"Bush signs campaign finance law" (An oldie but goodie for you BushBots! Have a nice day!)

various wire reports, via Japan today ^ | March 28, 2002 | AP via Japan Today

[CyberCowboy777]

Reagan was a liberal Republican - did you see the spending under his administration? And all those stupid battles with the Soviets! HA! That did not take any courage - they were the quintessential bad guy.


Not since Goldwater have we had a "TRUE" Conservative. </ sarcasm >

[Dr. Frank fan]

No, it was a very popular war ... Didn't take courage for Bush to bomb a skunk like Saddam.

We have a simple disagreement here.

It would have taken real courage to veto this monstrous campaign finance bill - - but he didn't have it in him.

Evidently not.

Like I already said, even at the time, I disagreed with his choice to sign that bill. I've no desire to repeat myself any more than I already have about this.

Anything else?

[uncbob]

And the polls say (78%) that we want the borders secured, we want a balanced budget, we want a conservative agenda.... So much for that.

Sorry but them kind of polls don't even make it to the evening news
Polls showing the majority want a war on terror etc etc that would have occurred on Bubba's watch would have LED the evening news and Bubba would have rode them for all they were worth

[stands2reason]

Well, If you vote for Bush, apparently you think he "walks on water"---

What this comes down to is those that think government works better "gridlocked" ie. with a Pubbie congress and a Dem president

vs.

Those who will tolerate more spending from a total Pub gov't so a Dem president will not destroy us defensively.

I find the threat of a budget deficit less scary than a leftist leading us on the world stage right now.

[churchillbuff]

Gosh it's hard conversing with a BushBot. W guy can do no wrong. Clinton had followers like that, too.

[Digger]

A David Duke or my dog could have done this also. Speak'in of David, I wonder if he would be going around telling the sheep that Islam is a religion of peace or telling Taiwan to kool it.

[At _War_With_Liberals]

"RIGHT ON!!! I'm tired of this death by a million cuts. Let get it on."

Yep. I'm done. Repubs are supporting leftists and advancing their cause. I will not be an accessory. There is a push on to marginalize us, and I don't give a damn any more.

Our own people are attacking us from the left constantly, and the admin, the RNC and rep media are now on board officially.

If I support them, I support progressives(socialism, bye bye constitution) and their own interests, and SCREW myself and my family.

I have only come to this conclusion today, when I realized that I am persona non grata in the party.

[William McKinley]

Thanks for telling me what I would and would not do.

However, I don't agree. I see a political calculation which was a mistake.

Let's look at the core problems here-- and there are three:

1) The Congress

2) The President

3) The Supreme Court.

All three contributed to this god-awful bit of legislation, but the one that failed us the most is the Supremes.

How do we get the Supreme Court fixed? That is the last line of defense, after all.

So Bush signed a bit of legislation, hoping that it would help him change the legislature by getting rid of Democrats and hoping it would keep him in office so he could change the court. I believe it was a political calculation, because in other areas (from Kyoto to the ICC to declaring his administration's position that the 2nd amendment is a personal, not a group, right) he has been good. He has nominated good judges. In all of these areas, Clinton was the opposite. For each man, the pattern of their decisions weighs on how I respond.

If Clinton had signed it, it would be just another brick in the wall. For Bush, it has been a very bad, very wrong exception to the general trend.

[Digger]

Polls showing the majority want a war on terror etc etc that would have occurred on Bubba's watch would have LED the evening news and Bubba would have rode them for all they were worth

So what you are saying is we need a pres that is not a leader but a politician to satisfy the Canadian man on ABC?

[Analyzing Inconsistencies]

http://www.Dictionary.com has 3 definitions for the word plutocracy:

*Government by the wealthy.
*A wealthy class that controls a government.
*A government or state in which the wealthy rule.

In the USA, 1% controls over 40% of the nation's wealth.

Hmmmm....

[CyberCowboy777]

Your anger is clouding your logic.

Clinton did not do these things, your dog did not do these things, David did not do these things.

If they were so easy - why has nobody done even one of them since Reagan?

[45Auto]

If we want socialism, let's try it in earnest for a few years

You're assuming that once we get to full-blown socialism, that the vote will have any meaning; I'm not too sure what meaning it has today. Certainly, we voted out Davis in the Cal recall, but who's to say what form US Socialism will take? Maybe the former Soviet Union would be a good historical marker, or maybe Zimbabwe - socialism is a disease and it does not lend itself to easy removal once installed. "No tyrant has ever given up power voluntarily." That goes for singular dictators and dictatorial oligarchs.

[CyberCowboy777]

Should we strip them of that wealth?

[ex-snook]

"It would have taken real courage to veto this monstrous campaign finance bill - - but he didn't have it in him. "

Lack of courage? maybe. But it fits into his MO of ignoring things. He ignored Israel-Palestine and it got worse. He ignored the Muslims and we got 9/11. He ignored the economy and we got a crash. He ignored American workers and we got 3,000,000 missing jobs. He ignored NK and we got a crises. He ignored the world and now can't find a friend to help. He ignored what Congress is doing and we got CFR plus bigger government, bigger debt and never vetoed a spending bill.

[L.N. Smithee]

To imply that it took no political courage to take out Saddam just because "everyone hated him" is nonsense. Everyone may profess to "hate" Saddam but that doesn't mean everyone was in favor of an invasion to oust the sucker; on the contrary it was protested and debated and whined about, and continues to be to this day. To try to deny this is just asinine.

Did I dream the worldwide years-long uproar over whether or not to topple a dictator that "everyone hated?"

Holy revisionist history, Batman!

Having said that, I am in full agreement with the comments Rush made this morning about the folly of CFR, although he seemed to take pains not to blame Bush for signing it into law as much as the GOP in general for passing it -- and John McCain specifically.

[Analyzing Inconsistencies]

Should we strip the USA of its democratic notion that politically speaking people are equal, not more "equal" than other people?

[CyberCowboy777]

Gosh it's hard to conversing with someone who assumes.

I am no Bush Bot - just an ad hominem attack.

My points are valid - you can reject them, but they are not based in any adulation of Bush.

[L.N. Smithee]

Lack of courage? maybe. But it fits into his MO of ignoring things. He ignored Israel-Palestine and it got worse. He ignored the Muslims and we got 9/11. He ignored the economy and we got a crash. He ignored American workers and we got 3,000,000 missing jobs. He ignored NK and we got a crises. He ignored the world and now can't find a friend to help. He ignored what Congress is doing and we got CFR plus bigger government, bigger debt and never vetoed a spending bill.

Holy cow...did Bush's overspending transform you into Dick Gephardt overnight?

[45Auto]

I want to ROLL back all socialism aggressively.

There's probably only one way to do that - a very unpleasent way, I'm afraid.

[rintense]

I'm sorry to be getting under the skin, again, of the "Bush walks on water" freepers, but it's important to remember whose cowardice gave us campaign finance "reform". Have a nice day!

Sorry, but very few here think Bush walks on water. I love the man, and I will vote for him again. And as a self-professed Bushbot, I am extremely pissed about all the CFR stuff (check my posting history if you don't believe me). You'll find many of the Bushbots are not happy with today's ruling. Those of us who gave Bush a pass because we were 100% sure the SCOTUS would strike the law down have been snookered. Personally, I placed faith in the wrong group of people. I will NEVER expect the SCOTUS to uphold the Constitution- but I will expect my President to do so. There will be no more passes.