Conservatives not satisfied with Bush's record

The Washington Times ^ | June 18, 2002 | Ralph Z. Hallow

[MissAmericanPie]

Just because government has grown with every administration, we are suppose to sit back and accept that? Look you have had your "Republican Revolution" they did diddley squat. I'll vote Republican in November because I said I would, against my better judgement.

If you keep rewarding the same, you get the same. And let me tell you something else, none of this will matter. States are going to fall like dominos, California has already fallen to the Democrats, Texas is next, with the electorial votes of these two states, it will take a miracle for a Republican to win the Presidency ever, if Bush's pandering doesn't work out. I vote conservative period, Bush is not conservative, he's not even a moderate, which I could stand, he's a flaming liberal.

Reagan said when the left the democrats, "I didn't leave my party they left me", well that is my situation. He also stood on principles, of liberals in the party he said, "Let them go their way". The Republican Party has all but told conservatives to leave, I will oblige.

For me it is not only the amount of money the bills he has passed will cost, his bills are racist, land grabbing, and dangerous to our future. Too bad stating the obivious to you equates to whining, you asked me what I intended to do, I told you and I have explained why. Now suck it up and be a big boy about it.

[Texasforever]

By the way, how many sets of knee pads have you gone through since bush was elected?

How many Depends have you gone through since Bush was elected?

[nanny]

Actually, I am not out of sync with the majority of my neighbors. Not everyone who lives and works in the country gets subsidies. My point was actually that the majority of this money will go to large agribusiness. They always say this is for the 'family farm', but that is just to make it easier for us to swallow passing a welfare bill for these large corporations. I am certainly not out of sync with many of my neighbors on this and even more would agree if they were aware these are passed to benefit these companies.

This is 2002. Are there still homesteads available? There was actually a time in my adulthood when an Indian could still receive the 160 acre grant from the government on certain lands, but I thought that was no longer available. Now, I still say the government cannot make private property owners. All government land belongs to all citizens and for the government to actually give that to someone else is taking property from citizens and giving it to someone else. But in the case of President Bush's proposal, for the government to make these people private property owners, they must take something from another person. In this instance, they are taking money. Now I don't buy the 'tax credit' aspect as these people are not going to be paying taxes and people who do not pay taxes are taking money from me and mine. It is just that simple.

I am serious are there still homesteading lands available? If so, I want to know the lands available in Montana. Let me know.

[billva]

What people like Jmj333 don't understand is that a marriage that is ruined by porn was probably already on it's last legs, and probably due to far more mundane reasons.

It's called voting with your feet. Ask George HW Bush what happens when the base does that.

Actually you should write the person that made the remark you quoted it wasn't me.

I will comment on the base walking though. As I have said in previous posts it's childish to talk that way. And even more childish to act that way. More to the point it's the sign of people who can't stand to have anything any way but theirs. You know, very immature people.

Have a great day walking.

[billva]

My gosh Regan Man, don't confuse these people who are going to vote with their feet with any facts about the Democrats controlling the Senate and not bringing up bills. They just expect that because Bush is in the White House he can pass them by himself. Besides they are all going to walk, they said so!

[nanny]

Anyone who calls themselves Hispanic-Americans do not share the same goals as myself. Now that doesn't mean all Hispanics do not. But the ones President Bush is reaching out to are not the Americans whose ancestors have been here longer than most of ours. Many of these are, in fact, conservative people, but the new immigrants are a totally different breed of people and they are very frightening. I don't want President Fox deciding our elections. I still remember his predecessor standing on the steps of the Texas Capitol and telling Mexicans in America to vote and vote with Mexico in mind.

[nanny]

Any home that someone has to be 'put' into is just more expensive public housing. Many poor Americans live in apartment complexes that are not cesspools. Why does public housing deterioriate? That isn't my nor my children's fault and I don't like having to pay for them. What makes you think these won't be cesspools in 5 to 7 years? From the 'private' ownership that has been arranged by the government int he past, people have no more regard for them than they do their public housing.

I do think public housing was a bad idea int he beginning, but to give these people private homes will be an better.

[DennisR]

Man! I cannot believe they beat you to it! I'm looking forward to the next time I can say,"I think I will Google for that..." One variation would be "googlize," which would mean to register with any search engine, including Google. "Googling," "googled," "googly." Actually, there was that song about "googly eyes." The list goes on...

[DennisR]

I wish I had said that!

[Jesse]

Again, would you rather promote home ownership, or welfare-state dependency?

Taking money from taxpayers and handing it over gratis to people for food, rent, healthcare, or down payments on houses is promoting welfare state dependency.

[Jesse]

This is a fine example of wealth re-distribution, gov overstepping its authority, and guaranteeing outcome rather than opportunity. I am just astounded at this one. How can this possibly be reconciled with the conservative value of self-sufficiency?

