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 ... 1,601-1,620, 1,621-1,640, 1,641-1,660 ... 2,001-2,015 next last
To: Luis Gonzalez
So, this is Bush's fault as well. Transparent.
Well, he's never tried to hide it, I'll give him that.
But then, denying it would be ridiculous.
To: Texasforever
You would probably think my name PSYCHO has some predetermining effect on why I would chose such a name.
I did not chose the name, it was given to me by my Brothers in arms. (SF, RVN,'70-'72)
The name has a very special meaning.....
To: George W. Bush
My position is that you take actions in accordance to what is in the best interest of the nation, and if the best interest of the nation calls for a broken pledge from a politician, so be it.
As you can plainly see, if you actually took the time to read the article posted, this is not MY interpretation, but the reality of what happened.
1,623
posted on
01/22/2004 9:26:57 PM PST
by
Luis Gonzalez
(The Gift Is To See The Trout.)
To: PSYCHO-FREEP
I like the name. I also like the name "pitchfork" it is so rebellious. LOL
To: Texasforever
I just don't like socialist foreigners. Especially Canadians. But you just love those down home Texas socialist like yur buddy Bush!
1,625
posted on
01/22/2004 9:28:57 PM PST
by
Nanodik
(Libertarian, Ex-Canadian)
To: Nanodik
You lose your last shred of credibility when you call President Bush a socialist.
1,626
posted on
01/22/2004 9:31:23 PM PST
by
onyx
(Your secrets are safe with me and all my friends.)
To: onyx
You lose your last shred of credibility when you call President Bush a socialist. Yeah, that drug plan of his was a great example of his faith in the free market.
1,627
posted on
01/22/2004 9:34:58 PM PST
by
Nanodik
(Libertarian, Ex-Canadian)
To: Nanodik
Why don't you do us all a favor and give us some detail about just why the President's drug plan is "Socialist"
Also, give us a point by point analysis of the plan as you understand it.
We are curious about how well educated you are about the facts.
To: onyx
One thing I really liked --- Bush promised to cut the federal deficit in half ---- I hope that is done immediately.
1,629
posted on
01/22/2004 9:42:20 PM PST
by
FITZ
To: Texasforever
And I always thought Pitchforks are for throwing B.S.!
You know....I guess that they still are and always will be. And those that use them are still stuck in the '50's.
To: FITZ
911 threw a monkey wrench in the fan as far as the budget is concerned, but in time, hopefully things will stabilize and the deficit will come back under control.
The economic recovery has a lagging effect on the deficit. It isn't evident until a year or so after the economic numbers show a positive gain.
To: PSYCHO-FREEP
Also, give us a point by point analysis of the plan as you understand it. Here is all you need to understand: Congress with the approval of POTUS has authorized $400B over 10 years to cover a "slot" of senior's prescription drugs expenses. So what we are doing is taking taxpayer dollars and transferring them to individuals based upon "need" as defined as having drug expenses that fall into that slot. This is a far cry from any market-based reform.
1,632
posted on
01/22/2004 9:54:38 PM PST
by
Nanodik
(Libertarian, Ex-Canadian)
To: FITZ
One thing I really liked --- Bush promised to cut the federal deficit in half ---- I hope that is done immediately.Me too. We hold the House and Senate. It can be done.
I was disappointed he's allowing a 4% growth in the Federal budget. I would have liked him to freeze it at this year's level or permit a growth of 2%.
1,633
posted on
01/22/2004 9:55:57 PM PST
by
onyx
(Your secrets are safe with me and all my friends.)
To: Texasforever
However they didn't need evidence. Now don't take this personally, but there is a LOT of evidence on a few around here.I assume, then, that you have the various psychiatric certificates and pieces of documentation attesting to the mental instability of people who don't automatically go weak in the knees at the mention of President Bush's name?
1,634
posted on
01/22/2004 9:58:42 PM PST
by
Tolerance Sucks Rocks
(Death is certain; little chance of success; what are we waiting for???)
To: Luis Gonzalez
You can believe that libmedia piece praising those wonderful budget-balancing Dims if you like but I don't think you'll get many takers here at FR.
It's bilge, lad.
Gingrich brought the fiscal discipline with his in-your-face tactics against the Dims.
Do you honestly think the Dims cut spending and government before Gingrich made them do it? Did you believe Klinton's claims to have cut 300,000 jobs from government too?
"Partisanship aside, Sabo said there's plenty of credit to go around, starting with former President George Bush."
"In 1990, Bush, a Republican, and the Democrats who then controlled Congress, teamed up to put the first big dent in the deficit with a package of tax increases and spending cuts. Bush paid a high political price for the agreement because it forced him to break his ``Read my lips: No new taxes'' promise he made in the 1988 campaign. Angered by the tax boost, maverick Republicans, led by current House Speaker Newt Gingrich, turned on Bush, contributing mightily to his defeat at Clinton's hands in 1992."
