Posted on 07/26/2002 1:55:24 PM PDT by Weirdad
Edited on 04/22/2004 12:34:15 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
President Bush may be repeating the sins of his father. Although elected on a Reaganesque, tax-cutting platform, the White House has veered to the left.
President Bush has signed a bill to regulate political speech, issued protectionist taxes on imported steel and lumber, backed big-spending education and farm bills, and endorsed massive new entitlements for mental health care and prescription drugs. When the numbers are added up, in fact, it looks like President Bush is less conservative than President Clinton.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Quite right.
We have been played by BOTH partys or should I say The Duopoly for decades and they have both taken the Nation(F*** a Homeland) to the present state where Every Solution given by the Duopoly is socialist and the American people say OK........I say BS.
The Founding Fathers and every generation until the Baby Boomer Generation would have revolted by now. To the Ramparts Men!!!!!!!!!!!!
Oh well give the people, the Goy, the peasents some Reality TV mixed with Ultimate Fighting Contests(Circuses), plenty of booze(Wine) and Prozac and they will except anything. Just make sure those chains are comfortable if you please.
We seem to have excepted a never ending war that by the Bush administration own admission will last for generations?????? Nothing wrong with that picture Ha,ha,ha,ha!
Declaration of War?? "Ve don't need no stinking declaration of war to make war."
Wear your chains proudly and learn to Love The Millenium War. All courtesy of the Duopoly, presently under administration by the REPO faction.
But don't you worry now, the DEMO faction will run the game the next election cycle(One term for the Bushman) and we can blame it on them.
Regards from Hardyville,
CATO
Their philosphophy is jump in and get it over with, the RepublicRATS will dip in a toe, and then a foot, and then get into up to the knees, and then wade in up to the pecunies - aka cajones (oh, wait they have none of those, o.k. the frijoles) - and then so on.
THE END RESULT is that both the 'shirts' and the 'skins' will eventually be submerged and baptised in the name of the Beast known as the U.N. Zbigniew Brzenski said as much back in 1972. He was national security advisor to the Big Cahohna Crook himself.
The author being a Cato institute member and quoted by Fox news would lead many to accept what is said as having some measure of credibility (as opposed to Elton John being quoted on CNN about issues pertaining to this Republic). The issue of contention that most Bush lovers here would protest about, is the subtle liberal spin made with regards to Clinton. This article amounts to nothing more than Bush bashing most would claim.
Well, I couldn't vote for Bush because of his insider credentials (his Dad being the biggest), and I couldn't vote for Cheney on account of Constitutional grounds pertaining to residency. Oh, hogwash about that. BOTH men were residents of the same state. Moreover, Cheney is even a bigger insider than Bush and there's more'n enough whispers floating around about his connections, than to amount to mere innuendo.
You know, its pretty lame when the biggest crook president (and insider hack - one who would've ammounted to diddle-squat if but for his Rockefeller connections and even nominating one as vice president when his own resigned in disgrace), who resigned himself in disgrace said that "Bush is a lightweight, there's nothing there. He's the sort of person one appoints to things."
The Cato institute is a non-partisan public policy research foundation. It is named after Cato's Letters, the libertarian pamphlets that helped lay the philosophical foundation for the American Revolution, and takes its inspiration from the struggle of America's founding generation to secure liberty through limited government and rule of law.
This dovetails with the John Birch Society (and its publication The New American that I have a subscription to), and the American Conservative Union (that I receive bulletins from concerning Ron Paul and many publications of the ACU detailing the henious activities Clinton and cronies at ali perpetrated on the American people quite a few of which compromised national security that charges of treason should be shouted loud and clear from coast to coast), and other organizations also.
I knew that Bush wasn't the President that this Republic needs. That's why I voted for Pat Buchannan; I had to vote my principles and above all my consience. I know that a great many of you Bush lovers will devote great effort to flame me, and to stoop to the same tactics taken by so many liberal - the ad hominem attack - because on a basic level I'm attacking your poster boy.
Flame what you will, but I've known Pat's platform for over a decade and agree with much of his principles and viewpoints; his character maligned by the liberal media notwithstanding. I knew that there was no chance that he could win the Presidency (just there was no real chance of another non-establishment conservative like him not having any credible chance of election to the presidency, even though he was probably the most intelligent of all the candidates. I refer to Dr. Alan Keyes. But he is, well, you know, well that would never do). I leave with this quote from that man, who if he was a candidate, I would've voted for without wasting a heartbeat worth of thought:
Bureauracies are inherently antidemocratic. Bureaucrats derive their power from their position in the structure, not from their relations with the people they are supposed to serve. The people are not masters of the bureaucracy, but its clients. They receive its services, but only insofar as they conform to its authority. The bureaucracy is like a computer; it responds only to those who address it in the proper form. In this sense, a bureaucratic government program has a double meaning: The program serves its clients, but it also programs them.
