.
The prostitution of voting
I assume this refers to Numbers USA. I have received no such letter from Bush. I have used Numbers USA, I have written letters and sent email to him about 245(i) but I have received nothing.
About a week ago I did receive a 2 page letter regarding 245(i) from Bob Barr. That had to be the results of Numbers USA.
Bush is keeping immigration and amnesty out of the main stream media because he knows he is sitting on a powder keg. Watch for things to start happening following the November elections.
Thanks for the ping.
Actually it was three times.
They just want to drive, don't ya know.
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.
