Posted on 06/04/2006 7:09:35 AM PDT by kellynla
Well .. how convenient of the media to jump on the cut in funds to NY to castigate the President.
Rush explained all this yesterday .. too bad these people don't have the sense to listen. Rush said that the amount allocated before was larger because there was infastructure to be built and upgraded. Those items don't need to be funded again - they're already done. Therefore, the cut in funds.
Anybody with a real brain can see that.
However, politically, this was not good because I knew the moment I heard it that Hillary and Chuckie would be wall-to-wall on TV cursing the President.
I think his position is very clear, it is horray for amnesty BOHICA to the taxpayer, if you don't see that then.........I guess you are a knee jerk Bush Bott.
Oh I forgot - A Dem Prez and a Dem Governor were in power.
What a galactically stupid post! Not only are your remarks about Bush completely out of touch with reality, even your comments about Clinton make no sense.
Exactly!!! New York's budget is bigger than that of most nations. How much money are THEY spending on THEIR OWN security?
I would not think that at all. I think that now when they gather, physically, over phone, internet chat rooms, web sites etc...we catch them, kill them or otherwise disrupt them.
I find it impossible to believe that they have given up on organized attacks on our soil. It is completely unbelievable. It is much more likely that they consistently get their plans foiled or are otherwise incapable of attacking us due to our military, financial and other pressures placed on them.
I think his position is very clear, it is horray for amnesty BOHICA to the taxpayer, if you don't see that then.........I guess you are a knee jerk Bush Bott.
You've taken so much of what I've said entirely out of context. I agree fully with your second statement as posted here. So why are we in disagreement?
I've made my points clear. As to the SCOTUS, Miers was W's pick. Like it? Alito's was the one all but foisted upon him by Dims, the American people, and even some of the GOP.
But one judge while handing the nation to Mexico, in essence, to me is not worth the term. What good are justices if we don't have a nation in 20. There's where you and I apparently differ.
What you say his position is very clear on, is also the position that the DimLibs in the Senate and House take along with the RINOS. Unfortunately it supercedes everything else that W may be doing or have done.
Will the House hold out? Who knows. Who also knows whether it's strong enough and ethical enough to withstand the backroom strongarming that goes on in DC.
I will continue to hold the position that if anything even approaching the current Senate bill goes through, that it will be Bush, not Clinton, ironically, that has as a legacy the downfall of the U.S.
I don't care whether we agree on that or not. But it doesn't take an intellectual giant to realize that if we simply hand out nation to those that would change it, it likely won't change in ways that are favorable to our current way of life and to our current Constitution.
Cheers!
Sorry, Dolphy, part of that last response was regarding your post. I tried to group them.
Ok then, by implication you seem to believe then (and/or) that:
Our Clinton did many good things for our nation;
that Clinton could not have done even more damage had he not been forced to waste oodles of time defending himself from scandals;
and that Bush is right on track in terms of setting this nation back on course regarding immigration!
Right? I don't think that's so "galactically stupid." If you say that you didn't realize that I am primarily talking about immigration, then perhaps you ought to first understand WTH you're responding to. Just as with MNJohnnie, you've taken my points entirely out of context if that's the case.
Even out of context, I fail to see how the expansion of government, enormous entitlement programs, the creation of another department that is as screwed up as any ever in the existence of our nation, giving in to many liberal issues seemingly for the purposes of making a statement on "getting along" with Libs, and a border policy that would sink this country seem to qualify for "putting our nation back on the right track."
Oh, wait, what, b/c he inserted one seemingly very good USSC justice and another by accident, a very bad one otherwise if left to his own devices overcomes all of that, then that makes up for all the rest? Right!
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.