Posted on 06/03/2002 10:04:46 AM PDT by hchutch
Just the headline
Betraying you. Again.
This latest nagging "issue" which Bush has successfully destroyed, "global warming", is a classic example. Bush has addressed the "issue" - - the ignorant rabble sees that Bush "cares" about "global warming" - - but deep down in the thicket of the report's words it is clear that Bush has no intention of doing anything about it beyond maybe some worthless symbolic things. Kyoto is out of the question. And Clinton holdovers and other EPA parasites are dropping off the host like bloated ticks. This isn't happening because Bush is pushing the Scumocrat agenda.
My hat is off to Dubya for another masterstroke.
And do what?
The rat plan is to depress turnout by rightist voters, by inducing apathy through disillusion. Don't get hooked by their net folks!
You see that's the problem... You criticize Bush because you don't think Bush knows what kinda of Republican Bush thinks he is and then you go and post stuff about what kinda LPer you are. What I'm saying is there are moderate Republicans and conservative Republicans... I would say Bush is somewhere in the middle between conservative and moderate. If the LP party can have two completely different identities and you seem okay with it what's wrong with moderate Republicans?
Ah yes, politics as usual. Lie and deceive the ecologists, enviromentalists, and the soccer moms. Good plan. It's all about image ain't it?
Big deal... 40,000 Republicans who might not vote for Bush in 2004 that's nothing...
Gottcha! I have no intention of flaming you, but I think your rebuttals were weak and in many cases hollow. You used ridicule, more then substance to make your points. You give Bush little credit for his numerous accomplishements in a mere 16 months in office and even less credit for his overall conservatism. Let's remember what your original question was all about:
>>>... what ten things Bush has done that even resembles conservative thought?
I gave you a fairly long list of things that Bush has done, which are highly conservative items. Writing them off in such a nonchalant fashion is quite disturbing to this conservative. I see no relevent point in such behavior.
>>>Part of the same issue. Very small tax cut right now and if it comes around in 2006 with the 'threats' against Socialized Security, I'd be suprised. Let's see him make a statement against Social Security (and more than 1% going to to my choice of funds) and I'll change my mind.
Yes and no. Actually, there were two tax cuts, but eventually, both were rolled into the same tax cut package. While its true, most of the cuts come in the out years, nevertheless, this is a huge accomplishemnt. In fact, some economists have credited the $100 billion tax cut/stimulus package, as having significantly bolstered the US economy, towards its 5.4% growth rate in the first quarter of 2002. The idea of having 2%-5% (not 1%) of my money, being invested, by me, in a retirement account, of my choice, may not seem like much to you, but its a start, down the road to further privatizing of Social Security.
And lets not forget, these tax cuts will have a huge effect on limiting the overall growth of government, in the next ten years. That was one of the positive outcomes/accomplishments, of the Reagan tax cuts. Overall government spending was significantly slowed.
>>>Again part of national defense and in my mind a direct result of what X42 did to the military. Returning to the levels his father had, but hey it's all going to military contractors in the end, so I see it as a payoff for the military companies more than a huge increase in the military. Admittedly he did sign the pay raises for the military. Conservative? Maybe. More of a centrist attitude.
Ridiculous. There is no payoff, as you say. Someone's gotta be paid for manufacturing the armaments! We do live in a capitalist nation, don't we? There is nothing centrist about a 14% increase in military spending. Nothing. A strong military is big part of the conservative agenda and upholds the Constitutional principles.
"* threw out the Kyoto protocol"
Well that's a maybe but if there is any truth to said article above, he hasn't done crap and has caved in again.
Bush threw out the Kyoto protocol, it's DEAD! Kyoto won't have any opportunity to damage the American economy, while limiting the impact of restrictions on other nations. After Kyoto was killed, Bush said, the issue of global warming, deserved further analysis. The analysis is now completed and has been presented. It reached some conclusions and it offered some suggestions. Nothing more, nothing less. For every scientist that supports global warming, theres another scientist who opposes it. Just how has the President caved in again?
