Bush and His Big Gov

WorldNetDaily ^ | 10/05/2002 | Kyle Williams

[Sabertooth]

Pardon me if I don't let you, a known Bush basher, decide what I did and didn't say.

And I made my point right off; you just don't agree with it.

I haven't decided anything, I've looked at your posts on this thread.

All you have to do is cite them, if I'm wrong.

[marajade]

I think the kid needs to do some more research about Reagan's tenure in office and compare it to how Bush has done in the last two years...

Actually they have been similar...

[marajade]

I'd really like to hear about what "principles" are and mean from the perspective of a 13 year old...

[Howlin]

As I said, that's your opinion; and on threads like these, you certainly could be defined as "in lockstep."

[marajade]

The author critizes Bush for signing spending bills that bring us into huge deficits...

Reagan signed just as many spending bills that brought the budget into huge deficits and Reagan didn't have a war to contend with.

[Sabertooth]

I think the kid needs to do some more research about Reagan's tenure in office and compare it to how Bush has done in the last two years...

Actually they have been similar...

I think there are some definite similarities. I also think the worked "despise" is out of line with Reagan's temperment.

[Luis Gonzalez]

As I pointed out on my previous post, while young Kyle claims for himself the mantle of undecided, he closes the article with a blow to the President.

With age, Kyle may come to recognize the blatant contradiction in his article.

[philman_36]

This is what the Homeland Security is designed to do: streamlining our resources in order to better defend the Nation.
Really?
TITLE I — DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Section 101. Executive department; mission.
This section establishes the Department of Homeland Security in the executive branch of the United States government and defines its primary missions and responsibilities. The primary missions of the department include preventing terrorist attacks within the United States, reducing the vulnerability of the United States to terrorism at home, and minimizing the damage and assisting in the recovery from any attacks that may occur. The Department’s primary responsibilities correspond to the five major functions established by the bill within the Department: information analysis and infrastructure protection; chemical, iological, radiological, nuclear, and related countermeasures; border and transportation security; emergency preparedness and response; and coordination with other parts of the federal government, with state and local governments, and with the private sector. These primary missions and responsibilities are not exhaustive, and the Department will continue to carry out other functions of the agencies it will absorb.
Sounds like EO 13010 and a bunch of others all combined. Its also interesting to see just which agencies and functions are and are not transferred to the Department of Homeland Security. What you see as "streamlining our resources" I see as "enlarging government".

And what about Jane Harman's (D-CA) Homeland Security Information Sharing Act (H.R. 4598)? Seems like legislation is in place so why is a Department of Homeland Security necessary if a seperate Act can do the same thing as establishing a whole new department?
I guess I just don't get it.

[Joe Hadenuf]

Reagan signed just as many spending bills that brought the budget into huge deficits and Reagan didn't have a war to contend with.

What exactly does Reagan, Jimmy Carter or anyone else have to do with this current administration?

[marajade]

"What exactly does Reagan, Jimmy Carter or anyone else have to do with this current administration?"

Well for this author its about a true Republican glory days administration that occurred before the author was even born and very obviously not well researched.

[Sabertooth]

As I said, that's your opinion; and on threads like these, you certainly could be defined as "in lockstep."

Howlin, cite your earlier post that makes the point you retroactively claimed at #41. If all I have is my opinion, that should be easy to do.

[Kwilliams]

I support President Bush because he is our presidential leader and I support his war on terror. However, taking two steps backward and one step forward does no good for the cause of conservatism.

I know politics takes compromise, I wrote that in the article, but I also wrote about not sacrificing your core principles for political gain.

[Howlin]

Exactly.

By saying However, many of us have been caught up in the middle, undecided, and staying as spectators in this situation, he's trying to imply he's fair and balanced, just an onlooker.

However, he goes on to make the case for the anti-Bushers, while not supplying much supporting evidence, or giving the "BushBots" equal time.

I've seen plenty of people on here whose opinion I value say Bush is MORE conservative than Reagan.

[marajade]

what core principles if Bush sacrificing?

[CPI News]

Well for this author its about a true Republican glory days administration that occurred before the author was even born and very obviously not well researched.

Well, at least Kyle knows when to put apostrophies in his "its".

[Joe Hadenuf]

The author critizes Bush for signing spending bills that bring us into huge deficits..

Reagan signed just as many spending bills that brought the budget into huge deficits and Reagan didn't have a war to contend with.

Who really gives a damn what Reagan did? Why are some of us living in the past?

Is President Bush competing with Reagan?

[Howlin]

Read #2. Now, if you cannot deduce from that my point that if HE didn't feel like that was the truth he shouldn't have started his article with it, then that's your problem not mine.

The statement However, many of us have been caught up in the middle, undecided, and staying as spectators in this situation.

does't mean he's one of the ones in the middle; it merely means he's putting on airs about being impartial.

[CIB-173RDABN]

Considering some of the crap that Bush is pulling domestically, we might as well be ruled by Clinton again. Great...he doesn't rape his interns, and gave us some of our own money back. And thats about it. Woopie...

---

Fine, President Bush is not conservative enough for you. Name me one person that is conservative enough for you, and has the possibility of being elected President.

You can not do it.

[marajade]

That's petty. Are you saying that one's use of an apostrophe says everything about one's intelligence level?

My husband has an IQ of a genius and can't even spell sixth grade level words...

[Joe Hadenuf]

In addition, the real and pure conservatism submits itself to the Constitution and will follow it to the end, not supporting unconstitutional programs and bills. **Unfortunately, this is a rare breed of conservatism in Congress and in the Oval Office today.**

Boy for 13 years old, this kid is smart......