This is my first post.

[Joe45]

Good day to you all.

I just thought I'd start what I hope is a long time here by telling you what I think about some things.

I'm not a young man who's recently become interested in the workings of government today; I'm an old man who's recently become re-interested in the workings of government.

I was born in 1932.

In 1944 I voted for FDR.

In 1948 I voted for Harry Truman.

I started to find my political ideology more firmly in the 50s, when I voted a straight Republican ticket from Ike all the way down to my local offices.

By the 1960 election, I was quite firmly a Nixon Republican.

In 1964, I agreed with a lot of what Goldwater was saying but I found the guy scary and just didn't vote at all.

In '68 and '72 I was back with Nixon again. In '76 I was for Carter but ended up voting for Ford.

1980 and 1984 were just too easy. And being from California, I was only too happy to help give that state to our former governor Reagan.

1988 was difficult in that I never really liked George Bush. Nixon apparently called him a 'lightweight' once and I tended to agree. I held my breath and voted for him.

In 1992 I wanted to vote for Perot but I didn't want Clinton to win, so I held my nose again and voted for Bush.

1996 - by this time I really didn't care. I voted for Dole, knowing it wouldn't make a difference. But the country seemed to be moving in the right direction and I was retired, so I didn't seem to mind it when Dole lost.

2000 - well what was I to do here? I thought the tax cut was stupid. I think missle defense is pointless. I think W. is stupid (and I voted for Jerry Ford!). But what else could I do? The election was close - so AGAIN I compromised and voted for Bush instead of who made the most sense to me: Buchanan.

Now? We almost had TIPS, a 'spy on your neighbours' kinda thing. We've got this ridiculous 'Patriot Act' which says that US Citizens can be abducted by the Federal government on a whim and be held without being charged.

Then yesterday the Senate passed the Homeland Security Bill. I was watching on CSpan. Robert Byrd held up the bill - all 484 pages of it (it was 35 when President Bush submitted it to the Congress) and said that it was loaded with pork and with the worst kind of big government 'big brother' crap this side of Iraq.

And you know what? I'm fed up about it. They passed it. Bush is going to sign it.

And you know who the only people talking about the REPRESSION OF CIVIL LIBERTIES are?

I've heard a couple. GORE - of all people, Al Gore goes on Larry King Live and says we're losing our rights. The ALCU for Chrissakes says the same thing. And Dick Armey, who might go and work with them.

I'm sorry. I've held my nose enough. I don't like Bush, I don't trust Bush. And we're never going to learn how to be a truly conservative party if we keep winning pyrric victories like in 2000.

I want someone to challenge Bush from the right in 2004 for the Republican nomination. Pat Buchanan or Tom DeLay or someone who isn't just a sicophant for what the Republican party - the party of Reagan and Goldwater conservatism - has become.

I've seen all sorts of things happen in my time. One side is just as bad as the other and I don't think we ought to settle for mediocrity and people like Bush anymore.

I'm sorry if my opinion disturbs anyone or offends anyone, but I wanted to put it out there and see if anyone else in the conservative world agrees with me.

Thank you.

Faithfully,

Joe.

[amigatec]

Joe in a lot of ways I agree with you. I didn't W either, I am a Alan Keyes Man myself.

[tomkat]

since nobody's cheeeeeezed you yet,
and since life sux tonight, and i need a smile ...

welcome to FR

[yonif]

Joe45 signed up 2002-04-29

[vtel57]

Hello Joe and welcome to the Free Republic forums! I've been snooping around here for a while now, but just today posted for the first time also.

Regardless of your little error in addition that allowed you to vote for FDR at the age of 12, let me say that while I don't particularly agree with your feelings about G.W. Bush, or his father for that matter, I respect your freedom and right to post your opinions.

And speaking of FDR... talk about a "king wannabee". The man's total control of the US government is the primary reason for two term limits on Presidents these days.

Hopefully, Big Brother will continue to respect all our freedoms and rights. I have a copy of the Homeland Security Bill... interesting reading. You can d-load it from this site:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/deptofhomeland/bill/hsl-bill.pdf

Enjoy!

V.T. Eric Layton
***Tempus Fugits***
vtel57@hotpop.com

[Auntie Mame]

Congratulations on your first post. Hope to see you joining in the conversation more often.

I wouldn't worry about the Homeland Security Bill. It's basically a reorganization. However, if you will take the time to read it and report back to us what you discover, that would be very much appreciated. It's on line somewhere. So far, the only thing I know about it is what Al Gore said about it on Larry King last night (he's one of my heros, isn't he good looking? and he's soooo smart, too, and Tipper, isn't she a live wire? I just looooove her). Then, I've also read a report by a Freeper who is reading it. Who to believe, Al Gore, or a Freeper?

But, seriously, wecome to FR. Regards.....

[mfreddy]

I don't think campaign finance reform is necessary for national security either. The two have nothing to do with each other. Was this a Bush idea?

Which of the laws do you disagree with?

How would you deal with the problem we find ourselves faced with?

[Joe45]

Thank you. But I did sign up many months ago. It's funny. I came back this afternoon and put in my address but it said I was already here from a ways back. Had to have them email me my password again. If I couldn't remember signing up it was going to be hard to remember my password!

