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?
Whoops, wrong paste job. I picked up the Seals bit first, read on, then double clutched my response. Sorry. I won't let it happen again. ;-D
I think if it came down to a fracas, we'd both be standing on the same side of that line drawn in the sand. Even with slightly different philosophies, we'd be fighting for the same basic reasons. I'd be a lot fatter than you, so I'd draw most of the "easy fire". ;-D
You were really pretty easy on me for a "dangerous dude".
Suggesting that men who leave their wives and children for younger woman are somehow justified wasn't trashy??
Look in the mirror, sweetcakes, and see who started that whole line of discourse.
Well, I knew that would be coming from somewhere. Freepers are pretty darn quick! ;-D
I find it quite humorous that you and other women on this thread chose to imply something in this post that wasn't there. Here is what I stated:
"There is more than one reason why men in their forties often marry women twenty years younger than them--middle aged women often have an unbearable chip on their shoulder. Who would want to spend the rest of their life with someone like that?"
I didn't say anything about married men leaving their wives and kids for younger women, much less condone that type of behavior. Indeed, I was speaking of those bachelors in their late 30's and early 40's who often choose to settle down with much younger women. I see it happen all the time in the type of neighborhood I am currently living in.
We have to call in MadIvan; he's the closer. :-)
LOL! Right. ALL the time. So many single forty year-olds out there who've never been married to women their own age - just scores of 'em!
Well, I don't find the idea silly. I think that when people get to be in a certain part of their life, age isn't so important any longer.
First of all, I think that's not what you implied at all, but, of course, your honesty is not being discussed her. Contrary to what you believe, this thread is not about you, which I told you about 800 posts ago.
Secondly, 'bachelors" that aren't married in their late 30's and 40's who marry vapid, airhead 20 somethings are losers and can't get a mature woman to marry them.
I see it happen all the time in the type of neighborhood I am currently living in.
Move out of the trailer park.
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.