Skip to comments.
So you think George W. Bush is not a conservative?
SOTU transcript ^
| 1/22/04
Posted on 01/22/2004 7:07:09 AM PST by Wolfstar
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,501-1,520, 1,521-1,540, 1,541-1,560 ... 2,001-2,015 next last
To: Luis Gonzalez
Well, let's not give too much credit to Xlinton.
Let's remember Newt's '94 Contract With America and that Xlinton's spending was largely controlled by a Republican House (where spending bills originate) and they were following the contract.
Remember the impasse that led to shutting down the government in December of '95 ??
To: Sabertooth
The President did??
Saber regardless if the President mentioned anything about this out not .. there would be some around here that would still accuse him of things that he didn't say
You know it and I know it
1,522
posted on
01/22/2004 7:50:32 PM PST
by
Mo1
(Join the dollar a day crowd now!)
To: Sabertooth
Sorta takes care of your "Reagan never dids" on both abortion and the UN, in one shot. Nope. It was an EO that Bush reinstated. That EO had nothing to do with domestic abortion Bush signing the PBA ban did. The 1988 abortion bill ONLY prohibited abortions at Military hospitals it did not prohibit military personnel from having an abortion. Both the Reagan EO and the 1988 bill were process measures NOT bills actually restricting abortion procedures. The only restrictions placed were the locations that could not perform abortions, Military facilities, and international restrictions concerning population control aid when abortion was an option.
To: Luis Gonzalez
So you mean it really does not matter whether we have a Dem or a Rep as prez! I am SHOCKED! SHOCKED I TELL YOU! Ok, I guess I am wrong, Dubya is on par with Bill Clinton.
1,524
posted on
01/22/2004 7:55:37 PM PST
by
Nanodik
(Libertarian, Ex-Canadian)
To: zook
I'll go further. Anyone, left or right, who is bashing and trashing our president right now, during time of war, is giving aid and comfort to our enemies.
So, failing to utterly support and vote for Republicans is the same as belonging to Al-Qaeda?
I'll point out that even in the midst of the Civil War, Lincoln still held elections. We're not in a comparable situation today. Our basic franchise as citizens remains intact.
There is a certain amount of war hysteria in some quarters. Compared to the tense and immediate threat to the country during a few brief periods of the Cold War or far more dire threats to the country during WW II or the Civil War, we are still engaging in a police action in Iraq and elsewhere.
After all, we aren't convincingly at war with our completely open borders, with expanded domestic discretionary funding, without rationing of war materials, etc.
In short, we are in a post-war environment, the War On Terror steadily sliding toward the status of our decades-old War On Drugs.
You can say we're at war if it pleases you. But most Americans simply don't think that. And the number who do think that will steadily decline, barring another terrorist incident on American soil or on American interests overseas.
We used to have a saying around here about loose lips sinking ships. The phrase refers to much more than simply leaking secrets.
Who is this 'we'? The phrase was JimRob's litmus in my understanding. I thought when JimRob used the old WW II phrase, he used it in the historical sense, of not reporting troop/equipment deployment and transport plans. I thought it was prudent and we had plenty of info from official sources anyway.
What else do you think JimRob meant by this temporary restriction? That's all I ever read about it.
To: Texasforever
The only EO I could find was the Mexico City accords. I could not find more than one much less severa
"Several" wasn't the threshhold; you said "Reagan never did." Here's the other one I mentioned, btw. As President, Ronald Reagan put a stop to the practice of giving abortion in military hospitals. The President did not feel that federal funds needed to be used to provide abortions and thus he delivered an executive order, which ended this practice. http://fhss.byu.edu/POLSCI/DAYNESB/Papers/ScottDaw.htm
Clinton signed an EO rescinding that almost immediately upon taking office... January, 1993: Bill Clinton lifts ban on abortions and forced abortions in taxpayer-funded military hospitals overseas. Chicago Tribune, 1/22/93
|
1,526
posted on
01/22/2004 8:00:03 PM PST
by
Sabertooth
(Pakistani Illegal Aliens Deport Themselves - http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1058591/posts)
To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks
You are so right! here's proof of what you say:
click here
To: Boiling point
maybe that will be the slap in the face they need to stop dissing their base. The "base" has been slapping the face of the GOP ever since 1992. The GOP is finished turning the other cheek. So, go find your 3rd party again.