Thanks to this programming effect, bureaucratic government can become the enemy of self-discipline. A self-disciplined person acts in accordance with goals and priorities that reflect their own distinctive moral identity. The client of a bureaucracy has no distinctive identity. Each one is processed, and consequently takes on the characteristics demanded by the process. This has meaning beyond being assigned a number or the other superficial marks of clientage. The welfare bureaucracy, for instance, offers help to people with certain characteristics. Those who feel in need of this help will modify their behavior in order to take on the characteristics. If help goes most easily to unmarried women with one child or more, potential clients will modify their behavior accordingly, in order to become real in terms of the bureaucratic process. Where the perceived need is extensive enough, the bureauracy may reprogram whole communities and destroy their integrity. Like a computer virus, it turns previous patterns of action in new directions. Once behavior has been modified, the client depends upon the bureaucy for further instructions. By accepting its discipline, the client risks becomming psychologically dependent on the bureaucracy as the primary determinant of his or her goals and priorities. One starts by looking to the bureaucracy for help. One ends up unable to act without its approval.
What it comes down to, is you don't get the government you deserve, you get the government foisted on you based on the people you vote into government. And if the people are so myopic to not see what is in front of their face because thier nose is in the way and if the thing was thrust into their face such that they had no choice to see it they'd cut their nose off to spite themselves, the government they get is the government ulitimately the one they deserve.
Shhh... all part of his master plan... or something.
"They did."
Don't believe that for a second. Read "At Any Cost: How Al Gore Tried to Steal the Election" by Bill Sammon, and try to keep your head from exploding. The media alone cost Bush a possible two million votes nationwide, and that's not even taking the massive fraud on the part of the Dims into consideration.
That said, I think Bush pulled a bait and switch on America, campaiging to the middle-right, then veering hard left after his inauguration. He was on probation with me after the China hostage taking incident last spring, and he lost my vote in 2004 after he signed that criminal CFR bill (the "Patriot" Act, 245i, Operation TIPs, etc., haven't helped him any, either). If all we have to choose from are liberals or full-blown Socialists, and both are determined to take our nation over the cliff, I'd rather get there quicker, so we can get about cleaning up the mess.
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
Nobody will ever accuse you of being a libertarian. I'll vote for a candidate who will get government off of my back and out of my life. I don't want the government regulating the bedroom, regulating chemicals I ingest, curtailing my right to read whatever material I choose, or telling me which God I must not blaspheme. NEVER would I give up 90% of MY money for taxes.
By the same token important elements of the conservative agenda were enacted under or acquiesed to by Clinton, who is maybe the most conservative Democrat president in modern times, yet conservatives hate. And yes, I know why they hate him, and I hate him too, but I still think this is an interesting parallel.
The next question, then, is whether Bush will emulate Nixon in his own way (by governing well to the left of his own party).
Constitution Party 2004 (and we all know why)!
And thanks for your valued input on the Judicial Watch thread.
Some of my friends think I am paranoid, but I believe the truth of conspiracies (outright directed efforts to shape, manipulate, or control public opinion in a given slant) by the dnc, media, are far worse than I believe or suspect.
The libertarians at the Cato Institute are not conservatives.
People are so glad Bush isn't Clinton they haven't gotten it yet, and the ones that do are being quiet for fear of strengthening Gore/Hillary and the other criminals.
The War on Terrorism is very reminiscent of the Viet Nam War. We aren't in it to win--that is obvious. And it isn't stupidity. It's just another handy way to weaken the country and denigrate religion--ALL religion--esp. Christianity.
I realized with certainty that the fix was in when Ashcroft got behind executing McVeigh, The Man Who Knew Too Much.
As for Pat B., 9/11 showed clearly how right he was. But it seems no one can think without the Greek chorus press doing our thinking for us.
Most Freepers don't get it either!
I'm waiting for him to start.
Public wants armed pilots, Bush doesn't.
Public doesn't want open borders with Mexico. Apparently Bush does.
Public doesn't want Operation SPIT. Apparently Bush does.
You get the picture.
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.