Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

LIAR - President Bush Outlines Campaign Reform Principles
White House Web Site ^ | March 15, 2001 | George W. Bush

Posted on 03/20/2002 6:09:39 PM PST by jimkress

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-56 next last
To: jonboy
(Statement by the White House that Bush WILL sign this crap! What can I say? I'm shocked. He IS a liar)
21 posted on 03/20/2002 7:15:06 PM PST by jonboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: StopDemocratsDotCom
Might as well elect Hillary, since we are headed for a wreck anyway might as well speed it along and start preparing to pick up the pieces.
22 posted on 03/20/2002 7:15:38 PM PST by Fish out of Water
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

Comment #23 Removed by Moderator

To: illbenice
Bush is a ball-less punk. He spends money like a drunken Democrat, he kisses Mexicos arse, He lets Daschle and the Senate dictate his policies. He ought to veto this just because of what the Senate did to Pickering, but he'll be a good little gutless Rino and sign it.
24 posted on 03/20/2002 7:17:30 PM PST by cutlass
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: jonboy
"I'll make my prediction. BUSH WILL NOT SIGN THIS BILL! Write it down and either eat crow or tell me so later."


25 posted on 03/20/2002 7:20:43 PM PST by Uncle Bill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Bruce Leroy
ABC radio say WH already said he would. STINKS
26 posted on 03/20/2002 7:25:37 PM PST by madison46
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: jonboy
He already publically announced he will sign this bill.
27 posted on 03/20/2002 7:26:08 PM PST by jimkress
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: jimkress
At the time of his approach to Red China, Richard Nixon (a REPUBLICAN for those of you from Rio Linda) was approached by an internationalist businessman who was literally salivating over the prospect of access to the BILLIONS of potential Chinese slave laborers and “customers” (although this rocket scientist had apparently not yet concluded that the Chinese people would be hard pressed to buy his stuff without MONEY!!!!).

This businessman was concerned that Nixon had been SAYING that he was cooling to the idea of an opening to Red China to quell the uprising within the then very much more America-First rank and file Republican Party.

As reported years later, Nixon told the businessman
“DON’T LISTEN TO WHAT WE SAY: WATCH WHAT WE DO!"

AS YOU READ THIS, IT APPEARS THAT BUSH, DASCHLE AND OTHERS ARE WELL DOWN THE ROAD TO USING THIS PAGE FROM THE NIXON PLAYBOOK!

IT APPEARS THAT DUBYA -- LIKE NIXON (and numerous others) BEFORE HIM --IS NOW "DOING" US (IN MORE WAYS THAN ONE).

Look, America – the IDEA not the PLACE – can only continue to exist if we heed the advice of the founding fathers (paraphrased here in the current vernacular for residents of Rio Linda), to wit:
“The Founding Fathers have determined that failure to WATCH politicians – ALL POLITICIANS (even those you may worship!) – is dangerous to the security of this nation and to the freedoms we paid such a heavy price to TRY to leave you and your children.”

“Government is not reason. Government is not eloquence. It is FORCE. And, like fire, it is a DANGEROUS SERVANT AND A FEARSOME MASTER.”
That from that notorious tinfoil hat wearing, radical wing-nut, George Washington.


28 posted on 03/20/2002 7:30:20 PM PST by Dick Bachert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tbg681
Just like the 16th amendment was a joke and was unconstitutional.
29 posted on 03/20/2002 7:37:26 PM PST by dts32041
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: jimkress
Most of you people are upset because you don't know Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior, so carrying the guilt and stain of sin is a heavy burden. With Jesus, it don't matter which way the political winds blow, he is always there for you. Makes getting through life so much easier, because you quickly understand fallen man doesn't have any real solutions, only the good Lord above.
30 posted on 03/20/2002 7:46:21 PM PST by Russell Scott
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cutlass

ABC News’s This Week - January 23, 2000

GEORGE WILL: In which case, would you veto the McCain-Feingold bill, or the Shays-Meehan bill?

GEORGE BUSH: That’s an interesting question. I — I — "yes I would."


"A Betrayal" - Bush on campaign-finance reform legislation

Republicans Cave on Campaign Finance

SHOW BUSH THE DOOR IN 2004

31 posted on 03/20/2002 7:53:25 PM PST by Uncle Bill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: StopDemocratsDotCom
You're right, we should never criticize Bush. After all, everything he does is for the best because it's part of the top secret master plan for total political victory over the Democrats. Bush knows best, everyone else shut up!





... who cares what that pesky base thinks anyway.
32 posted on 03/20/2002 7:59:17 PM PST by Polonius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Russell Scott
Most of you people are upset because you don't know Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior, so carrying the guilt and stain of sin is a heavy burden.

Preach elsewhere.

33 posted on 03/20/2002 7:59:34 PM PST by sinkspur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: jimkress
CFR will not hurt the GOP, soft money helps the RATS not the GOP PLUS the supreme CT will throw this CFR out, so relax...
34 posted on 03/20/2002 8:04:26 PM PST by KQQL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KQQL
I don't care about campaign promises or Bush said this or that crap.

The ONLY IMPORTANT fact is that he is knowingly signing a Bill into law that is unconstitutional. He should be impeached as well as the 60 senators, and however many representatives.

The ONLY proper decision was to veto the bill on its face. If congress then passed it over his veto, then it is on them. Then and ONLY then should the SCOTUS get involved.
35 posted on 03/20/2002 8:37:38 PM PST by borntodiefree
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

Comment #36 Removed by Moderator

To: NovemberCharlie
If we are going to support a man with no principles, we might as well support a woman with no principles. One is just as untrustworthy as the other.
37 posted on 03/20/2002 8:54:43 PM PST by gunshy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: tbg681
You don't understand the issue. The issue is that GWB will be violating his oath of office if he signs this bill into law. The law itself means nothing, just as Bushs' word will mean nothing if he signs tomorrow.
38 posted on 03/20/2002 8:57:48 PM PST by gunshy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: demkicker
Then why even take the oath of office?
39 posted on 03/20/2002 8:59:37 PM PST by gunshy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: jonboy
Ditto. I do not think Bush is stupid enough to commit in writing and then contradict it. I smell a veto and this letter is the introduction.
40 posted on 03/20/2002 9:04:51 PM PST by sicsemperchad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-56 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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson