Bush: A Democrat in Republican clothing?

Source: Washington Times ^ | 07/28/2002 | By Nicholas M. Horrock

[Jesse]

A limited government conservative. Trouble is, don't seem to be any out there.

[astudent]

Thanks for pointing this out.

I still believe that he has allowed many bills to pass that should have had the pork removed. also, his rhetoric does not seem to indicate the need for frugality --- and the Congress has never been frugal.

[astudent]

I don't believe that the tariff actions on steel by Bush had primarily to do with defense. I think they had to do with re-election. If I am right, then Bush was wrong.

[astudent]

Good Point.

I believe I agree with you --- unfortunately

[Jhoffa_]

I'll ask you: How is Bush sleazy? Or do you just have differences with his policies?

I didn't say he was sleazy.. My issues don't revolve around his personal integrity and in fact I defend him on this point.

Laz didn't call him "sleazy" either.

What was said (several times now) was that:

When we voted for Bush we were de-electing sleaze

Meaning, in simple term that Clinton WS sleazy and by electing Bush we threw the sleaze OUT.

[Jhoffa_]

PS: I didn't intentionally post #185..

My computer has some sort of cache problem ..

As I posted this previously.. Word for word and I have posted much since..

It's like a cyber vomit to see it in my self search,

[zeugma]

In regards to post #133,...

Many do not realize that those rent-a-cops were IN FACT government employees prior to 911.

You are factually incorrect here. If they were already government employees, there would have been no need to nationalize the entire airport security industry. The government regulated the industry prior to nationalizing it, but those employees were not, in fact government employees. Are you saying that because airports are owned by various municipal governments, that everyone employed there is a government employee?

Does that include those who work in the airport at TGI Fridays and other resturaunts? Does it include the folks who ticket your baggage?

I think not.

Prior to 911, the security companies were sub-contracted for security services. Does this subcontracted status make them government employees? I'm sure a lot of people at Boeing would be interested in learning that as well.

[Texasforever]

You are factually incorrect here. If they were already government employees, there would have been no need to nationalize the entire airport security industry

No I am not factually incorrect. All Airports are under the City, County and State Government in which they are located. The rent-a-cops' agency is paid through the Airport management.

[jeremiah]

My attempted point, was that being an enemy of the Democrats, does not make a person a Conservative. Party affiliation is all it takes to garner negative attention from the Rat party.

[zeugma]

No I am not factually incorrect. All Airports are under the City, County and State Government in which they are located. The rent-a-cops' agency is paid through the Airport management.

I see. I wasn't aware that sub-contractors are automatically considered federal employees./sarcasm

Even if you considered the rent'ocops municipal employees, which is a hell of a stretch, it still doesn't make more sense to take away the local control of 'policing' the airports. I thought having a massive federal bureaucracy micromanaging the details of local airlines is a concept more welcome to democrats. Good to know that it's o.k. as long as the statist signing the executive orders and laws has an "R" by his name.

[Texasforever]

Even if you considered the rent'ocops municipal employees, which is a hell of a stretch, it still doesn't make more sense to take away the local control of 'policing' the airports

Yep that "local" control really did a bang-up job didn't it? Dripping sarcasm

[zeugma]

About as bang up a job as the feds did in keeping tabs on the terrorists in the first place.

You may not have a problem with the ever-expanding government, but I do.

[SamBees]

Therefore, Bush is now in office, veering too far to the left in too many areas for my comfort.

[Uncle Bill]

Bttt

[Uncle Bill]

Washington's $782 Billion Spending Spree