Posted on 09/15/2009 8:09:19 AM PDT by dangus
Remember, only the House of Representatives can spend money.
2001: President Bush reaffirms the Clinton administration policy that to deny equal access to government programs despite an inability to communicate in English constitutes national-origins discrimination. Since English is supposedly a requirement for citizenship, it’s obvious he’s referring to illegal aliens.
2003-2006: The GOP controls both houses of Congress.
2005: Bush Justice Department defends, reaffirms Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac policy of threatening banks which do not lend to non-English speakers.
2005: Bush appoints radical racial-priveleges attorney Alberto Gonzales to be Attorney General.
>> Remember, only the House of Representatives can spend money. <<
But the House frequently writes a check to the administration to select grant recipients. That’s what I specificially referred to. Oh, and the house was Republican during this time.
Your 3rd party vote will ensure another four years of the Obama administration. You will be a model of enlightenment and principle.
So what’s your point?
Acorn was bad then, we’re learning it’s worse than expected.
It’s got to unfunded, investigated, and people need to go to jail. Period. Don’t care who they are.
The Corruption Stops Now.
Thank God, I just put down my coffee...
It is easy when you are the poster of an article to confuse a response to the article with a response to your personally
My reply was meant to be in resonse to the content. Bus (yes.. the SHRUB) saddles us with some idiocy, the same as his father did
Yeah, right. Pres. Bush should personally have just cut off ALL funding to every, single, inner-city liberal organization, right?
I’m never voting for Bush again.
I AGREE, I’m not voting for ANY Bush again, or Kennedy or Clinton for that matter either
There is no viable third party and we are in deep marxist doo-doo. We can’t get Republicans elected and you think you’re going to get a 3rd party together by 2010? You’ll hand the whole pie to the liberals again. What we DON’T need is to confuse the waking voters. At this point in time, a third party will do just that.
I never said there would be a viable third party by 2010. I never said I would support a third party in 2010.
All I said is that a third party is coming sooner rather than later.
Your own words: "We can’t get Republicans elected" support my argument. Have you thought through the concept of why Republicans cannot get elected even in the wake of a highly distasteful Obama presidency?
Its because people do not believe they are going to be that much better. Perhaps a little less government intrusion and at a little slower pace, but the end result will be about the same.
Both political parties are going to be in deep doo-doo. The electorate is unhappy with both. The Democrats have been taken over by the hard left. Their party is a collection of special interest groups. It will be impossible to keep all of the groups happy, as the goals of some of their groups are in direct conflict with others. This is why despite overwhelming control of Congress, they are having difficulty passing a health care bill
The Republicans are suffering from an identity crisis. This crisis is demonstrated more than adequately by the treatment of Sarah Palin. Her treatment by member of her own party illustrates the rift in no uncertain terms. She is hailed by many and detested by others - all claiming to be Republicans. The unfortunate truth is neither of the two main parties now adequately represent the majority view in America. This cries out for change and third party is a likely vehicle around which that change will coalesce.
I gave you a suggestion to look at the birth of the Republican party as an example. It took a couple of years for them to control Congress and a couple more to win the presidency. Either the existing parties reform themselves, or new parties are on the way.
Contrary to you title statement, the Bush administration the controversial firing many of those state prosecutors was because the prosecutors failed to prosecute ACORN voter fraud above the level of individual employees.
I loath Bush and his blind followers the Bushbots who are dangerous as the commies because they don’t know up from down.
I’m talking about now. My original post was about voting 3rd party in 2010 and it’s foolish.
“We need to overhaul the Republican Party and restock it with conservatives!”
I like how you think!!
So your position is that its unreasonable for the Bush administration to globally notorious communist fronts? Don’t forget: ACORN was well known in Washington, having ORGANIZED the Washington,-D.C. rallies against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. They weren’t some little shop that no-one suspected of radicalism; they put their names with the Workers of the World (Communist) Party all over D.C. literature for years while they were getting Bush grants. And yes, ACORN was around before the Bush administration, but they grew immensely during the Bush years.
The Bush administration selected Planned Parenthood, ACORN, the Nation of Islam, MALDEF, La Raza, and every manner of anti-American, hate-filled extremist group. MECHCA is a group of Mexicans in America seeking violent means to overthrow the United States government and have the South and West annexed by Mexico... and they received federal dollars, instead of having a very unpleasant encounter with DHS.
What non-Middle Eastern terrorist, communist, extremist, or anti-American group did the Bush administration not fund, defend and enlard? Why?
Yes, but not the rest of the country. Now that the people at large are getting behind defunding some of this stuff (not to mention the individual states taking legal action against ACORN) with some muscle it's much easier to take action.
If Bush had single-handedly singled out groups which "care for the poverty-stricken" he would have had an even more vicious backlash than he had to carry in prosecuting the WOT. Plus, he would have had people like Ozero with his beautiful, lofty, speaking skills taking center stage on the MSM every hour convincing the people about how evil Bush was.
Bush is not God. One man cannot correct every ill. In a monarchy...OK...the guy at the top can do whatever he wants. But the political will of the people has to be there on most of the big things in a democracy. And the entitlement mentality is a big thing.
>> If Bush had single-handedly singled out groups which “care for the poverty-stricken” he would have had an even more vicious backlash than he had to carry in prosecuting the WOT. <<
1. EVERY liberal group claims to be for the poverty stricken. If a Republican president has such a complete lack of a scrotum that he can’t cut funds to even the most radical, anti-American, corrupt and hate-filled groups, what’s the point of having a Republican party? Why not just have a Proudly Socialist party and a Cowardly Socialist party.
2. You continue to ignore the fact that the Bush Administration did NOT simply cut funds to such groups, but greatly expanded funds to most of these groups, and that these funds were NOT mandated by Congress, but were grants selected by the Bush administration.
3. If you can’t get the leftists in the mainstream media to like you by allowing them rape you daily, like Bush did, why not stand up to them?
4. One man may not be able to correct every ill, but he at least could try to correct some of them, rather than grandly compounding them in a manner that there’s no way in Hell Clinton ever could. Remember the saying, “Only Nixon could go to China?” Now we’re learning, “Only Bush could fund every crackpot, hate-fillled, anti-American organization in the universe.”
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.