Bush Is Said to Seek More Money for Arts [$15 million to $20 million for NEA]

New York Times ^ | January 29, 2004 | ROBERT PEAR

[Lazamataz]

Don't waste your trip to the voting booth. At least vote for someone in the Presidential slot. Be it Constitution, Libertarian, or whoever. That one vote might not make a difference this time, but it will start sending a message to the Republican party of just how many have left the reservation as their big tent continues to move to the left.

It's a thought offered to me by another valued and trusted FReeper. I'll mull it over.

[secret garden]

If you get anything more than a form letter, please let us know. I share your sentiments.

[Lazamataz]

You can't buy friends. Despite lavishing compassion and grants on them, the Administration will mine as many votes from the leftist artsy-fartsy bloc as it will from the gimme-gimme immigrant bloc.

That's also a good point.

[Howlin]

Here's are a few posts to add to the pot:

To: Conservative Coulter Fan

And some of the reasons why we should vote to re-elect President Bush are:

Bush won't hand over U.S. sovereignty to the U.N. like Kerry, Dean, Edwards, et al, will.

Bush will defend America rather than surrendering to the French, et al, like Kerry, Dean, Edwards, et al, will.

Bush won't sign onto America killers like Kyoto or the so-called world court, world government, etc., like Kerry, Dean, Edwards, et al, will.

Bush is pro-life, pro-marriage, pro-family, pro-America, pro-God and will NOT appoint liberal activist judges like Kerry, Dean, Edwards, et al, will.

If you are at all interested in stopping the Marxist liberal take-over of America, then here's the place to draw the line.

68 posted on 01/28/2004 2:34:38 PM EST by Jim Robinson (I don't belong to no organized political party. I'm a Republycan.)

[Jim Robinson]

And some of the reasons why we should vote to re-elect President Bush are:

Bush won't hand over U.S. sovereignty to the U.N. like Kerry, Dean, Edwards, et al, will.

Bush will defend America rather than surrendering to the French, et al, like Kerry, Dean, Edwards, et al, will.

Bush won't sign onto America killers like Kyoto or the so-called world court, world government, etc., like Kerry, Dean, Edwards, et al, will.

Bush is pro-life, pro-marriage, pro-family, pro-America, pro-God and will NOT appoint liberal activist judges like Kerry, Dean, Edwards, et al, will.

If you are at all interested in stopping the Marxist liberal take-over of America, then here's the place to draw the line.

[Wurlitzer]

"I like theater and real music, and am bored out of my mind by sports, yet I'm told that taxes shouldn't support struggling arts companies, but they should support billionaire sports team owners and their millionaire players. How about a little intellectual consistency? "

ABSOLUTLY!

I am an engineer (EE) and why the hell should I be pounding the pavement to find work while money is stolen from me to give to a bunch of drug sucking low lives who would turn this country over to the communists in a heart beat?

As I cannot take up arms against these people the only thing I can do is hide as much of my income as possible.

Damn the nerve of the government deciding which professions get a free ride.

[Wurlitzer]

"Actually I much rather Bush used little token things like NEA funds to reach out to soccer moms, urban professionals, gays, whatever - than to completely sell-out the Country attempting to narrow his losing margin among Hispanics. "

Fine you send in your money for the both of us. He will not win a single vote from the leftest NEA trash. Why should the government decide which professions can suck on the taxpayers tit?

[afropick]

Before I make any commernts, let me put my flame resistant suit on. Okay, now even I am getting increasingly more dismayed by the proposals Pres Bush has put forward in the past few months. I also have to admit that as a newbie convert to conservatism, I do understand and respect those who have been burned over the years and will more than likely either stay home or vote third party. I just simply plead for perspective and recognize that right now at this critical part of our history that national security should be the overriding concern for all of us. But also this anger should not be all aimed toward Pres Bush, because on all levels, local, state, and federal, many others are just as responsible. Even though the Congress is controlled by Republicans, a democrat pres can and will get some law or some people appointed to critical positions in government. 9/11 for me showed that the dems should never control the White House until they get there act together on the defense of our republic. So in Nov, I know where my vote will be for.

[Don Joe]

Good catch.

[Lazamataz]

I'd respond to each of these points but I'd rather not anger Jim.

I wish you had made your own points so that I could address them.

[af_vet_rr]

OK, the issue is whether the government should subsidize it on the surface. But do you think that is really the source of the emotion over the spending of pennies?

You can blow off other people's attitudes over "pennies" but it is exactly this kind of thinking that has gotten us the deficit and big government we have today.

Pork is pork, and election year politics are still election year politics, and this kind of spending of our money is very wasteful.

[Dane]

That's because you're a leftist, and you honestly never cared about limited government to begin with,/i>

JMo, but you are the one of the most presumptious person I have ever seen.

Your arrogance knows no bounds.

Maybe that's why your party, Libertarian, is such a loser in the politcal arena.

[Mo1]

LOL

[Dane]

That is a principled stand. My principled stand will be to refuse to vote for a liberal, whatever the party label

Holding your breath until you turn blue until you get 110% of what you demand is no way to go through life.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

I have to agree - this looks like a purposeful insult. It's not as damaging as the amnesty for illegals, but symbolically this could not be worse. What the HELL is going on?

[carton253]

Don't vote for him... that will show him!

[Dane]

I have to agree - this looks like a purposeful insult. It's not as damaging as the amnesty for illegals, but symbolically this could not be worse. What the HELL is going on?

Sheesh do you take things so personally? Sheesh there is more drama on this thread than any NEA play.

[Howlin]

Sheesh there is more drama on this thread than any NEA play.

ROFLMAO!

[Natural Law]

Bush has become a world class RINO. Frankly, I have no motivation to vote for him in the next election.

[B Knotts]

Y'know, I really don't like this expansion of money to be wasted on filth, nor do I find very appealing the knee-jerk defenses offered by our fine 'bots.

However, I feel it must be said that a lot of this criticism is really not entirely fair.

Pres. Bush is being criticized for not being sufficiently conservative. But, honestly, I knew he wasn't really a conservative when I volunteered, contributed and voted for him. Is there anyone here that can honestly say they seriously thought he was an actual conservative?

All the signs of mushiness were there, including the illegal-alien coddling (go back to 1994, and read what he said about California's Prop. 187...while he was governor of Texas, no less). Did we not have any suspicions about his much-vaunted ability to work with Texas Democrats?

"Compassionate conservatism" is really neither. At least it's not very compassionate to taxpayers.

On the other hand, he certainly has his good points. He has done a pretty good job running wars, and he's got the economy coming back on line. He's also kicking the a**es of the environmentalist wackos in many areas.

So, the question we ask ourselves this year is the very same question we asked in 2000. Should we support a guy who is electable in order to stave off the inevitable collapse of our country for a couple of more years?

[MJY1288]

"Sheesh there is more drama on this thread than any NEA play."

ROFLMAO