Posted on 08/29/2002 1:00:30 PM PDT by feelin_poorly
Shortly after 9-11, TV talk-show host Sean Hannity said, "Thank God, we have an honest man in the White House!"
And when you think about it, a great deal of what you might believe about the so-called War on Terrorism is based on statements from George W. Bush. You have only his word, or that of someone in his administration:
Since America is endangered by the "you're either with me or against me" tactics of the Bush administration, it becomes vital to know whether we can trust the man in charge of our government.
The record
So does George Bush's record inspire confidence in his honesty?
Unfortunately, this is the same man who has referred to trillions of dollars in budget surpluses – even though the federal government hasn't had a budget surplus since 1956. (The appearance of any "surpluses" was created by taking excess receipts from Social Security and applying them to the general budget, even as the politicians swore they were protecting Social Security.)
Mr. Bush even has the chutzpah to refer with a straight face (well not exactly a straight face, he loves to smirk) to corporate executives "cooking the books." He neglects to mention that many of the corporate bookkeeping methods the politicians are so incensed about today were motivated by rules imposed by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
And George Bush is the same man who in 2000 said he believed in "limited government." Most people assumed he meant a government limited by the Constitution. In fact, he took an oath in which he swore to uphold the Constitution.
But he's violated virtually every one of the first 10 Amendments – especially the Ninth and 10th Amendments, which are meant to impose precise limits on his power.
So his belief in "limited government" apparently means government limited to what he wants to do.
George Bush is the same man who in one breath tries to ingratiate himself with you by saying, "It's your money, not the politicians' money" – but in the next breath, he says he's entitled to one third of "your money."
George Bush is the same man who said he has learned more about political philosophy from Jesus of Nazareth than from anyone else. But he's proven by his actions that he doesn't really believe such things as "Blessed are the peacemakers." And "the meek" who Jesus said would inherit the earth are in Mr. Bush's eyes really just "collateral damage" in his plans to tell the world how it must live.
Is honesty important?
In these and in so many other ways, George Bush has proven that he's not an honest man – and that we shouldn't trust him with the safety of America.
In fact, Thomas Jefferson understood that we shouldn't put our trust in any politician. He said we should bind them down from mischief "by the chains of the Constitution." And a truly honest man wouldn't even ask you to trust him.
Contrary to what you might have thought, this isn't an article about George Bush. It's an article about you. Are you going to demean yourself by putting your faith in a man who has done so much to demonstrate the folly of such faith?
Are you going to let politicians stampede you into throwing away the Bill of Rights, based on "evidence" you never see, reassured by politicians who have proven that the truth is secondary to their own ambitions?
Don't you have enough respect for your own mind to make your own decisions, refuse to accept conclusions without evidence, and be something better than a cheerleader for a politician or a political party?
LOL - you'd better work on your condescending skills, South Buttocks - you're just coming across as silly.
When I was only a year or two older than FIJC, I started a Christian ministry that went all over the world. She's plenty old enough to be able to eloquently and appropriately speak her mind - and she does just that. The fact that you can't handle people being "intimate" in their speech speaks not of any imprpriety on her part, but rather of a calloused and damaged psyche on *your* part. That's what's the pity.
I do have social outlets, but when it comes to politics...nothing compares to political forums on the internet.
I have never believed that there is anything wrong with conversing and even sometimes hanging around "adults." Believe it or not, I do have some people who I would consider to be "friends", that are in their 40's. I don't see anything wrong with that.
Neither do I. And as someone in my forties, I'd be honored to be included in that list of friends.
OH! OUCH!!! That really hurt, SB < g > LOL
I know you don't - your honest and open sincerity have always been what I liked about you and your posts.
Speaking of chips, just don't let people with buffalo chips for brains get you down. When they look at their own lives and their own accomplishments, and then consider someone like yourself who is young, fresh, and alive - well, it just doesn't do their egos any good, let's say.
Anyhow, gotta run - nice talking with you again :)
The English translation of that merry little frat party has Osama saying that the destruction of the World Trade Center was even greater than they had calculated. Clearly, he was responsible so why do you question his guilt?
I have watched a lot of this go down, and I can tell you this is not about envy. You know nothing of the lives and accomplishments of the women you are being critical of. If you have no appreciation for women your own age, that is your prerogative, but call it what it really is. There isn't a person in their forties here who wishes they were twenty years-old - except maybe you, from what I gather.
I can honestly say I don't miss those days one bit
Me either. I think the only ones that do are the middle-aged failures that scratch their heads in dismay when seeing the contentment of other people their age.
I suspect they want to start over and not miss the train next time around.
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.