George Bush's Big Government Adventure

Free Republic and Various ^ | 01-30-02 | aaabest

[AAABEST]

With Conservative Like This, Who Needs Liberals?

Let me start off by addressing those who have been bashing(and I do mean bash) me and other well intentioned and well known Freepers as being anti-Bush, Libertarians, from the reform party or whatever. 

I voted for GWB, and I can ping several freepers to this thread that met me in real life at several Bush rallies (with megaphone in hand). I was a member of the Broward County Young Republicans before moving to the West coast of Florida and I was active in Jeb Bush's campaign for Governor. 

I've been on this forum for almost 4 years and anyone that knows me is aware of my conservative views and knows that I'm not a member of the reform party, I'm not a Libertarian (large "l") or any of the other things I and others like me have been accused of.

If you have been engaging in inflammatory rhetoric, bashing long-time, well known Freepers or acting like children because not all of us are enthralled with "Georges Big Government Adventure",  please try to control yourselves, at least while posting on this thread. 

It's not my purpose (at least at this point) to get GWB un-elected, I like him, he has a beautiful wife, he's a good Commander in Chief and he seems like an honest politician. However,  if he keeps ignoring conservative principles and promoting a larger more intrusive government, I and others can no longer continue to support him....on principle. 

We're working to roll back decades of governmental largesse, to root out political fraud and corruption, and to champion causes which further conservatism in America.

Above is the Free Republic mission statement.  After his first year, would anyone say that GWB has worked towards this end? I think many conservatives suffer from some kind of Stockholm Syndrome as a result of 8 years of President Clinton, because when I ask many of them what GWB has done for conservatism lately, all I get is that he's not Clinton. 

I know he's not a corrupt, law breaking scoundrel, but is that all that's required? Can our republic survive a cycle where Republicans get into office grow government greatly, interspersed with Democrats who grow government even more greatly with little or no reduction? There are actually people on FR that think all of this growth in government spending is some grandiose 8 year plan by Mr. Bush to fool Democrats so that he can cut government later. What an absurd notion.

If any of the initiatives below originated from the Clinton administration, people on FR would have had a cow. Those "Day in the Life of President Bush" threads garner hundreds of fawning responses, while a thread on how our government is growing out of control will die after 10.

I appeal to anyone reading this to consider the below information without bias. The links will open in a separate window for you convenience.  I will be adding to this information as necessary God bless America, God bless this forum and God bless you.

Click on the Picture of the President (thinking of new ways grow government) for the corresponding article.

	Huge education spending bill (i.e. Federal Local School Board Bribery Act) which liberal Democrats love that doesn't mention a word about choice or local control.
	Food stamps for immigrants.
	Largest spending bill in American History. The first to exceed 2 trillion dollars.
	The Airport Security Bill that completely takes control of over 28,000 screening jobs. Now it seems that they don't even have to be high school graduates either. The big difference, they can't be fired.
	100 million for welfare moms.
	Hugely Expanding Clinton's Amercorps boondoggle that all conservatives railed against.
	Kowtowing to law breaking illegal immigrants by proposing amnesty. Speaking of illegal immigrants who sneak across the border; "And we've got to respect that, seems like to me, and treat those people with respect," he added. "I remind people all across our country: Family values do not stop at the border."
.	38 Billion for a new Homeland Security bureaucracy that allots a 20% increase for border control. Guess what. It goes to our problematic Canadian border, with not a dollar spent on the Mexican border. Read it for yourself
	The  Orwellian "Patriot Act" that gives Federal authorities carte blanche to rifle through all of your digital communications and essentially,  rob your house without notice.
	71.5 billion over 10 years for government health care.
	Not releasing appropriate documents on Clinton and FBI corruption.

 

[Puppage]

Yes, and EVERYTHING Klinton stated in the SOTU address was nothing but the truth, right? You believed him, too? PLEASE. Just because SOMETHING was said by x42 doesn't make it true, nor does it mean that he was going to follow through with whatever it was he said. I bwliwvw history is with me on this one.

[verboten]

Southack believes that a master allowing his slave to have a private garden, their own seperate quarters, and to cultivate some food on their own (as many masters did) meant that slaves were free. I can safely say that Southack would think slavery is freedom. I guess the only time one has given up a freedom in Southack's view is if one finds themself dead because only when the right to eat, breathe, drink, or move has been removed will Southack think liberty has been sacrificed.

[Illbay]

You also didn't put it where stupid, pointless, senseless, sour-grapes and logic-bereft VANITIES belong: In the recycle bin "Your Opinions/Questions."

I've hit the abuse button.

[AAABEST]

Most here on both sides of this issue are at least thoughtful. I stated in the original what I like about Mr. Bush and what I don't. Many people who disagreed intellectually with me or people with similar viewpoints at least had objective arguments and showed discernment.

The way you defend every issue about every encroachment on our Free Republic, and agree with every single thing Bush has done leads me to believe your sentiments are born from pathology. In other words you lack any degree of discernment whatsoever.

