So you think George W. Bush is not a conservative?

SOTU transcript ^ | 1/22/04

[Poohbah]

It's from a FReeper named "Zipporah" who lives in Kentucky. Howlin contacted both of Kentucky's Senatorial offices and determined that this is a false statement.

[Bikers4Bush]

Can't find where clinton did anything to change immigration law but here's something that appears to show that it can be done through executive order.

http://www.ilw.com/lawyers/immigdaily/exec_branch/2004,0105-exec.shtm

[gatorbait]

n't need them. Already have em'.

This is wonderful news, then.Call them, get the aide's name and a direct quote and the aide's sources . Then you can put this to rest in a manner that should remove all doubt.

A win-win situation for all concerned.

[exmarine]

You get no argument from me about this. On his bad days , he is better than any of the dwarves or Hillary! on a good day.As for the third party types. well, again, they might want to visit the Pat Buchanan Presidential Library for solace.

Just because the majority of republicans will still vote for Bush that doesn't mean his positions aren't liberal. Republicans fall prey to GROUPTHINK or the herd instinct as much as the liberals do. The majority is often wrong, especially in a country that gave >50% to Gore. So, I don't care if 85% of republicans back Bush, he's still liberal on many issues. That is a fact.

People who put party before principle are logically more prone to fall prey to groupthink. But arguments are won on the issues and logic, not on majority vote.

[Your Nightmare]

Somebody needs to show me where Executive Orders are in the Constitution. I can't seem to find it.

[Bikers4Bush]

All you've proven is that they now won't admit it which to be honest is really no surprise.

And if you read the post from Zapporah it was from someone he knew. Not an official announcement.

[sinkspur]

There will be money needed to set up a Guest Worker Program.

Appropriations for that would have to come through Congress. Bush can't spend money Congress hasn't authorized.

[Protagoras]

Of course I made that post, in response to another. If you didn't read all of the posts, you can't testify to context. So rave on if you wish, this is boring. Why you took up this nonsense is anyone's guess, it has nothing to do with the thread. It's just a continuation of a flame war by Howlin, who doesn't like to be asked to back up inane statements designed to worship her idol and mislead others.

Ta ta, I'm gone for the day. Have fun with whatever your agenda is.

[Bikers4Bush]

No I was saying that it had been reported that that was his intention.

[Bikers4Bush]

Which is exactly what I've said, we shall see.

[Mo1]

Yep .. reported by a senator's aid with no name .. right?

[MEG33]

Are you saying I am unprincipled if I vote for Bush?

[Howlin]

You may just well be one of the biggest frauds I have ever seen on FR.

And it doesn't matter WHO he knows. They don't know what they are talking about.

[international american]

"People who put party before principle are logically more prone to fall prey to groupthink. But arguments are won on the issues and logic, not on majority vote."

The arguments here for Bush, are the same arguments the left uses on why any Democrat is better than a Republican..Bush goes left on some issues, right on others...or he chickens out on SCOTUS....I am a conservative first, a Republican second!

Semper Fi

[honeygrl]

No, I think they could hire citizens at minimum wage atleast if they need people in the fields. The "Americans won't do those jobs" talk is pure BS. Both of my parents worked in cotton fields when they were young along with a lot of other Americans and I'm sure plenty could still be found to work the fields if needed. Bush suggesting that Americans won't do those jobs is an insult to Americans.

[Bikers4Bush]

Money? Have you seen the budget for the dept. of homeland defense?

[George W. Bush]

I think many (not all) of the naysayers have serious emotional problems. Their inability to break themselves of the same focus and comments day after day after day after day is symtomatic of obsessive-compulsive behavior at the very least. Their "moral equivalency" viewpoint which sees absolutely no distinction between Bush and the Democrats shows a serious inability to discern differences in morality. Frankly, some of the naysayers on FR scare me. I'd never have them in my home or anywhere near my family.

Gee, life is so much simpler once you finally realize that all who might disagree with you are either evil or crazy or both.

Of course, there are cynics (not me of course) who might assert that your own remarks are a textbook description of paranoia.

Practicing psychiatry via packet-switched network is such a rare ability. I've often wondered why there isn't much demand for such mental health services.

[George W. Bush]

I think many (not all) of the naysayers have serious emotional problems. Their inability to break themselves of the same focus and comments day after day after day after day is symtomatic of obsessive-compulsive behavior at the very least. Their "moral equivalency" viewpoint which sees absolutely no distinction between Bush and the Democrats shows a serious inability to discern differences in morality. Frankly, some of the naysayers on FR scare me. I'd never have them in my home or anywhere near my family.

Gee, life is so much simpler once you finally realize that all who might disagree with you are either evil or crazy or both.

Of course, there are cynics (not me of course) who might assert that your own remarks are a textbook description of paranoia.

Practicing psychiatry via packet-switched network is such a rare ability. I've often wondered why there isn't much demand for such mental health services.

[kevao]

AKA: An Anonymous Source.

[Ophiucus]

Fortunately, the Founders didn't believe in such nonsense. The historical basis for voting was that of the privilege of property owners.

A common misconception but that isn't how all states were. New England states not only went beyond the all freemen living in the jurisdiction, but those freemen included blacks. A nasty little rumour ad it that Connecticut allowed women to vote for a few years under the Articles. Historical basis was the enlightened electorate, educated and with roots in their districts.

But keep reaching for reasons to justify abrogation of civic duty.

The Founding Fathers knew that a democracy could survive only if the citizens exercised their franchise responsibly, knowledgeably, and faithfully.

We aren't compelled to vote by some nutcase murderous dictator. And refusing to vote does send a message to the parties, one that they can read quite well even if FR's Bushbot contingent can't figure it out

No, we are not compelled to vote. Civic responsibility should be enough of a motivation.

Not voting doesn't send any kind of powerful message to the parties.

The message not voting sends is that most voters don't give a s**t no matter what the politicians do.

So the parties and politicians focus more and more on the minority groups and special interest groups that do vote. The parties feel that a focus on presenting views, educating about the important issues facing the nation is a waste. Why care about those who don't care enough to vote? Instead, focus on the few that do vote - buy their votes, pander, and don't don't worry about the good of the nation or what the majority might think.

Because the majority of voters don't bother.

Whether it's because of apathy or a selfish 'message', the republic is failing because of the horrendous lack of responsibility and duty in the electorate.