>>>Well he's said he is but I don't see many calls to cut funding to the Planned Parenthood. As for pro-life, by not making a decisive move on the issue of embryos, he's left the door cracked well enough for the next liberal POTUS to kick it wide open. As if that was a power of the executive branch, but hey in today's new Empire I guess anything he says is, is a power.
I'm a pro-life advocate and I can tell you, if you don't believe Bush is a pro-lifer, then you don't know what your talking about. Bush halted all government funding for further destruction of human embryo's. That's a fact. Bushes budget proposals for 2002 and 2003 eliminate funds for the UNFPA, the United Nations Population Fund, despite the fact that Congress appropriated $34 million for the program in December. The administration also plans to cut the USAID portion of the international family planning budget by $21.5 million in 2003.
>>>Well shoot me and call me Slim. Called for it has he? If I stand up on national TV, that makes me a conservative? No, more lip service to his voter base.
That's a callous statement to make. Calling for a right to life amendment to the US Constitution, isn't just lip service. It shows a serious committement to the unborn human child and all human life. It's also part of the Republican Party platform. Remember, Roe v Wade, is the law of the land and without five conservative justices on the SC, it won't be changing anytime soon.
>>>What, are we so lame that speeches not backed up whatsoever do it for us now? I want to see some backup of that, not reopening talks with N Korea as has just happened. And I think we'll be getting the backing of Iran, at least lip servicewise, in any attack on Iraq
This is equivalant, to President Reagan's calling the USSR, "The Evil Empire". Reagan eventually sat down with Gorbachev and negotiated a lessening of tensions and hostilites. Putting our enemies on notice, is good foreign policy practice. Something der schlickmeister and cousin Jimmah, never did.
>>>Part of the military budget issue seen above twice. Initial funding? You mean to tell me Reagan didn't get any funding whatsoever for this? And how long have we been talking about Star Wars? Twenty years. Heck over half the movies are out. He better get moving if he wants to beat Lucas.
The topic of a NMDS (SDI), while military related, is an issue that is directly related to the conservative agenda. Securing initial funding, was a significant accomplishment for Bush. The funding that Reagan received for SDI, was phased out from the budget, in favor of negotiations and final compromise, between Reagan and Gorbachev, that led to ending the Cold War. Remember???
>>>First off, any POTUS of a different party is going to freeze the previous officeholder's actions. But he didn't say they would be permanently canned. He would 'study' them.
Bush imposed an across the board moratorium, that blocked any new EO's from being printed in the Federal Register. That permanently halted any of Clinton's most recent executive orders. Most rules can't take effect until they've appeared in the Federal Register for a certain period of time. How many EO's this action stopped, isn't public knowledge.
A few of those Clinton EO`s that were stopped cold, are for new environmental restrictions on runoff from animal feeding operations; more than 800 pages of new guidelines for managed care programs under Medicare; and Clinton's designation, made hours before Bushes inaguration, of the former military post at Governor's Island in New York Harbor, as a national monument.
The Bush administartion also imposed a freeze on hiring of new federal employees "unless and until", a Bush-appointed agency head approves the hiring, preventing holdover Clinton officials from hiring new employees.
>>>As for the conservative judges, the voter base has been told to be good little Republicans and go out and vote this November for our Republican candidate to 'win back the Senate'.
With all due respect, you're politically ignorant. Winning back the Senate for Republicans, is the most important accomplishment, that we conservatives can contribute this November. If you have a chance to vote for Liddy Dole, over her liberal Democrat opponent, I suggest you do so. It's imperitive, that the President have a working majority in the Senate, come 2003.
>>>Well he did recognize the 2nd Amendment but that was just a reversal back to a previous recognition 60 years ago and already assumed by most conservatives anyway.
LOL You make it sound so easy. The decision for Bush to have Ashcroft and Olsen, send that memorandum to the USSC, was the conservative move to make and goes way beyond mere assumption. Assumptions will get you nowhere in politics! The Bush memo informed the SC, that the RKBA, is an individual right and not the collective right that liberals have been pushing for the last 63 years! This is very important. It will allow people, to bring lawsuits and challenge certain gun control laws, in the courts. This is BIG TIME.
