Posted on 03/19/2002 6:07:58 AM PST by Tumbleweed_Connection
Suppose you had the opportunity to cast your vote for or against a man such as the one described below. How would you vote?
1) This man professed to be a Christian, but he appointed several open homosexuals to his administration. He was also seen bowing before pagan gods in pagan temples of worship. Would you vote for such a man?
2) This man professed to be pro-life, but he never promoted any pro-life legislation. Furthermore, he authorized the practice of using dead human embryos as guinea pigs for scientific research. He also promoted several pro-abortion advocates to high public office. Would you vote for such a man?
3) Despite calling himself a "conservative," this man increased the size and scope of government to record highs. He even teamed up with ultra-liberals to pass the biggest expansion ever of government's role in education. Would you vote for such a man?
4) Knowing that a certain Middle Eastern terrorist actually murdered Americans and Israelis, this man actively lobbied for the terrorist's safety and helped to perpetuate the terrorist's position as the leader of a known radical terrorist group. He is also in the process of helping to make this terrorist the president of his very own, newly-established country. Would you vote for such a man?
5) Knowing that criminal conduct took place within the highest levels of government, this man ordered his Justice Department to not investigate the crimes or turn over evidence already gathered regarding this criminal conduct. In other words, he knowingly chose to cover up this criminal conduct. He also refuses to hold himself, or any of his subordinates, accountable to the courts or to the American people for decisions that have the appearance of conflict of interest or unconstitutionality. Would you vote for such a man?
6) Knowing that illegal aliens pose a clear and present danger to the security of the United States, this man pressured Congress to pass a bill granting amnesty to these very same aliens. Would you vote for such a man?
7) This man refused to help a Christian freedom fighter in Africa, which resulted in the murder of the freedom fighter by Communist guerillas. He then invited the leader of the Marxist murderers to the White House for a private meeting only days after the abandoned freedom fighter's death. Furthermore, this man refuses to assist suffering, persecuted peoples in another African nation because the industry to which his family is intricately connected is doing business with the tyrannical government in power there. Would you vote for such a man?
8) Knowing that a certain Islamic country is a notorious supplier and promoter of terrorists like Osama Bin Laden and that this nation routinely persecutes and murders Christians within its own borders, this man invited this country's Crown Prince to his ranch for a private meeting. Again, it is noteworthy that this country is also intricately connected to the family business and personal fortune of this man. Would you vote for such a man?
Well, friends, when you vote for G. W. Bush, that is exactly the kind of man you are voting for. I just thought you should know.
Yeah, what's up with this? Somebody is going to say he was at a Catholic church, right?
Or would you rather have Clinton/Gore back?
I've learned that when complaints are given without subsequent solutions, stop listening. Why? Because it's not problem solving, only complaining. I have enough to complain about in my own life and have better things to do than to waste time listening to others' complaints.
Maybe, like many of us pro-lifer's, he is in favor of incrementally turning back abortion, just like abortion incrementally was legitimized.
We use dead bodies all the time for scientific research. I don't see dead embryos as being all that different.
As to promoting pro-abortion people to high positions, if that person has no say in the abortion issue, like Condi Rice or Christine Whitman, who cares? Besides, I would hardly call them advocates.
Would I vote for such a man. Considering the alternative offered, absolutely. Is he my perfect choice? Nope. Is he a million times better than Al Gore? You betcha.
Saying he is a "uniter not a divider" is another way of saying he lacks the cajones to take the fight to the Democrats. He'd rather try to persuade and compromise (which worked better in Texas where even the Democrats aren't like San Franciscans).
He is popular with all but the fringe left because he's willing to put one or two homosexuals on his staff, willing to water down bills so they have no teeth, willing to co-opt Democrat issues the way Clinton did some conservative issues and let the Ted Kennedys of the world say nice things about him.
Dubya hasn't changed. I don't see why so many think he has.
Sounds like a critian thing to do.
Furthermore, he authorized the practice of using dead human embryos as guinea pigs for scientific research
Stem cells are not embryos.
Despite calling himself a "conservative," this man increased the size and scope of government to record highs.
Haven't seen any "conservatives" downsizing government in a long time.
He is also in the process of helping to make this terrorist the president of his very own, newly-established country.
Only if this terrorist is elected.
In other words, he knowingly chose to cover up this criminal conduct.
He chose to restore integrety to the predency.
Knowing that illegal aliens pose a clear and present danger to the security of the United States, this man pressured Congress to pass a bill granting amnesty to these very same aliens.
Pressured??? I wish he would start pressuring Congress.
Voted for him before and look forward to voting for him again.
