George Bush's Big Government Adventure

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

[Exnihilo]

Cubeguy, it's just a fact. Just think about how slow the Congress is now with two parties. Can you even begin to imagine how much slower it would be with three, four or five parties all struggling for power and control? Sorry, multiparty systems are a bad, bad, bad idea.

[jeremiah]

How can we rollback govt, one spoonful at a time, when all it takes is one election cycle of Democrats winning and we would be back at square one? The only way to rollback, is to apply the constitution, use the Supreme Court, and bring cases that will eliminate some of the bureaucracies that are clearly not enumerated in it.

[jla]

Who is we? I have nothing whatsoever to do with you or any group you represent.

I'm a registered Republican; I'd describe myself as a 'Reagan-Conservative'.
What would you be then?

I want SMALLER government, and I want the process to start now. I don't expect it to be completed anytime soon. But I want it to START NOW. Advocating larger government is going in the wrong direction.

I am being realistic, but people like you are not.

You use the word 'I' five times.
Now 'I' will ask what you intend to do as you show an obvious disdain for George W.?

[Spiff]

Just think about how slow the Congress is now with two parties. Can you even begin to imagine how much slower it would be with three, four or five parties all struggling for power and control?

That would be wonderful to have such a slow, inefficient Congress. That's kind of the way it was designed in the first place. Our Federal Government was not intended to be efficient. The most efficient government is complete totalitarianism.

I'd love to see Congress slow down a bit in eroding our freedom and enacting unconstitutional legislation - in spending our hard-earned money that they confiscate from our paychecks on big government, welfare state programs.

[Ragin1]

Bwahaha. Did you read Jim's posts on this thread. Seem's to be supportive of AAA's train of thought. It will really be horrible if this forumn becomes conservative again, won't it?

[KirkandBurke]

It's the Guinness talking.

[Protagoras]

Your rule. Means nothing to me.

But I must admit that I knew you would say it. Lemmings are nothing if not predictable.

The parallels to other wildly popular leaders is a little chilling, and I dare say downright unconfortable to those with your views.

Want the names of a few more who weren't Nazis?

[Inspector Harry Callahan]

Simple. He could adopt Ron Paul's policy of reviewing ANY legislation that comes his way and comparing it with the Constitution. If it doesn't meet Constitutional muster, he would (like Congressman Paul) issue a press release outlining the reasons he won't sign the bill into law. He could do that with any legislation that Congress sends him. Does he? Nope.

Also, he could adopt the same policy for legislation that he, himself proposes. If it's not Constitutional, it gets scrapped.

That would be a start in the right direction.

[My2Cents]

Remember: the same electorate that elected Bill Clinton twice, elected George Bush.

Excuse me!...Bill Clinton got a little under 50% of the popular vote in 1996 (42% in 1992). GW Bush got a little under 50% of the popular vote in 2000. Are you saying that because the percentages are almost identical that the very same people who voted for Clinton voted for Bush?! It sure sounds that way.

You people in your pin-headed kneejerk bashing of Bush are losing it.

[sam_paine]

I think even with his speach [SIC] problem....[/dripping_irony_off]

Well, well. This thread is just gushing with folks that know what should've been done to get into the White House and run it right, cuz GW ain't "man enough."

HA!! I suppose all you folks are disappointed with the weak-spined founding fathers that were just trying to form a "more perfect union" and overlooked slavery hoping to fix it within a century down the road! Had they tried to "show backbone" and fix everything all at once, you'd still be taking tea this afternoon, sir (spoken in a heavy British accent). ;^/

[headsonpikes]

Your #444 on Roosevelt's Revolution should be read by all.

Socialism already has a long history in America. ;^(

[Joe Brower]

Good post. Certainly has generated a lot of heat as well as some light. Which is to be expected when stating the situation as plainly as you have.

I tend to agree with your POV, as well as that of harpseal. We have simply slowed the juggernaut, not stopped it. It will take another Yorktown to do that, unfortunately. But such are the lessons of history.

[AAABEST]

I hope you didn't mean to lump me in with the brain-washed socialist shills like Southack, et.al. I was defending you against them. I'm with you all the way.

D00d, what are you talking about, I love your posts. Especially #449. What you're saying is let them choose the weapon, force their hand and let The Lord's scowl be upon them.

You nailed it.

[CubicleGuy]

Cubeguy, it's just a fact.

I probably should have put some kind of sarcasm tag, or a wink or something.

My point is that the two parties we have now are so close to each other that I almost can't tell them apart. They claim to want different ends, but they're both using the same means: a big, socialist government. To me, that's vastly different from making any kind of a case for actually rolling back the size and areas of responsibility in government. It's one thing to give the citizens a tax cut, and it's another thing to actually roll back spending and to actually kill government programs. When was the last time a President, in the State of the Union address, has provided a list of programs to kill instead of a list of new programs that should be started? What happened to the Republican goal of the elimination of the Department of Education?

[AUgrad]

Enjoyed your post. Your point of view is very close to my own. Keep up the good work.

[NMC EXP]

Realistically/pessimistically, I don't think it can be rolled back. The experiment failed.

"What have you wrought, Mister Franklin?". "A Republic, if you can keep it.", he replied.

Regards

J.R.

[NMC EXP]

Great post....thanks.

Regards

J.R.

[Protagoras]

I'm a registered Republican; I'd describe myself as a 'Reagan-Conservative'. What would you be then?

It never occurred to me that you were anything other. If you want to know my views generally, you can read my profile.

I want SMALLER government, and I want the process to start now. I don't expect it to be completed anytime soon. But I want it to START NOW. Advocating larger government is going in the wrong direction. I am being realistic, but people like you are not.

I noticed that you didn't address this part of my post, pro or con. But thanks for reposting it so it can be seen again. I like it so much I'm re-re-posting it. :-)

You use the word 'I' five times. Now 'I' will ask what you intend to do as you show an obvious disdain for George W.?

The word "I" was used because of your reference to "we". "We" can't have internal squabbles because "we" aren't aligned in any meaningful way. "We" want different things it seems.

My disdain is not for GWB personally, he seems like a nice enough fellow even if he embraces a philosophy which is ruinious to this country and the party to which he belongs is part of the problem, not part of the solution. Reagan should have said that instead of what he did say.

For my part, I will do all in my power to un-elect anyone who doesn't at least start the country back down the right road. I do that in many ways, personally and with my participation in organisations which are dedicated to liberty and constitutional principles.

[Protagoras]

He's one of them. Go to the head of the class! :-)