>>>And how exactly in less than 16 months did he turn Russia into a strategic partner.
Russia has not been a strategic partner of the US, since WWII! The 4-5 meetings between Bush and Putin, have culminated in an arms reduction agreement, a pact between the US and the Russians to fight terrorism togther and the strong possibility, that the Russians will be selling us oil and gas form Siberia. Lessening our dependence on Mid-East oil is a Bush priority. PS: The relationship between Clinton and Yeltsen was a joke! There is nothing wrong with improving relations with the Russian's either.
>>>As for returning honor, anybody except algoron would have returned dignity. That's not a conservative move, that's just being in the right place at the right time. And lead the war on terrorism? That's my point. With the Patriot Act, security in the airports, and Ashcroft wanting to start running through churches, wouldn't you agree this 'protecting our freedoms' has gone a little more to 'ensuring security' over freedoms?
The only two men, who had a chance of becoming POTUS, was Bush or Gore. Bush has returned dignity and honor to the Oval Office, that was absent for eight long years. Bushes morals, ethics and integrity, are viewed by this true blue conservative, as those belonging to, a very conservative minded individual.
The Patriot Act was passed by the full Congress and will help in the fight against terrorism. The increased security in airports is necessary. And no one is running through churches, as you say. Stop overreacting to everything. In order to have freedom, you must have security. They go hand in hand. And no, I don't agree with old Ben Franklin. He was wrong on this issue.
You want perfection out of this president, it ain't gonna happen. No president and no human being is perfect. We've got serious political gridlock in Wash-DC today. In fact, we've had political gridlock in DC for the last 20 years! But Bush is doing his Constitutional duties, to the best of his ability and so are all his people. You can criticize Bush all you want, that's the American way. But when you ridicule and demean, so many of his decisions, it really serves no good purpose. Especially, with America at war.
You may not believe this, but I have no reason to lie. I do not, nor have I ever used drugs. Moreover, I do not smoke or use alcohol. Never have (just overeat)! Yet, I find the "drug war" to be a huge problem. It makes criminals out of individuals, who otherwise, would not be violating laws. I'm referring to the users, not people who commit other crimes related to drugs. It has cost $100's of billions and still people use drugs. Morever, alcohol creates more problems than drugs. Does the government have the authority to tell me I can't swallow clorox? Clorox is worse for my health than most drugs. Who owns your body -- you or the State?
I posted this tonight at a demorat site
TLBSHOW
posted 06-03-2002 08:36 PM
------------------
Tonight the news played Rush Limbaugh's Bush/Gore inter-locking. W. has taken all of the agenda from the left and has made it his own. There is nothing left for the left except the abortion issue. And that W. will take care of soon if what he has done so far can be looked at thru a crystal ball.
Where oh where does this leave the democrats? Left out. I would say. With no issues left and all their smears for nothing. The left is in big trouble. What will they do? This should be real interesting to watch. Time is ticking away and it is almost November.
Tick Tock Tick Tock!
That's the same thing the BushBots said about signing CFR. It was a master plan, and he would never sign it.
Regards,
LH
Maybe from where you're standing. From where I'm standing he looks way over on the Left, just one small step to the right of the socialists. Guess we're just looking from different vantage points.
I readily admit, my views are in the minority in this country and on this website. I want strict adherence to the Constitution and I am for individual Rights over group rights (privileges), esp., the Right to your property. Cuz if you don't have Rights to your property, you don't have Rights.
He sure has. That's the problem. If we wanted Gore, we would have voted for him.
George W. Jeffords, or George W. Gore? Take your pick.
I read somewhere that Bush was a "conservative." Hahahah. It was a joke, right?
Was that the NYP or NYT?
Least someone here is openly admitting there is no difference between them. Course many of us have said that all along.
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.