Posted on 01/21/2004 12:14:21 PM PST by Pokey78
Edited on 04/29/2004 2:03:44 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
Analysts at Cato, Heritage, Club for Growth unconvinced by Bush's pledge to cut deficit.
WASHINGTON, Jan 21 (Reuters) - U.S. President George W. Bush faced open rebellion on Wednesday from some members of his fiscal conservative base for not laying out concrete plans to reduce government spending and the budget deficit.
(Excerpt) Read more at money.cnn.com ...
"Despite the start of what is likely to become a bruising re-election battle, George W. Bush delivered his State of the Union address last night with the highest approval ratings of any president at this point in his term since Dwight Eisenhower in 1956."
Then why the rabid attack of all who are unhappy with some of GW's
positions, apparently he is unbeatable according to you and the polls.
Move on to something constructive like recruiting new believer.
Not hardly (using my best John Wayne impression)
Would you abide by that rule yourself? Hmnnn
About as effective as a bedraggled parent telling a kid "If you do that one more time, I am going to spank you."
Another fallacy...false analogy. A vote cannot be compared to a life-threatening crime that requires life-saving action. Try again.
Sorry, but it is neither fallacy or false analogy. The variation is only in degree of "evil" being perpetrated. You are guilty of the sin of ommision when you stand by and allow evil to flourish when you posses the power to thwart it in even some degree. All evil requires to succeed is that good men stand by and do nothing.
You quote Vincente Fox: "This is just the begining, we will end that border, and unite into one federation with the United States and Canada, we will standardize wages. Eventually all of S. America will join us."
We have discussed this before but there doesn't seem to be anyone else on this site who understands the "why" of the immigration issue. I see people figuring Bush is simply pandering to hispanics for votes or supplying cheap labor for his business constituents or even suggest it's just bad advise from Rove. They do not seem to understand that the elites of this country (including so called conservatives) do not believe in the nation state and that means even the US of A. The two party system is a sham. Sure there are real differences but only on the inconsequential stuff. When it comes to pursuing the globalist/corporate interests or the dissolving of the nation there is one vision, one unified action. If anything the GOP will be more efficient than the Dems at pursuing the demise of the country and the dumb flag waving yahoos around here fully support them because they aren't Democrats. They think by supporting the GOP they are helping "conserve" the country. They are sheep sharpening the knives for their butcher.
cordially,
I've wondered about those who tend to ignore all of the conservative tendencies of Pres. Bush, while focusing on the single-issue they disagree with him on and making that the sole criterion for how they will vote this year. I think there is a name for such a strident focus on a single issue while ignoring the overall picture -- it's called "obsessive-complusive" behavior.
Listen up, buster!
Your characterization is a damned joke, given your Birchite "globalist/corporate" swallow-the-conspiracies language.
Do you know how foolish you appear?
Hot Button "Single" Issues:
1) Abortion
2) Guns
3) American Sovereignty
Another of the other two do it for you?
You're a "dumb flag-waving yahoo". This from a Bircher, who believes in a "corporate global conspiracy" to take over the worlddddddd!!!!!
In about a decade (maybe less) you are going to be crying in your Tampico. "We never saw it coming"...
It probably isn't worth mentioning, since it's like throwing pebbles at a brick wall (or any other hard and thick object), but when was the last time you saw a Democrat reflect these positions? --
For a brief, quick list, George W. Bush has been very much a conservative in his:
Response to the 9/11 and anthrax attacks.
Policy on abortion.
Attempts to reintroduce accountability into the public schools.
Willingness to reintroduce religious expression into public dialog.
Introduction of medical savings accounts and choices of Medicare plans in an effort to control costs.
Backing for the introduction of some Social Security privatization.
Willingness to at least attempt to get government to stop discriminating against religious charities.
Tax policy.
Willingness to defend marriage as a union between one man and one woman.
Defense of Israel by acknowleding her right to self-defense and refusing to interfere in her attempts to protect her citizens.
Management of the military.
Management of homeland/national security.
Willingness to tell the UN to take a flying leap.
Refusal to give in to internationalists who want a veto over American foreign policy.
Withdrawal of Clinton's signature on the International Criminal Court treaty.
Withdrawal of the U.S. from the Kyoto accords.
I have serious concerns about people who have such evidence in the front of their faces, and yet they refuse, or are unable to see it. Is it that they simply want to rage for the sake of rage? If so, is their distain for Pres. Bush really indicative of something other than ideological disagreement? Could it be emotional instability and unresolved issues with their father which makes them go on-and-on as they do? Whatever the reason, their behavior isn't normal.
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.