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?
Yes, but with pets like you hanging around we are bound to learn more. Thanks for helping out. Bwahahahahaha !!!!
"It behooves [a chief executive] to think and to act for [himself] and for [his] people. The great principles of right and wrong are legible to every reader; to pursue them requires not the aid of many counselors. The whole art of government consists in the art of being honest. [He need] only aim to do [his] duty, and mankind will give [him] credit where [he fails]."
--Thomas Jefferson: Rights of British America, 1774. (*) ME 1:209, Papers 1:134
I'll play along and acknowledge you think we're this dense.
That would require infinitely more intelligence than you could ever hope to muster. Quickly now, go back to sleep before you begin to question your own beliefs.
Commonsense urges me to believe that first and foremost they would acknowledge these external threats and deal with them with as much savvy as our current administration.
Would they do it differently...I cannot say, but I am certain they would act.
Our Nation is much much different then anything they could've possibly imagined at the time.
1790 Census
Total US population: 3,929,214
Whites: 80.7%
Blacks: 19.3% (90% in South)
Native Americans not counted, likely over 80 tribes w/
150,000 persons.
Economically Ranking behind all the Nations of Europe
Militarily Ranking behind all the Nations of Europe
2000 US population:281,000,000
69.1 percent white
12.1 percent black
12.5 percent Hispanic
3.7 percent Asian and Pacific Islander
0.7 percent American Indian
0.2 percent "Some other race."
Another 1.6 percent of the population (about 4.6 million
people) identified with two or more races.
An Economic and Military Hyperpower
By and large I think the majority of principles they laid down are transferable...but unfortunately some of them must be orientated to deal with "today".
Where matters of foreign relations and International threats are concerned...I think their principles must adapt.
I am aware of the slippery slope involved in this but given the choice of slippery slope to Nuclear detonation in one of our major cities...
I choose the former.
So you say. At least I can recognize a loser when I see one.
Do you mind if I ask what this means?
I hope you didn't BREAK ANY LAWS and deprive anyone of the FREEDOMS on the way home!
Depends on who you ask! You asked me, so, ummmmmm...NO.
What you actually want are posts you can agree with. Sorry, you won't get one from me.
I have noticed that there is a bizarre parallell universe at work ....for some of us,we look at GW and see a decent honorable person....for others no matter what he does he is another Clinton. If you go to DU you will find people who think that Clinton is not Clinton but Bush is ..no amount of arguing seems to change anyones mind ...So I say bash the stupid idiots who feed off anti matter.
that Iraq, which George Bush is dying to invade, still has "weapons of mass destruction" that threaten Americans directly;
that Osama bin Laden masterminded the 9-11 attacks (the infamous videotape demonstrated his joy at the success of the attacks, not his participation);
If dear old Harry thinks these things aren't true and won't happen .. then all I have to say to dear old Harry is .. I sure hope he doesn't live in a big city
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.