Hey look the medicare bill was a certainty and this medicare bill has the seeds of privatization, something a Hillary/Ted bill would never have.
|
Posted on 12/01/2003 9:06:21 AM PST by jmc813
What is so bad about criticizing large government if it is enacted by Republicans? Even the most conservative of politicians are wrong sometimes. Would you really prefer that all FR threads were like the "Day in the Life" threads?
Oh I don't know, maybe, because we are pursuing a War on Terrorism.
Look dude, cry all you want, it's an act, for you know that Hillary or Gore would have been 1000 times worse, but you would rather rant and act like some shite flagellating himself bleeding, shouting, "I have been abandoned by Bush".
JMO, it is a tiresome act on FR.
What the public wants is free government money, not fiscal responsibility.
The fiscal conservative argument doesn't appeal to many people in these times, so no practical politician is going to spend much time making the case for it.
Sometimes y'just hafta ruin the country in order to prevent anyone else from ruining it.
Which they would. The only problem with that reasoning is that when Clinton was in office, the Republicans had some backbone and fought against gross over-extension of government programs.
Criticizing is one thing but accusing Bush of "abandoning" conservatives is just flat out false.
I'm 100% behind Bush's foreign policy -- not one complaint. But what do the Farm Bill, the Energy Bill, and a prescription-drug entitlement program have to do with the War on Terrorism?
Are you suggesting Hillary would be better.
Look I know that I don't live in a perfect world, but I also know that Bush is 1000 times better than Hillary.
I just get tired of the contant whining on micro machinations based on someone flagellating themself on principle.
An easy question to ask. Who is better in your opinion? Hillary or GW.
Many on this thread are not "anti-Bush". I personally can name a ton of good things he's done and fully plan to vote for him next year (barring him signing the AWB renewal). However, I feel it is healthy to vigorously protest expansions of government, regardless of who's doing it, and unfortunately, this administration has been doing a heck of a lot of government expanding.
Aren't there important differences between small-l libertarian and "conservative" thinking?
Sounds a bit like Convenient Conservatism to me.
And I must disagree with Paul here - those Republicans committed to limited government are a small and shrinking faction of today's GOP, not the base. Bush knows this, too.
Of course not. I've said countless times on this thread that I'm voting with good concience for Bush next year.
I just get tired of the contant whining on micro machinations based on someone flagellating themself on principle.
I'm sorry, but expanding the government more than Bill friggin' Clinton did is by no means a "micro-machination" IMO.
An easy question to ask. Who is better in your opinion? Hillary or GW.
Bush, of course. But I don't see what Hillary has to do with this article.
The anti-Bushies like to mock those threads. You know, if you don't like them, don't go on them. If you don't like FR, don't post here.
If FR becomes as you fear, then I will get bored and not post. I'm still posting.
And so are you.
Why must you belittle people for having principles. And I'm gonna look up flagellating just to make sure that's what you're doing.
What facets of small-l libertarian philosiphy do you find incompatible with conservatism?
Hey look the medicare bill was a certainty and this medicare bill has the seeds of privatization, something a Hillary/Ted bill would never have.
|
Like Barnum said, "There's a sucker born every minute, and most of them live!"
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.