Bush to appoint "first" Hispanic (liberal) to the U.S. Supreme Court?

12-27-2002 | Brian Baldwin

[poet]

Anyone who believes bush is a conservative is living in a draeamland!

The reason he is appointing an hispanic is to show those 3,000,000 illegals that he deserves their votes because he helped them gain citizenship in spite of their breaking the law!

How about an "overview" of his "conservative" agenda?:

1. $782,000,000,000 of NEW spending of OUR money!

2. 2. Let's not forget his violation of his oath to uphold the Constitution by signing the CFR!

3. The agenda that has given us the mis-named obscenity called the p.a.t.r.i.o.t. act and, of course, the fatherland, oops, excuse me, the "homeland" security law.
I suggest all of you remember these two words "critical infrastructure" because you'll be hearing about them in the future. These words also apply to the internet and are in the "homeland"law

Once again, a violation of his oath!

4. The agenda that calls for giving amnesty and citizenship to 3,000,000 illegals.

5. The agenda that hired Adm. Poindexter (a convicted liar)
to oversee a database on all Americans even to what they buy and where they buy it?

6. An agenda that declares an Axis of Evil, then picks and chooses who to go after, rather than all of them?
How many of you remember his comment at a news conference a couple of months ago, and I quote " You know, saddam tried to assassinate my dad 10 years ago" end quote. How much of this "make my day attitude" is influenced by his comment?
Keep in mind, I make no accusation as I'm just thinking out loud. It would have not entered my mind if he had not made the statement.
I bring this up because we are going after only one of the axis of evil. I know, I know, in the last couple of days he's been sword rattling against n. korea, but. that is only in very recent days.

7. An agenda that wines and dines muslims at the White House, a group who refuses to condemn murdering civilians, but, gives a strong reprimand to a dumb statement by one of his own party?

8. The agenda that embraced the democrat's "education" policy?

9. The agenda that embraced the democrat's position of placing 50,000+ new employees on the the gov't payroll (read, our backs)?

Is this a conservative agenda?

Please don't say that he took these issues from the dems, because if you use that argument, you are saying dupliciy is acceptable when your guys do it, but, bad when the other guy's guys do it. If you use that argument then you are no better then the clinton's apologists who defended the indefensible.

You are either a man or woman of principle or you are not!

Bush is a clever politician, no more, no less, and like all politicians, he is not to be trusted without reservation.

If the slimeball clinton has done all of this, all of you party loyalists would be all over him and rightly so, as would I.

There is no difference in the parties other than a matter of degrees, which is to say, the dems would do us in (and they are up-front about wanting big gov't) on a faster pace than the republicrats who use the "salami" approach or one slice at a time. the speed at which we lose our freedoms and liberties doen't matter because the result is the same.

Flame away.


FReegards

[Consort]

The reason he is appointing an hispanic is to show those 3,000,000 illegals that he deserves their votes....

You should have stopped your post after that sentence because the rest is meaningless. If 3,000,000 votes are, in fact, up for grabs and all or most go to the Democrats, then the Conservative agenda and the Republican Party will wither on the vine. The illegal aliens of today will, in the future, make or break a major political party.

[poet]

"You should have stopped your post after that sentence because the rest is meaningless"

The purpose of the overview was to show those that believe that President Bush is the savior of conservatism is simply not true. We'll get thrown a "nugget" occasionally and fall into the false hope once again while the liberal democratic agenda gets passed in watered down versions. The repubs lost their conservative oars long ago and is nothing more than rudderless clones of the dems. They eat their own, they copy liberal social programs, they appoint "moderates" and, most importantly, don't seem to handle leadership well when it is handed to them. They should challenge, not cower for favor.

Why haven't they said anything about that senator who lauded bin laden? They should do to her what was done to Newt, Livingston and the idiot Lott, which is to say, barrage the public with what she said. Bush chatised Lott severly publicly, but, what has he said about Murray? Are they afraid they'll lose votes because she's female?

They should point out true differences if they are indeed different. They know that those who promise the most get the votes.

FReegards