To: skip2myloo
I remember the base closings, the lost regiments, the fact that we spent ordnance bombing aspirin factories but failed to replace one damned bit of it. I remember being embarrassed, watching the "leader of the free world" trying to spin away from the fact that he'd received a blow job in the Oval Office, while discussing matters of national security on the telephone.
I remember FReepers promoting the idea that integrity mattered, and now, I am embarrassed that all that has been forgotten over what amounts to a 1.3% increase in government spending as a percentage of the GDP.
1,529
posted on
01/22/2004 8:03:03 PM PST
by
Luis Gonzalez
(The Gift Is To See The Trout.)
To: Sabertooth
As I said, ALL he did was place a restriction on WHERE a service member could receive an abortion. He did NOT prohibit that service member having an abortion. That is NOT an anti-abortion bill. Reagan NEVER signed an actual anti-abortion bill.
To: Nanodik
Actually, I take that back. Federal outlays as a % of GDP fell under the 2nd Clinton administration and are heading back up sharply under Bush II. More fodder for the argument that we need a Dem president to keep the free-spending Reps in line.
1,531
posted on
01/22/2004 8:05:09 PM PST
by
Nanodik
(Libertarian, Ex-Canadian)
To: Nanodik
You are so right! "W" is really just like Clinton. But I forget, can you give me some factual comparisons?
I can't think of any....or maybe you are just saying any crass thing that comes into that sliver you call a mind just to get us all angry and such so you'll have someone to argue with before bedtime.
To: Nanodik
How many times has the question of Dubya selling secrets to the Chicom been raised since his inauguration?
How many times has he lied under oath?
What's Dubya's body count in Alamo-girl's page?
What price do you put on the integrity of the office of the President of the Republic?
1,533
posted on
01/22/2004 8:06:07 PM PST
by
Luis Gonzalez
(The Gift Is To See The Trout.)
To: Texasforever
Well, I've been voting for the GOP in Presidential elections ever since I could. Unfortunately, we haven't had a real conservative since Barry Goldwater.
Gee, I wish we still had some Goldwaters and Dirksens on our side - what great men.
To: Nanodik
"More fodder for the argument that we need a Dem president..."Which makes you a liberal.
Nice to have outted you.
1,535
posted on
01/22/2004 8:07:26 PM PST
by
Luis Gonzalez
(The Gift Is To See The Trout.)
To: Ophiucus
A peace between Israel and the 'Palestinians' would end the power of Arafat and his murderous thugs. So, Israel moves toward peace - Palestinians attack - must maintain power.If that were the case, then the Palestinians would only maintain the same level of terror in response to concessions by Israel. The reason they actually step up terror in response is that they know their tactics are working, so they do more of what works for them.
Same with the Democrats.
1,536
posted on
01/22/2004 8:08:17 PM PST
by
inquest
(The only problem with partisanship is that it leads to bipartisanship)
To: PSYCHO-FREEP
I took it back, OK. The Clinton administration was nothing like the Bush administration on domestic policy. Clinton's was much more responsible.
1,537
posted on
01/22/2004 8:08:49 PM PST
by
Nanodik
(Libertarian, Ex-Canadian)
To: George W. Bush
You are bashing the President.
You are doing it because you lack a candidate to elevate.
Like the Democrats, your only message is "hate Bush".
1,538
posted on
01/22/2004 8:08:57 PM PST
by
Luis Gonzalez
(The Gift Is To See The Trout.)
To: skip2myloo
Barry Goldwater was to the left of Ted Kennedy and when he finally realized he would never be president he stopped the pretense and showed his true colors.
To: Nanodik
Federal outlays always rise during wartime.
1,540
posted on
01/22/2004 8:10:03 PM PST
by
Luis Gonzalez
(The Gift Is To See The Trout.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,501-1,520, 1,521-1,540, 1,541-1,560 ... 2,001-2,015 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson