Once again Rush goes off half cocked.He didn't read this "global warming" report and he also predicted that Hillary Clinton wouldn't run for the Senate.
Sheesh. Talk radio is fast going downhill...
Posted on 06/03/2002 10:04:46 AM PDT by hchutch
Just the headline
This report by the EPA is NOT Bush's report!!! It's a report that was in the works before he was even elected and was overdue to be released. He had Christy Whitman stall the release as long as she could. But neither the release or the contents are the Bush administration's.
Part of the same issue. Very small tax cut right now and if it comes around in 2006 with the 'threats' against Socialized Security, I'd be suprised. Let's see him make a statement against Social Security (and more than 1% going to to my choice of funds) and I'll change my mind
* largest increases in military spending since Reagan (14+% in 2003 budget)
* signed two military two pay raises; increased medical/housing benefits
Again part of national defense and in my mind a direct result of what X42 did to the military. Returning to the levels his father had, but hey it's all going to military contractors in the end, so I see it as a payoff for the military companies more than a huge increase in the military. Admittedly he did sign the pay raises for the military. Conservative? Maybe. More of a centrist attitude
* threw out the Kyoto protocol
Well that's a maybe but if there is any truth to said article above, he hasn't done crap and has caved in again
* disposed of the ABM Treaty
Again tied into more military spending. Really trying to extend your list by covering the same issue in different words is something I would expect from a liberal
* pro-life, anti-abortion President
Well he's said he is but I don't see many calls to cut funding to the Planned Parenthood. As for pro-life, by not making a decisive move on the issue of embryos, he's left the door cracked well enough for the next liberal POTUS to kick it wide open. As if that was a power of the executive branch, but hey in today's new Empire I guess anything he says is, is a power
* publically called for a right to life amendment to US Constitution
Well shoot me and call me Slim. Called for it has he? If I stand up on national TV, that makes me a conservative? No, more lip service to his voter base
* eliminated taxpayer funding of overseas abortions
Again covered above. Admittedly I'm suprised he cut funding for ANYTHING overseas since apparently we have the whole world to take care of(knowing that's not covered in the Constitution) but I'll give you this one. That was a conservative move, but what state is the world in when we have to call that a conservative move?
* has openly and strongly supported Taiwan
Well about every POTUS for the past 50 or so years has made a statement for Taiwan. Oh, but we promised them ships or something what, 10 years from now? I'm sure the President 10 years from now is going to make that the top of his list (if we're not already at war with China over the tariffs he's imposed, that's another non-conservative move, protectionism)
* designated N.Korea, Iran and Iraq, the Axis of Evil
What, are we so lame that speeches not backed up whatsoever do it for us now? I want to see some backup of that, not reopening talks with N Korea as has just happened. And I think we'll be getting the backing of Iran, at least lip servicewise, in any attack on Iraq
* secured initial funding for a NMDS (SDI)
Part of the military budget issue seen above twice. Initial funding? You mean to tell me Reagan didn't get any funding whatsoever for this? And how long have we been talking about Star Wars? Twenty years. Heck over half the movies are out. He better get moving if he wants to beat Lucas
* promoted increases for off shore oil drilling
* strongly advocates drilling in ANWR
* pushed for building more nuclear power plants
* advocates reducing US dependency on oil imports
Well that is conservative and like I said I give credit where credit is due. I didn't say he completely ignored his voter base but quite a bit. And I don't like this issue of nuclear waste being forced upon a state by the national government. If a station creates the waste, then it should be stored within that state. State's rights issue here. Will be suprised if he would agree with that
* repealed/froze many last minute Clinton EO`s
* proposed partial privatization of Social Security
First off, any POTUS of a different party is going to freeze the previous officeholder's actions. But he didn't say they would be permanently canned. He would 'study' them. And 1-2% of Social Security is not privatization. Do away with it completely (it wasn't supposed to be there in the first place for this long) or make it 50/50.
* offered faith-based alternatives to traditional welfare
* stopped gov't funding for further destruction of human embryo's
* nominated conservative judges to the federal bench
Again he did do 'some' conservative things but not a lot. The embryo point I covered already. That door wasn't closed like it should have been. As for the conservative judges, the voter base has been told to be good little Republicans and go out and vote this November for our Republican candidate to 'win back the Senate'. Tell me, if I do that, apparently it's a forgone conclusion I have to vote for Giddy Dolt. As liberal as she is, what am I winning back again? NC will be so far in the hole after she's finished with tobacco subsidies and more seatbelt laws, we'll all be strapped to bicycles riding to our work in the government tariff propped up textile mill making 6 an hour with cigarettes costing 6 bucks a pack!!
* recognized 2ND amendment/RKBA as individual right, fully constitutional
* told Cuba/Castro trade embargo stays
* turned Russia into a strategic partner of the USA
Well he did recognize the 2nd Amendment but that was just a reversal back to a previous recognition 60 years ago and already assumed by most conservatives anyway. As for Cuba, that was just a continuation of previous administrations, so no big change there. And how exactly in less than 16 months did he turn Russia into a strategic partner. Reagan did, Bush continued, and hatefully I can't believe I'm saying this, the dependence of money from the IMF kept bringing Russia back for more. No, he really hasn't done anything here but build on previous relationships
* returned honor, dignity and trust to the Presidency
* has done an outstanding/remarkable job, leading America in the war on terrorism.
As for returning honor, anybody except algoron would have returned dignity. That's not a conservative move, that's just being in the right place at the right time. And lead the war on terrorism? That's my point. With the Patriot Act, security in the airports, and Ashcroft wanting to start running through churches, wouldn't you agree this 'protecting our freedoms' has gone a little more to 'ensuring security' over freedoms?
Now before I get flamed here, I voted for Bush, Dole, Bush, Bush, and Reagan. I don't know sometimes how to vote anyway but Republican. But I feel a little bit left in the dust when it comes to actual morals, family values, and following what the Constitution says instead of what they might want it to say by the Republican party
Well if your definition of absurd is not taking the NYT take on a low level report as the word of G-d, then I am proudly absurd.
Why should he care? He's rich (nothing wrong with that mind you), and probably doesn't really give a #$%@.
Do not fear! The liberal agenda advances more slowly when the Democrats are in power. At least, then, the Republicans give lip-service to opposing socialism. With the Republicans in power there is virtually no opposition to the socialist agenda. Bush has dictatorial power! And look what direction we're moving!
What you're referring to as the "Bush-can-do-no-wrong crowd" is actually the "Actually-read-the-report crowd" as opposed to the "don't-bother-me-with-the-facts-because-I-hate-this-man-and-want-to-trash-him crowd."
Okay, now that makes more sense than anything I have seen on the subject.
Good.
But, why was it released in the first place then? And has the Administration denounced the reports contents as flawed or in some way innacurate? If not, why not?
"President Bush recently announced a committment to reduce greehouse gas intensity in the United States 18 percent over the next decade through a combination of voluntary, incentive based, and existing mandatory measures." The report acknowledges there remain "uncertainties concerning the precise timing, magnitude and regional patterns of climate change." "The [President's] strategies are designed to achieve emission reductions comparable to the average reductions prescribed by the Kyoto agreement, but without the threats to economic growth that rigid national emissions limits would bring." There will be "a review of progress in 2012 to determine if addional steps may be needed - as the science justifies - to achieve further reductions."
The foregoing is from the report, not the New York Times or Rush. The report supports the President's existing policy. Surprised?
Where, you may ask is the "bad stuff" people are so upset about? Here it is: "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing global . . . surface . . . temperature . . . to rise." (Well, that's kinda hard to dispute since a rise of .001 degrees over the last 100 years would qualify.) "We cannot rule out that some significant part [of the temperature change] is also a reflection of natural variability." "Because there is considerable uncertainty in current understanding of how the climate system varies naturally and reacts to emissions of greenhouse gases . . . current estimates of the magnitude of future warmings should be regarded as tentative and subject to future adjustments (either upward or downward)." President Bush is still saying the science is uncertain whether we have a problem or not.
The New York Times has suckered a whole bunch of people into believing this report is something it's not.
Judges and the Senate appointments are critical, YES, but when does politics stop and principles come into play?
I am having pangs about GWB's key advisors, and obviously Rush is losing patience too.
Once again Rush goes off half cocked.He didn't read this "global warming" report and he also predicted that Hillary Clinton wouldn't run for the Senate.
Sheesh. Talk radio is fast going downhill...
no. the posts refer to government only. they do not cover metaphysics as a whole.
It's because Rush has three hours to fill.