This man professed to be pro-life, but he never promoted any pro-life legislation. Furthermore, he authorized the practice of using dead human embryos as guinea pigs for scientific research. He also promoted several pro-abortion advocates to high public office.
This man also allows organ harvesting to occur among the dead every day. Furthermore, his pro-abortion officials have offices like "National Security Advisor," where they counsel pregnant women daily. And how dare he cut off funding to the pro-life abortion clinics overseas.
Despite calling himself a "conservative," this man increased the size and scope of government to record highs. He even teamed up with ultra-liberals to pass the biggest expansion ever of government's role in education.
Yeah, he screwed up there.
Knowing that a certain Middle Eastern terrorist actually murdered Americans and Israelis, this man actively lobbied for the terrorist's safety and helped to perpetuate the terrorist's position as the leader of a known radical terrorist group. He is also in the process of helping to make this terrorist the president of his very own, newly-established country.
And, in the process, avoided a bloody civil war among the terrorists that would have resulted had the terrorist-president been killed. This war would have claimed many more civilian lives. And, it still hasn't been decided if the terrorist state will even be created, or why it will be created, how long it will last before it declares war on Israel, and how long it will take Israel to re-conquer and annex it back.
Knowing that criminal conduct took place within the highest levels of government, this man ordered his Justice Department to not investigate the crimes or turn over evidence already gathered regarding this criminal conduct. In other words, he knowingly chose to cover up this criminal conduct. He also refuses to hold himself, or any of his subordinates, accountable to the courts or to the American people for decisions that have the appearance of conflict of interest or unconstitutionality.
Huh? Whitewater? or Enron? or just confused?
Knowing that illegal aliens pose a clear and present danger to the security of the United States, this man pressured Congress to pass a bill granting amnesty to these very same aliens.
Well, he said no blanket amnesty, and right now this bill is exposing the true racists in the senate for what they are.
This man refused to help a Christian freedom fighter in Africa, which resulted in the murder of the freedom fighter by Communist guerillas. He then invited the leader of the Marxist murderers to the White House for a private meeting only days after the abandoned freedom fighter's death. Furthermore, this man refuses to assist suffering, persecuted peoples in another African nation because the industry to which his family is intricately connected is doing business with the tyrannical government in power there.
And let us not forget that we helped another marxist defeat a "Christian" in Europe sixty years ago. Or that the deputy Prime Minister of Iraq, Tariq Aziz, is a "Christian." Or that Lebanese "Christians" cheered at the destruction of the WTC. And God forbid that the leader of a country should every invite the leader of another country for talks.
And then, if you want this man to be conservative (as per no.3), then he did the "conservative" thing by not getting involved in another country's internal civil war.
Knowing that a certain Islamic country is a notorious supplier and promoter of terrorists like Osama Bin Laden and that this nation routinely persecutes and murders Christians within its own borders, this man invited this country's Crown Prince to his ranch for a private meeting. Again, it is noteworthy that this country is also intricately connected to the family business and personal fortune of this man.
Again, its horrible that this man should meet with a leader of another country, especially when we're trying to remove that Christian fellow Tariq and the three people above him from power in the neighboring country.
But what I said still stands. Solutions? No? Then how about silence? I can complain to myself about my own problems and that will take up all of my free time.
I've never understood why people get so peeved over compromise. That's what politics are! I don't care if it was Reagan or not, compromises are made. There's no governing by fiat here. So, unless you have a huge majority, compromises were, are, and will be made. Period.
Would I believe that man?
Would I be more or less inclined to think highly of his stated faith?
For that matter, minister Baldwin, have you 'remonstrated him in private' as dictated by the Bible? Or are you just casting stones, as one of the new Pharisees?
You neglected to mention that this man's wife and his mother are both pro-abortion, or pro-choice, or whatever you want to call legalized murder.
True. And one liberal got through and nailed him on it "You called him Reaganesque..."
But he was an unabashed cheerleader from the end of 1999 until just recently. I'm glad to hear him finally change his tune and I think it was Campaign Finance Reform that did it.
But what I said still stands. Solutions? No? Then how about silence? I can complain to myself about my own problems and that will take up all of my free time.
I agree. There is no viable alternative on the horizon - only worse ones. All I'm doing is pointing out that Bush *never was* the guy the author wants you to think he was and has since changed.
We knew all about Clinton before the 1992 election. We just didn't realize how truly evil and soulless he was until he had the power to corrupt so completely.
All I'm saying is we knew what Dubya was before he was elected. The signs were already there if one bothered to look for them. At least I never called him "Reaganesque". But then, he never visited my house either.
Of course, that probably doesn't count. For whatever reason.
Said question to label me either ignorant, a traitor, or a Bush fanatic..
but
What was the pro-life legislation that Reagan introduced?
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.