Does anyone here remember that Clinton era boondoggle where the government would subsize housing costs for teachers and cops who promised to live in a neighborhood for a certain amount of time. As I recall, there was a lot of opposition to this idea at FR. I haven't heard lately what happened with this boondoggle, but I remember the abuses that came to light just a few months after it started...teachers and cops getting essentially free or very low cost houses, not living in them, and selling them.

There is a reason for the fact that in order to buy a house, you should have to save money and act responsibly to get one. That process is an education in itself. Not everyone is mature enough to buy a house, or they make bad choices and lose their ability to buy a house.

Making bad choices and living with the consequences is necessary to a free society. The government shouldn't be short circuiting the process, and certainly not with my money or the money of young people of any race who have chosen to make good choices and sacrifice some short term pleasures for a long term gain and work and save money to buy their own house.

[SharonLorraine]

Great post, #75. I think President Bush is doing a great job. Without being in his shoes, and I do think he has the country's best interest at heart, it must be a really rough job. I can't even imagine. I bet he really appreciates the people that stand by him.

[Barnacle]

Did you log on to the wrong site? This is Free Republic. What were you trying to reach?

[Reagan Man]

>>>Just because government has grown with every administration, we are suppose to sit back and accept that?

I never said that. I was attempting to get across to you some simple facts about politics and governing. But as usual, you miss the point.

>>>Reagan said when the left the democrats, "I didn't leave my party they left me", well that is my situation.

Now you're comparing yourself to Ronald Reagan? That's laughable. Reagan stood on his principles, but Reagan understood the need for political compromise. He knew he couldn't get everything he wanted.
Go to this LINK for a few words from the Gipper.

>>>Too bad stating the obivious to you equates to whining, you asked me what I intended to do, I told you and I have explained why. Now suck it up and be a big boy about it.

LMAO! What's obvious to you, isn't so obvious to most conservatives on this forum. And yes, whining and complaining isn't going to change a damn thing!

[MissAmericanPie]

I wonder at your name, and just what your principles are and if you ever had one you were not willing to compromise or throw overboard to ride that band wagon. I'm very happy with my decision to write in Tancredo, so I have no reason to "whine" about it.

From the looks of the posts you seem kind of out of step with conservatives, and no, there were some principles Reagan would just not compromise on, like a conservative platform, and telling moderates and liberal's to go their way, right out of the Party. I can't believe you don't get that. I think you really do, you just rather compromise your name sakes principles.

[Texasforever]

From the looks of the posts you seem kind of out of step with conservatives

I am too. I am out of step with the birchers, the entire Paleo-conservative wing, the Southern party, the Reform party and the rest of the idiotic "patriot movement". But they are NOT conservatives, just a bunch of whacked out knuckle draggers that have visions of revolution running through their little minds.

[MissAmericanPie]

I'm sure you would like to believe that every disgruntled conservative is a knuckle dragging revolutionary, however that is just not the case. Liberals like to brand people with names like "patriot" as if that is something to be ashamed of, is this a little something you picked up at DU before you switched parties?

[Jesse]

Just curious. Is the Bush Youth being given brown shirts, or just cowboy hats and black boots?

[Red Jones]

you're not a traiter to vote democrat. That's ridiculous. Lots of democrats are plenty more worth voting for than lots of republicans. I'm coming from a conservative point of view. Between 1976 and 1996 every vote I cast was republican. Now I'm planning on voting mostly democrat not because I'm mad at the Republicans, although I am, but because the dems are better in those races. The only republican I'm voting for this year is the governor's race and I'm only going to do that if my conservative candidate wins the republican primary. The liberals in the republican party are trying to keep him from winning. If they succeed, then I really will turn a cold shoulder on the republicans.

You call yourself 'reagan man'. Well, reagan liked the democrats, he said so. His big tax cut wouldn't have been passed without 40% of dems voting for it. Remember, only 60% of repubs voted for it. So, if you are a reagan fan instead of a bs artist, then you can always find lots of good democrats.

I'll tell you who really didn't like reagan though when he came on the scene. George HW Bush we all remember had some very strong criticism and ridicule of him that went beyond normal campaigning. Jerry Ford held a press conference AFTER ronald reagan had wrapped up the republican nomination in 1980 just before the convention and said that reagan was unfit to lead.

Reagan was in a much weaker position in congress than bush is today and yet reagan pressed forward and only because he was able to convince dems to vote with him he was successful. There were plenty of republicans who did not back reagan. they only started supporting him unanamously after it became obvious the public liked him.

George Bush is no Ronald Reagan, that's for sure.

[Texasforever]

Just curious. Is the Bush Youth being given brown shirts, or just cowboy hats and black boots?

No I have the Black shirt.