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?
The term "judging" is so overused. I'm not judging you or anyone else.
I am simply telling you very frankly what I think about you and how you affect me and some others.
When any of us join a public discussion, we are open to being ridiculed, opposed and exposed. Deal with it.
You saturate the thread with so much of YOURSELF that you are begging for a reaction. It's another of your juvenile traits. Good or bad.....attention is all you want.
BIG GOVERNMENT ACCOMPLISHMENTS UNDER GWB
Last Update 08-22-2002
SOCIALISM & PORK
FOREIGN-AID & INTERVENTIONISM
LIBERTIES, CONSTITUTION, POWER GRABS
Hmm - while GWB sure has Clintoon beat in the morals and personality departments, there seems to be little government philosophy difference of any consequence. Well, except for the fact that 'certain' conservatives and groups would have been screaming for Clintoon's head on a platter LONG before all this got passed.
Have fun dear!
GWB actions need to be scrutinized and criticized because they make us less safe, not more so. Further foreign interventionism (militarily, financial, or otherwise) will not make us safer. It will incite further hatred of the US and likely incite additional acts of terrorism.
Bush is trying to preserve the security of this country, and several other smaller nations, from the barbarians.
He's doing no such thing. He just authorized the sale of aircraft parts and radar technology to Pakistan plus $80 million in foreign-aid, and $120 million in foreign-aid to Uzbekistan. Both countries are known to harbor terrorists.
I wish some of the libertarians would accept this fact of why Bush has our support.War time requires it.
It's obvious that he has your support. He's your guy, afterall. And that's the only reason. If Clinton were in office you'd be ripping him a new one every day and we both know it.
What concerns me more is why a libertarian, in these times, would seek to question the motives of the POTUS? Why is a libertarian alinged against his CIC in a time of War?
It would seem you neglected to read the article because the answer to your question is there.
Your persistent reference to "time of war" is a weak attempt to stifle any rational discourse. Don't like what's being said? Just keep saying we're at war. Can't refute the facts? Question the sincerity of your opponent. Pathetic.
Like "Read my lips" father, like son.
[Raised eyebrows.]
You know, Beckie, I am not one to bother you too much. I generally refrain from posting to you (compared to others), but I must say that this simply shows your breathtaking lack of maturity (spiritual and otherwise).
I would think, given your background, that you would have learned a little something about a Christ-centered marriage by now.
So, when you're forty (and you WILL be...one of the little ironies of all this) and your husband dumps you for a sophomore snow bunny, get back to me. I'm sure you'll blame it all on the "chip on your shoulder".
The fact is, most - if not all - of the women you seem to be alluding to have very happy marriages with very satisfied and happy husbands.
If you're going to make statements like this and do Monica Lewinsky-style flirting with men in their forties and fifties, I know I'm not the only one here who would very much appreciate you requesting a new screen name. Please. That's all I ask of you.
This could get me banned, I suppose, but that's all right. If I got something through your head, it's worth it.
I can't imagine why, but stranger things have happened.
Your post is very accurate and again points out the impresson given by the immature antics of a very young person attempting to keep pace with people old enough to be her parents.
Nine out of ten times, if it's overboard (and this is), it can be misleading. A little innuendo and coyness mixed together are often mistaken to mean something other than what was intended; sometimes it is intentional. Either way......this is not the place for it.
You sincerely believe this?? I know of a whole country who'd disagree with you here, particularly the 3,000 families directly effected.
Your statement is absolutely appauling. Disgusting behaviour on your part which is quite unacceptable. Many a person who do physical harm to you had you said this to them in person. FMOKM
Actually France supporting us was more analogous to us supporting the Mujahadeen. Their enemy was our enemy.
Point is, they weren't involved in that particular war until they came to our aid. Had we gone down, they would have soon joined us at the hands of the British. Everyone else, it seems, wants us to send in our troops whenever they get in a jam or wish to garner more of our taxpayer's money for acting friendly (ala' UN).
Quite an alarming thought process coming from a pastor's daughter.........quite alarming.
A good many men that marry younger women leave a wife and children in ruin. It has more to do with selfishness than anything else.
I wouldn't know, I've been married to the same man since I was 21 years old, but my experience tells me that women with your pestering nature are often the first ones left on the chopping block. At the rate you're going, you may never get far enough to find out
Yes, I've heard it but you re-wrote it to suit yourself.
WWII is what I consider a significant event. People elsewhere in the world die in far greater numbers; and, nothing appears in US media. This Nation has indeed endured a lot worse with far less gnashing of teeth. Wake up! We were attacked by a handful of people. The attack was devistating in terms of loss of life, but insignificant in terms of National security. If the Bush administration considered it to be a significant event, there would have been meaninful changes to airport and border security. The most significant changes are tighter restrictions on American citizens, not the actual enimies. There should be no event that could cause a real American to trade his rights for security. Compared to the continuous destruction of our Constitutional governance, the 911 event is insignificant ... but only since Americans will cash in their freedoms for FAKE security measures.
When you do trade your freedoms for illusion of security, that is a significant event. When Americans surrender freedoms for the illusion of security, they mock those who died in real wars to preserve our freedoms. That is more significant.
Your statement is absolutely appauling. Disgusting behaviour on your part which is quite unacceptable.
I find Americans who trade away freedoms for security appauling.
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.
The depth and profundity of the questions raised by the Bushbots certainly give me pause in my questioning of our President's policies!
What did you think of her answer?
[Whistling, looking innocently around the room.]
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.