Tell me who this is and what two great things he did. Then you'll know what a true winner is.
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?
Tell me who this is and what two great things he did. Then you'll know what a true winner is.
~grin~
That's good enough for me for now. Every statement he's made or his administration, he's been able to back it up. Bush has a whole lot of folks feelin_poorly lately. If you can't beat him...
Of course not. But you are willing to concede, I hope, that ideas are definitely not judged "good or bad" based on the pronouncements of people who think they are (but they aren't) experts on Constitutional law and their subjective divining of what the Founding Fathers would or would not approve?
That being said, in all fairness, I am happy with the way the Bush Administration is handling the situation with Iraq--we need to take that guy out. I believe that the majority of Americans would support an invasion upon Iraq.
Where have I advocated anything other than that they should be working WITHIN the bounds laid forth in the Constitution? Sure, some people may not WANT to face up to the facts of why what happened, happened. That's not my problem (directly, anyway). If our Country is to be at 'war' with ANYONE, I want it to be done according to the guidelines set forth in our Founding documents. So far, this hasn't been done and everyone in DC, with a notable couple of exceptions, is perfoming an end-run around the US Constitution that they SWORE to defend. We are NOT 'AT WAR' as only Congress has that power and they declined. I'm sick of judges legislating from the bench and I'm sick of lawyers and other subversives deciding that our Constitution was written on rubber instead of paper. The moral tenats of our Founding have NOT changed, only people's perceptions of same. Are you perhaps acquainted with the episode involving the Barbary Pirates and our DECLARED war on same?
If it's made up mostly of people like you, I think I'd rather not.
I don't know what "fihy" means. It's not in the dictionary.
Any answer I give as to wether or not I believe OBL "did it" has no bearing on this discussion. Your question is a Red Herring. The article is about the policies of the Bush Administration. The article is not about Harry Browne. So, try refuting something from the article.
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.