Exercise in futility? Oh well trying to reason to someone who thinks the NYT isn't part of the story is a real exercise in futility.
But from the looks of it is doing a switch on global warming which means he's going to enter some kind of enviromental treaty
There is a major difference between a treaty that we know would have destroyed our economy and some undefined future treaty that may or may not be proposed. Why don't you wait until a problem actually exists before you complain about it.
And again your challenge wasn't prove that Bush wasn't the perfect conservative, rather it was has he done anything conservative? (or resembles conservative thought, to use your exact words) Bush killed a horrible treaty that would have harmed our nation. Wasn't that the conservative thing to do?
3. withdrew from the anti-missle defense treaty
4. started working on missle defense
That's part of the same thing. Sorry only counts as one
No they are related issues but they are two separate battles that Bush is fighting. Just because we withdrew from the ABM treaty does not automaticly mean that we have a working missle defense. Nor does it mean that the democrats have stopped their efforts to defund the research. Likewise if we already had missle defense but kept the treaty, we would have been prevented from deploying the defense system.
Again I ask you: Is ending a treaty that harmed threatened our national security a conservative action?
Isn't building a missle defense to protect our nation the conservative thing to do?
7. Did cut taxes
Whoop de do!! And you basically had to claim it on this years taxes as income to be taxed. That's a tax cut?
Perhaps you should get a new tax preparer. The fact is that the tax rate was cut. And as time goes on more cuts will happen. Again Is cutting taxes conservative?
8. Did nominate a lot of conservative judges.
That's a maybe but the only way to get these judges up to the floor is to elect a bunch of RINOs like Giddy Dolt, who will probably disagree with them, meaning Bush will have to go back and get more centrist judges
Again in order to avoid giving Bush credit for doing something good, you create another problem to complain about. Is nominating Conservative judges something a conservative would do?
By the way, Pickering would have been confirmed in the democraticly controled senate, if he had gotten out of committee. If we had one more senator even a rino, then the repubs would control the committee and pass these guys along for a senate vote. Where many of them would be confirmed. But this does not have anything to do with Bush.
9. Did express support for Taiwan - really PO'd the Chicoms.
Wow, step back!! Expressed support, did he? Making a speech and some promises ten years down the line is a little weak compared to what X42 did to this nation for eight years.
Again I have to remind you of the question that YOU posed. Did Bush do anything that resembles conservative thought? I guess that you don't think taking a public stand in defense of Taiwan's independence is a conservative position. Otherwise Bush did something conservative. (Bush has done other things to strengthen out relationship with Taiwan, but I am only refering to his speech that outraged the Commies.)
Frankly I have no idea what you mean by your response, and what it has to do with Bush's pro-Taiwan speech.
10. Did/has a more pro-Israel policy than clinton did.
Exactly how has he done that? By not condemning the Israelis outright? No, as usual, just another POTUS forcing a peace treaty on the Israelis that does nothing more than hurt the Israelis
Perhaps you need to reread my statement again. Bush is a lot more pro-Israel than Clinton. Under clinton our nation was becoming hostile to Israel. We were pressuring them to give most of the west bank and part of Jerusalem to a terrorist army. Under Bush we have recognized that Israel needs to defend themselves from terrorists, and we have stopped pushing Israel to give up a large percentage of its land to a gang of murderers.
Compassionate conservatism doesn't work for me
Does any conservatism work for you? If you expect someone to agree with you all the time, you will always be disappointed. We could make a list of liberal things that Reagan did, if we wanted. It wouldn't change the fact that Reagan advanced the conservative agenda. While it too soon to tell, it is quite possible that Bush will end up advancing the conservative agenda just like Reagan.
By the way, I could add to my list how Bush has withdrawn us from the internation criminal court, how his justice dept now recognizes that the 2nd admendment is an individual right, how Bush tried to increase oil production in this country. I am watching the news right now. Bush is talking about improving welfare reform.
It's ok to comdemn Bush when he is wrong, but let's be objective enough to give him the credit when he is right.
The only problem with that point is that Bush HAS no conservative adgenda. He's a globalist, plain and simple.
Then what has Bush said as to some named or not named source. I came in late and want the real scoop, not a liberal bias spin machine washed one.
good questions. i'd like to hear the answer as well. contrary to others beliefs about me, i am open-minded about this issue and willing to admit my error in judgment if i am proven wrong.
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.