To: yonif
I think Mrs. Bush believes that you lead by example...if the National Endowment starts to fund true art and not pornography, then perhaps it's setting a good example. At least, I think that is what the first lady has in mind...perhaps she is right.
5 posted on
01/28/2004 8:36:12 PM PST by
Keith
(IT'S ABOUT THE JUDGES)
To: Keith
Glory for the State!! All hail the mighty State!!
10 posted on
01/28/2004 8:37:36 PM PST by
GeronL
(Two kinds of people in this country: Makers and Takers........ which are you?)
To: Keith
No, she isn't. Just because she's the wife of the president doesn't entitle her to use taxpayer funds for her pet projects. The federal government has no business subsidizing "good" art, much less junk that passes as art. Mend it by ending it completely.
79 posted on
01/28/2004 9:13:49 PM PST by
dr_who_2
To: Keith
Clearly there is no mention of support for the arts in the constitution, but that doesn't stop these liberals from robbing me to pay for them. Oooops I forgot, this is compassionate conservatism. When the lesser of two evils, gives us a left wing president who is also a Republican, it must be getting close to the final curtain for our Constitution.
502 posted on
01/29/2004 7:18:00 AM PST by
jeremiah
(Sunshine scares all of them, for they all are cockaroaches)
To: Keith
More money for Annie sprinkle.
538 posted on
01/29/2004 7:29:14 AM PST by
dts32041
("Taxes are not levied for the benefit of the taxed" RAH)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson