Bush leads country on spending spree.

Detroit News ^ | 12/28/03 | Tony Snow

[jimkress]

When it comes to federal spending, George W. Bush is the boy who can

[arete]

You have earned the enmity of all who love liberty and resist tyranny. You have made it clear you represent the same evil that gave the world Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and Hitler. You have subverted liberty.

That about sums up the neoconazis. Fabricate a war. Do a bunch of fear and hate mongering, and then trash the constitution while wildly expanding government. Oh yeah, like I'm going to vote republican.

Richard W.

[tbpiper]

Enough.


Taking a break from posting on DU?

[FreeReign]

JimKress:I will do all in my power to assure that neither you nor your progeny will ever again subvert and corrupt the freedom given us by God and protected by the blood of our citizens.

Does that include to misrepresent the truth?

[vto]

What's that?

[Sabertooth]

Perhaps people are missing the strategy here.

< -snip- >

Now there is a subtle difference in the "big-government" spending plans that are put forth by the Republican majority and those that are put forth in years past by Democrat majorities. The Republican program is designed to actually engage and mitigate the problem it is supposed to address, while the Democrat programs only built constituencies amd propagated the problem into eternity.

If you can't stop the locomotive, at least switch it onto the tracks you want it to follow.

The strategy is to grow a smaller government by making it bigger, trusting that it will all work out in the end.

The GOP motto ought to be "never seize a victory today, when there are empty promises to be gained for tomorrow."

Back-end promises to conservatives are never kept.

Or did I get the Supreme Court's CFR decision wrong?

The strategy of squandering the goodwill gained by the President's performance on the War on Terror an a government somewhat less rapid than the Democrats might wish, is bankrupt and has been from the start, the very persuasive handringing about getting "beat up by the media" notwithstanding.

[deport]

Hey Jimmie.... to help you and your CPs along here's a few New Years resolutions for you all to ponder.....

Click

It's going to be a long 2004 for the George W. Bush haters. To help them along in the months to come, we present New Year's resolutions for avid Bush detesters, and a few for his fans as well. Start with the foes:

• I resolve to examine at least one of the president's statements, acts, gestures or facial expressions without first insisting it proves that the man is a stupid chimp evil liar plastic-turkey-holding DRAFT DODGER MY GOD CAN'T YOU PEOPLE SEE HIM FOR WHAT HE IS?

• I resolve to consider that not everything Bush says is a lie. Example: If Bush says that ''two plus two equals four,'' I will not spit, ''Oh, that's Enron math,'' and spend the rest of the day rebalancing my checkbook in Base Eight.

• I resolve to grasp the absurdity of appearing on national talk shows to insist that our freedom of speech has disappeared.

• I resolve to be more precise in my language. When I am tempted to criticize the administration for being ''pre-emptive,'' I will recall that arresting all the hijackers on Sept. 10, 2001, would have been, well, pre-emptive, and that I might well have protested this indefensible act of ''profiling.''

• I resolve to let at least a minute pass before I accuse the administration of contemptuous high-handedness toward our allies. By which I mean France. I resolve to ask myself whether my attachment to French approval is analogous to a high school chess geek mooning after the lovely but haughty cheerleader who regards everyone with bemused contempt. She winked once. That was weeks ago. Was it all a tease?

• I resolve to accept the election returns, and not spend my precious mortal allotment in the humid chambers of the Internet message boards, insisting that BushCo obviously stole the election in 46 states. Perhaps Howard Dean will lose because he suggested that the governor of a toy-sized state knew more about the military and foreign policy than a man whose policies toppled the Taliban in Afghanistan and the Baathists of Iraq, and brought Libya to heel.

• Meanwhile, I resolve to admit I'd be delighted to impeach Bush for lying to a grand jury. Even about sex. Especially about sex.

Happy New Year

[TheCrusader]

"Bush's domestic policies are questionable but he's DAMN sure better than the alternatives."

That's part of the problem today, they don't give us any real alternatives, they just boil it down to two men who claim to be different but then one gets elected and does the opposite of his campaign promises. The desire to hold onto power makes them all want to please the other side.

All I need for proof of my viewpoint is the fact that "conservatives" control both Houses, the White House and the U.S. Supreme Court, yet conservative policies continue to get squashed, the government gets bigger and bigger and the homos get marital benefits. I'm voting for Bush again too, but mostly because I agree that the alternative is far worse. Frankly, I wish that Alan Keyes could get the Republican nomination.

[tbpiper]

Now we got a made up war

Liar

a contracting economy

Liar

I doubt that we can survive another four years of GW

Suitable replacement?........I think not, and the 'anybody but bush' line is already over used by the rest of your DU buddies.

[sinkspur]

Does that mean, however, we're stuck with every wrong-headed, profligate bit of domestic stategery he offers?

Reagan ran up the deficit more severely, as a percentage of GDP, than Bush is doing. He also awarded amnesty to illegals and bugged out of Lebananon at the first disaster.

He raised taxes, too, which Bush has not done.

Nobody's perfect, including presidents. It seems that there's a devoted cadre on FR who do nothing but carp on the negative, and wave the old "I'll never vote for him again" canard.

I suspect half of the "my-way-or-the-highway" types didn't vote for him the first time, and are trying to get some kind of bandwagon going for Howie Phillips, or Harry Browne, or some other no-name.

It ain't workin', and it never does.

[TheCrusader]

"The dems are driving the ship of state over the waterfall at 100mph and the pubbies at 35mph Not much of a choice - imo"

Best post I've ever seen on FR. You summed it up nicely.

[At _War_With_Liberals]

"When terrorists strike again under a President Hillary or Dean a bigger federal government and Bush's spending will be the least of your worries."

After Dean cuts a deal with the terrorists, there will be no need for them to attack.

Bin Laden did not attack US soil after 93 (to 2001), because he had a deal with bill.

[FreeReign]

Frankly, I wish that Alan Keyes could get the Republican nomination.

Keyes, or at least Keyes' POV would make a great president. However, if you remember back in November 2000, a majority of the people in the last election voted for either Gore or Nadar.

What does that tell you about the current elect-ability of Keyes?

[foreverfree]

bump

[sinkspur]

You have earned the enmity of all who love liberty and resist tyranny. You have made it clear you represent the same evil that gave the world Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and Hitler. You have subverted liberty. You have imposed tyranny upon your constituents.

Do you believe this s***? Bush is Stalin?

No wonder these third-party types spend their political lives like Shriners in clown cars.

[arete]

True, but I'm not getting 80% with Bush, not even 5%.

Is that 5% with or without the flightsuit? LOL

Richard W.

[raptor29]

Well Wilfredo, if you are only getting "5%" from the Bush administration's policies, I can only imagine what your other 95% encompasses. Also, haven't heard much about that evil Patriot Act this past week, after we might have intercepted/interrupted some planes headed for LA and Las Vegas.

[rbessenger]

I can't say that I'm willing to vote for a third party or stay home on election day but the failure of the Bush administration to get a grip on Congress and Big Gov policies is becoming a concern that I am at a loss to answer.

In theory, when a Pres or any other elected official disappoints, then voting against them, and for a better idea, is the way that the electorate has to make his/her voice heard. The problem is that on the campaign trail, Bush professes to mirror my smaller government sentiments but he is not coming through in his actions.

I don't want him to think that my vote for him means my endorsement of his big spending/big government programs of the first term. On the other hand I have no other way to get my voice heard.