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?
Ah but South, I am not worried about playing the dating game right now. Sure, I am very interested in meeting the "right one", but sometimes one can just lose themselves with playing that game.
Did I mention that deport is my favorite poster on FR? ;)
You still haven't explained why the "unelectable" Newt Gingrich won a landslide, but the "real conservatives" didn't stand a chance in 2000 - even though the American public "really wants the most conservative candidate".
I'm sure he's a nice man .. but he ain't got no chance of being elected president
I do and there's plenty of history with her to back it up.
When it comes to the future of people I love, I don't want to take risks. The whole world community has shown more than enough patience with this crack-pot and it is time to take him and probably all of his sons, out.
but you and I are seeing two different things, now aren't we? So it's not as simple as your Toyota owner's manual, now is it? If it was that simple, we wouldn't need a Supreme Court. If it was that simple, we wouldn't have had a Civil War. If it was that simple, we wouldn't be having these arguments.
First, I have no idea if we see it differently myself, as you have not professed any of your ideas concerning the Constitution to me. I'll take your word for it though.
It is that simple. Its a matter of agenda after a point, in my opinion. There are those who wish to go counter to the Constitution, and they usually do so by trying to confuse the language or throw doubt on wording. And sadly, most of our wonderfully pseudo-educated public school graduates fall for this obfuscation hook line and sinker.
I have the same thoughts on The Golden Rule as well. Pretty easy to understand. And yes, people have died by the millions due to falling for con men and snake oil salesmen who told them it meant something other than what it means. But that doesn't mean its not easy to understand. It does mean that there are a lot of people on the low end of the Bell Curve, that's all. Especially in this day an age, thanks to our wonderful Public Education Camps...um...Schools.
Thank you for keeping this civil, to this point, btw.
Thanks for that, at least. I'll rest better tonight knowing that you don't think well of me.
If you think the people who attacked the WTC did it solely for the reasons you listed, you are a narrow-minded, myopic imbecile.
I may be an imbecile but it beats the heck out of being a sheep!! The people who masterminded the attacks on 9/11 were NOT attacking us because they envy our freedom and, frankly, I've beyond sick of hearing that tape of GWB played over and over again where it say it was. I guess the media knows, too, that if something is repeated often enough, people will start to believe it. Heck, even Hitler had this one down to a science.
As for Switzerland, they aren't attacked because too many of the same people who attack the USA, have too much of their money invested in Swiss banks, you dimwit!
Then kindly explain to ME why they didn't go after Canada or maybe Australia or even Japan. What about the Cayman Islands or the Bahamas? It was NOT about the money, you dimwit - it was about the US interfering where the indiginous people don't want us. Not everyone across the world wants to be some dream democracy (which is nothing more than mob rule, tyranny of the majority, BTW) and, yet, our power elite want us to believe otherwise.
You see one piece of a puzzle, and think you have the whole picture.
I've got a much bigger grasp of the big picture than you seem to have. The last time we got into a little match such as this, everyone on the thread were pointing out your idiocies. It looks as though you have some company here, so I imagine this could go on for quite some time.
You will never know more than you know today because you think you have all the answers.
You know not, that you know not!
I certainly don't have all the answers but I certainly seem to know more of my history than do you. I've had my mind changed on quite a few things that I was initially wrong about. Of course, it took people who were better informed than I am there were willing to trade information in a civil manner to do it. Something that I have never seen you do on any thread that we've ever posted on. I honestly doubt you capable of such an exchange.
Keep telling yourself that, Beckie. I guess it makes you feel better.
Now you're in trouble. Fred's going to be sooooo jealous.
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.