Nevertheless I appreciate the welcome. It's hard to keep up - the posts move rather quickly.

[Hunble]

Also, I do not consider Campaign Finance Reform to be necessary for national security.

Alan Keyes had the best idea so far about REAL Campaign Finance Reform.

Super simple:

You can not donate to a campaign, unless you can vote.

That totally eliminates all Unions, PACS, etc...

[Joe45]

I don't know exactly how to deal with the problems. But I was listening to Bill O'Reilly the other day and he was saying that we still don't have adequate border control. Now that strikes me as being an issue of paramount importance to how we can keep Americans safe.

And perhaps if our government did a better job of selling the idea. In any war, there have to be some reductions on some things that are now convenient. That is accepted. But I don't feel that our government wants to say that - instead they just want to shove a bill in front of the Congress and just tell the American people to go about their business.

We should be told, "This is a war. And in war you have to make sacrifices. And those sacrifices must include these steps if we're to win this fight. Trust us." But it's not like that. It should be I think, that's all.

[swarthyguy]

Maybe he's from Chicago....The Democrat Early Voter program.

[Dog Gone]

But I watched Jeb's victory speech on election day and he is a lot more articulate than his brother.

Yes, he is. Dubya is far less articulate at the podium than Jeb. In fact, he's probably not as smart as Jeb. Jeb got his degree at the University of Texas in 2 1/2 years, which is basically impossible. Jeb is a freak of nature, a down to earth total genius with a heart.

But Dubya is completely different when he's not behind the podium. Giving a speech is not natural for him. Asking the right questions is. You'd have to see it to fully appreciate it.

You'll find very few fans of their father here at this forum. But we haven't visited the sins of the father on the sons, even though many had initial reservations about George W. during the primaries.

If you're for real, then your views are welcome here, even though many may not agree with them all the time. Hopefully, you are not too old to change your views if you see persuasive arguments.

Hopefully, none of us are.

[swarthyguy]

yonif signed up 2002-10-27.


We can ALL play that game.

[Joe45]

I'm certainly not too old to vote - though certainly by my errors in my initial post I once appeared too young!

Thank you for your words.

[Joe45]

Thank you. I made an honest mistake and I hope everyone doesn't hold it against me for as long as I intend to be here discussing the issues with you all.

[vtel57]

Oh, and I forgot to mention...

Truman was truly a master of idiocy. If the man had listened to his generals (MacArthur in particular), we would not be having problems with North Korea at this time, nor would we have had a Viet Nam debacle either, most likely.

Later...

V.T. Eric Layton
***Tempus Fugits***
vtel57@hotpop.com

[Joe45]

You're probably right. It was a long time ago.

"Tempus Fugits" - I like it.

[Blood of Tyrants]

He WAS a Democrat, after all. Musta been in Chicago.

[Hunble]

No problem Joe45, but if you have not figured it out yet, Freepers are sharp.

While I would prefer that the Department of Defense be used to control our borders, there are legal issues involved. The Homeland Defense bill was an effort to consolidate existing government agencies into something that can be managed.

If Constitutional violations do occurs, I will be the first one to scream about it. Until that happens, lets give President Bush a chance.

[swarthyguy]

OK, but let me ask the important one. Truman decided not to nuke the Yalu River.

What's your opinion on NUking Mecca?

That'll either put you in the rabid, frothing at the mouth Nukemecca side or the Bush "islam is peace" and let's talk to them crowd.

Fireballs or Oprah?

I'm in the Nuke Mecca for Jesus crowd.

[mfreddy]

You're correct on the border control issue. That is one thing that scares the hell out of me as well. I think its a sad fact that no politician will do anything about it because its a political hot potato. If a conservative tries to address it, he'll be immediately branded as a racist. It will also alienate a large voting block. Sad, huh? All sides are repsonsible. Congress and the senate should have dealt with this long ago. As far as O'reilly goes, he likes to hear himself speak. I'd hope as you get more involved on FR, you'll get better explanations of the issues and realize O'reilly is just a shallow rude man with a sensationalist grasp of the issues.

Regarding the war, George W. Bush has been on the tube and in the papers saying we are at war. He has been given the power to conduct war by congress. He has said he needs additional tools to fight the "war on terrorism" (note the word war?) but at the same time he is asking the American people to continue living without being in constant fear that they are going to be killed tomorrow.

We have been told this is a war. Did you hear Bush's speech in Cincinatti shortly before the election? Maybe not, most of the media outlets did not think it was important enough to carry even though they embraced Billy Boy when he wanted airtime to talk about BJ's and lying to the American people.

Bush is stabbed in the back by the media on a daily basis. In 1996 when surveyed, over 90% of the Washington press corps said they were a democrat, and 98% of them voted for Clinton. These are the people that are feeding you your information. To them, Bush can do no right.

As you continue on FR, hopefully you will find the other side of the story.

If Bush came out and said "trust us", you'd have Al Gore plastered on every evening news show screaming, "how can we trust him--he stole the election!!!!!!!! I'm the real President!!!!!"

Gotta go, I'll be back in about an hour or so.