If you're happy with a large intrusive government and those who promulgate such, just admit it so we can have an intellectually honest debate.

Your pummeling people with simple minded questioins like "what right have you lost" is juvenile. According to your thought process, an amendment would have to actually be deleted from the text of the constitution for you to consider that right to be lost.

When it comes to law, it almost always boils down to intent. If you're building a house and a brick falls on someones head, even though he's dead it's not murder.

What was the intent of the founding documents and the constitution? What was the intent of the first, second, forth and tenth amendments?

When a person works until Wednesday of any given week just so he can pay his bill to a huge bureaucracy, I'm sorry that is not a free society. Now matter how happy you yourself are to participate in this literal theivery.

The text of the second amendment might still exist in the Bill of Rights, but there are many people who are killed and mamed every day because they simply are not allowed to own or carry a gun. Even an animal has the right to defend itself and it's family, yet some humans don't.

Is it equal justice under the law when politicians and the rich can have armed protection in the same municipality where a single mom will have to be killed or have her life destroyed because somehow our system has deemed their lives more important than hers?

Are you going to tell me that government bureaucrats going through your email and robbing your house without your knowledge is in the spirit of the 4th amendment? Was it keeping with such when an executive loses a court battle then sends a paramilitary unit into someone's home arresting nobody and seizing no items to settle a family custody dispute?

The first amendment reads Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

The intent of this amendment was that congress shall not establish religion. That has somehow been bastardized into meaning that no person or entity that receives a single penny of government money shall make any mention of God at all, anywhere any time. What in the hell does congress have to do with the kid that was sent home from school because he dared bring a bible in that day.

I could go on and on (and on and on and on), but I'll only waste my time only to have you respond with some silly, irrelevant one liner "question".

The second amendment does not have to be irradicated completely to see that forcing a person to spend huge amounts of money and wait months possibly years in order to exercise that right.

In other words, the intent of the constituion is

FREEDOM

[WindMinstrel]

I, for one, would like to see the president reduced to a constitutionally limited executive. I'd like to see them all reduced to their constitutional roles.

Oh, A.J. you're so cute! When I was your age I believed government could be limited too. I learned that even though the lesser of two evils is still evil, at least it was a prettier evil!

[jla]

Would you do me a favor?

Of each of your critiques of George W, tell me what you would do if you were sitting in the Oval Office, and exactly how you would get your proposals enacted.

I'm not being facetious here, I'd really be interested in your answer(s).

In modern day history, we have had only two conservative presidents, Ronald Reagan & George W.
And President Reagan had his conservative critics too, who said he was kowtowing to the democrats at times. Many said that President Reagan should've taken an 'all or nothing' stance regarding his proposals to Congress, yet The Gipper wisely compromised at times, knowing he'd come back later & get the rest of what he wanted.

Here's an oft-heard statement: "George W's tax cut is too small".
Well, I know that, Rush Limbaugh knows that, Tom DeLay knows that, all conservatives know that, & George W knows that!
He's been in office one year, do we really want to rake him over the coals because he 'failed' to have a 10% flat tax bill passed? To outlaw abortion? To start drilling in the ANWR? etc., etc.

I heard our President state in his SOTU address that we will, if necessary take pre-emptive action against the enemies of freedom, (Iraq, Iran, N. Korea), & he also called for tax cuts to be made permanent.
Among other things, I'd say that after only one year he's doin' pretty good!

We have a President in office with exemplary high approval ratings from the people of this country. Because he hasn't scored 100% on a conservative litmus test after one year are we going to once again shoot ourselves in the damn foot & return the White House back to the liberals?
Or can we, for once, stop the internecine bickering and stand with our guy for seven more years?

[AAABEST]

LOL

Your neurotic hissy fits are a great source of amusment around here as are your drooling rants. It's not surprising that your sentiments lie with murderous flat earth dictators like Yassar Arafat, being you're a flat earther yourself.

Just so you know, you "hit the abuse button" about a half a day after JimRob visited and posted to this thread himself.

If you would have scrolled down to the very first post on this thread and realized that I didn't want this in "breaking news". We've been having problems with that lately.

Then again, flat earthers usually aren't very aware of their surroundings. You're forgiven.

[AAABEST]

Your post #406 makes some good points.

I'm aware of the fact that GWB can't turn the entire monster.gov around by himself, even Reagan had to cut deals with the Rats.

The point is he has no desire to. Most of the big government initiatives in the original post were not the result of wheeling and dealing with Dems so that he can accomplish goals like destroying the Soviet Union, or dismantling an oppresive tax system.

Almost all of these things were initiated by HIS OWN ADMINISTRATION, without having his hand forced in any way whatsoever. Without getting anything in return.

These big government ideas were his and his alone. The responsibility lies squarely with him and nobody else.

[harpseal]

When I voted for George W. Bush and when I demonstrated outside Joe Lieberman's home I did not expect anything much more than a slow down on the rush towrds a socialist state. I thought he might provide at least some breathing room that would postpone a Civil War in the USA. I am not happy with some of his proposals and policies but I did not expect I would be.