Oh, well, then that settles it. This Sabo, a liberal Dim no one ever heard of is obviously an impartial source of information.
This reminds me of all the weeping the Clinton gang did over those noble Democrats who laid down their public service careers when those mean gunowners threw them out of office in '94 because of the AWB ban.
Luis, I think we aren't going to agree if you really believe such things. I'm still hoping you're just being very very very sarcastic or trying for comedy points.
To: Texasforever
Do you mean that Bush created the Department of Education?
Given your age, you can't possibly be so ignorant. I mean when we had it on the ropes, he revitalized it and has now hugely expanded its funding again.
I suppose we can look forward to lowering our standards to those of Texas. A historic low for my state.
BTW, do you what percentage of school district budgets are federal money?
Relatively small in direct funding. And it varies by state and by district within the state. In some states, the federal monies are brokered through the state departments of education and the governor. Much of the funding is actually indirect. A meaningful breakdown of the actual funds and grants would be longer than anyone here would read. It's a complex web of funding and varying levels of qualification and participation.
It is the assumption of an unmandated federal role as the ultimate arbiter of testing that is the real mistake. It's a very liberal policy. There is no other way to define it in American political tradition.
At any rate, the rest of you can argue with the feds over it. They can force kids into sodomy education and teach Satanism under a federal mandate. Here is one less person who gives a solitary damn about it.
I can't think of a single conservative that I know who will run for re-election to any public education boards in my area. Actually, I don't know of any conservative candidates anywhere in the state. At least, I haven't heard of one. Not even one. And we will be replaced by liberals when we go.
Bush has told us that we have no role. Only federal bureaucrats under presidential directive do.
It's said that eternal vigilance is the price of freedom. Next time, I'll let you be vigilant. After Bush's education idiocy based on ideas from a backward state, I'm done with it. I have only two remaining policy objectives in my term and, given the circumstances, I don't think I can be stopped. After that, I'm done and they can pump any kind of raw sewage into the public schools that Bush or Hillary or Eddie Kennedy likes on any given day.
To: dcwusmc
The ONLY ones who really deserve the vote are the ones who have demonstrated their love of country by putting their very LIVES on the line for it. Bulls**t. That is slogan of the despot and the tyrant. All citizens deserve to vote and all citizens should respond to the call when needed. That's a fundamental cornerstone of democracy.
It's not elitist to say that if you are so concerned about your precious skin as to not want to stand and be counted where it matters, you should not be permitted to vote or hold public office.
You are spewing the very definition of elitism. Reserving power to your own chosen few.
We don't need an armed force 60 million strong in times of peace. We need enough volunteers to maintain a deterrent for peace and the first reaction to threat - just like we need those of us who volunteer as cops, firemen, and paramedics to preserve life on the streets. All members of a society should contribute and be willing to do what is required for that nation. All members of a democratic society are equal in contributing to the consent of the governed, the franchise.
It only reflects the love and dedication that the Marine, sailor, solder, airman has for his or her country, that they would risk THEIR lives to protect and defend YOURS.
Placing oneself between harm and home is an honorable service - if done with the honor of service without airs or demand for reward. Otherwise it is nothing but the braggadocio of a mercenary. Like I said before all vote, all should be willing to rise to the cause or need.
But to compel all through mandatory draft for franchise or worse, to restrict the most vital act of a democracy to only the military goes beyond elitism and militarism.
It becomes the basis of fascist dictatorship of the oligarchy - the rule of the few over all. If you don't see that, then you have no idea of what you claim to have defended.
To: George W. Bush
After Bush's education idiocy based on ideas from a backward state, Yeah all of us uneducated rednecks would be so much better off if all of you educated Yankees helped us become New York or Massachusetts or even California. So come on down and save us but bring a lunch.
To: Texasforever
Yeah all of us uneducated rednecks would be so much better off if all of you educated Yankees helped us become New York or Massachusetts or even California. So come on down and save us but bring a lunch.
You miss the point. I don't want anything to do with education in your state. It's your problem and only you can fix it. And I don't want you to have anything to do with my state. And I don't want unelected Washington bureaucrats and presidential appointees to dictate education policy to any state.
It seems you don't grasp the basic idea.
And, yes, Texas is a backward state in education. At least, it is to those of us who consistently are in the top 10% decade after decade.
And it's not about how much money is spent or what kind of students are put into the schools. But then, if Texans knew that, they would have had higher achievement all along. I suppose we Yankees really should be more tactful to those states who clung so stubbornly to the Dim party until the last decade.
If Bush wants to export a Texas policy to the nation, how about the legal right to shoot trespassers on your property? Instead, he cuddled up with the Brady Bunch on the AWB.
To: George W. Bush
I don't want anything to do with education in your state That is great but you should get a passing acquaintance with it somewhere. When some ignorant jerk calls a state backwards especially a state that could drive the country into bankruptcy should it so desire, just shows how stone stupid he is.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,601-1,620, 1,621-1,640, 1,641-1,660 ... 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