I shall wait and see what happens over the next months and years.

Stay well - Stay safe - Stay armed - Yorktown

[Illbay]

Yours is a perfect example of why they call these "vanity posts". Like Bill Clinton, you LOVE the sound of your own voice, and you are so self-absorbed that you can't possibly fathom that others are not so inclined.

That said, you have a right to your opinion. Do not place that opinion on the same level as legitimate news and editorial, though. It's not. It's just the same old "flat earth" rant (which is much, much more appropriate to label such kneejerk, reactionary and nihilist drivel as is contained in this thing).

The really scary thing is: You've shot your wad. You can't do any better than this.

I hope you have managed to obtain a skill in the meantime, so that you might support yourself between EIC checks from the government.

"A magnificent collection of name tags and hair nuts," I wager.

[francisandbeans]

So you wanna roll back Lagresse, eh?

Here is my 10 step program:

1. You have to let go of the idea of smaller government (just for a while, trust me on this).
2. Realize that the Fed won't give power back to the state without the state wanting it.
3. Look at your state scene....see who the power brokers are. Figure out where the balance of power is.
4. Organize with in your state. Begin getting interested in state politics and make connections with organizations that share your views.
5. Donate to the campaigns of your "State" elected representitives. You may find that your state allows for larger contribution than allowed for federal candidates. Especially if you own a small business.

6. Get power hungry state GOPers elected. If you live in high power state (like New York or Illinois) make the focus of your arguments on how much revenue is flowing out of the state to fund other state's problems.
7. Make a push for a rise in State taxes . (what? you heard me).
8. Push these candidates to extoll the virtues of state supported programs (eg. we don't need highway funding from the fed....we can take care of that ourselves)
9. With a higher tax base, your state becomes less dependant on the fed. This pute the fed in an awkward position. Remember, each state should be 50 experiments in gvt. If it is within your abilites, run for a small office (state rep.) or find someone who completely shares your views to do so.
10. Let your state begin the showdown. Hopefully, other states will see any success in these realms and begin following suit.

Essentially, what you would be doing is making the State more powerful than the fed. While you could be potentially building 50 small monsters (rather than one big one) they are easier to defeat longterm. This would set you up to pin local (county/city) vs. the state and gets you within a couple of thousand votes of the government of your dreams.

[AAABEST]

That said, you have a right to your opinion. Do not place that opinion on the same level as legitimate news and editorial, though. It's not.

Is it your mission in life to make your every post progessively more blockheaded than the last? If so you're doing an outstanding job.

FR has had a problem with posts that weren't intended to go in "breaking news". In the very first post on this thread, I stated such and alerted the mods.

I pointed all of this out to you 10 minutes ago, referred you to the text and told you JR was aware of it, yet you come back and repeat yourself like a pull-string parrot. Except the pull-string parrot might have better reading comprehension.

Go ahead and "hit the abuse button" again. At least your repetitive motor functions seem to be in order.

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

You are a laugh!
"He doesn't need you vote."
He barely mangaged to win the election and only after a lot of controversy and you are idiot enough to claim that he doesn't need our votes.
When he loses the next election, you will no doubt go through the Republican ritual of blaming the Libertarian Party for the sins of the Republicans.

[WhiteGuy]

A very thoughtful post.

I'm sure it pains you to have to come to terms with this fact.

Many freepers are simply in denial, thats understandable.

w and the majority of the republic party are not conservative. They are no different in their approach to governing than the democrats.

Is w better than gore or clinton? You bet!

Is he going to lead the country back to the society of opportunity and freedom as intended by our founding fathers?

NO.

[Sir Gawain]

Does users numbered 1 thru 2728 *not* posting this carry and weight with you?

I just meant this was not the post of a disruptor.

[AAABEST]

Ping to a few more people I like.

[Goetz_von_Berlichingen]

"There oughta be a revolution."

I'm beginning to think that the real reason why the Dead White Males who effected the first rebellion are being supplanted in the nation's pantheon by a more "diverse" array is not really because they are dead, white, or male, but because anyone contemplating their casus belli would have to admit that we have it far, far worse now than under Crown rule.

And as I have often written, either the rebellion against the Crown was unjustified, or . . .

The same goes for the removal and eventual criminalisation of all signs and symbols of the Confederacy. Of course, the Establishment will openly claim that the the CSA was evil because of slavery, but I am convinced that their real crime is perceived to be rebellion against Leviathon. If the modern critics of slavery were genuinely interested in human rights, they would level even greater vitriol at the mill and factory owners in the North whose DOCUMENTED treatment of their workers was only slightly more humane than the treatment of workers at the I.G.Farben factory at Oswieczim.

We might as well enjoy these discussions now because the days of free poltical discourse will be coming to an end in our lifetimes. It's all in the eventually-to-be-discovered penumbra of Mr. Bush's security measures. I'm sure the Democrats have already drawn up their Enemies Lists, even as they applaud our "War on Terrorism."