Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 3
Posted: 9/16/2005 10:01:05 AM EDT
President George Bush, a hell of a nice guy and I believe a good man, I voted for him twice. I voted for him twice despite his letting Ted Kennedy write the massive Education bill, despite his liberal ideas on Illegal Aliens, despite his luke warm support of the 2nd amendment, despite the massive Farm bill, despite the pork bloated Highway bill, I supported the President in spite of all this because he seems to be a good and honest man and because he was supposed to be a Conservative. After each of these Democrat liberal boondoggles ( and other liberal programs I am sure I cant think of right now ) we have been told by the Republican pundits and the party kool aid drinkers that "well we need that bill or program to undercut the Dems ect " undercut hell, the President and his buddies in Congress have passed far more liberal bills and budgets than any president and Congress since the New Deal and LBJ's Great Society. Mr Bush has not vetoed 1 bill in his 5 years as President.
Which brings us to the speech last night. I am having trouble even putting words to my reaction but I will try. I am in total disbelief that a Republican "Conservative" President gave this speech. He gave away the Fucking farm folks just as he has been doing since taking office. WTF, 200 billion in a give away ?? Presidents who are in political trouble ( and he has been sinking like a rock in job approval) always reach for the checkbook, OUR checkbook. How can he resist you say? The media has film and pics of poor Black folk in the worst kind of suffering, FEMA fucked up big time (even though the locals are beyond incompetent ) and he has to do something right ? So he goes political and sells the treasury down the fucking river to "show " all those poor suffering minorities that he really cares.. We have been sold a bill of goods guys, several hundred Billion on the 6th century Cesspool called Iraq, now several hundred Billion on N.O. In between he signs every pork barrel bill that hits his desk, If this is Conservatism count me out.
Link Posted: 9/16/2005 10:11:00 AM EDT
I shake my head at the things GWB does on a consistant basis. But I'm come to the conclusion that he's just like his dad. He has a good heart, but he just blows it and bends over for the libs and big government. He's confused. But I'd take a "confused" GWB over a very focused Hitlery ANY day of the week.

I miss Ronaldus Reaganus!!! The guy had balls...
Link Posted: 9/16/2005 10:14:01 AM EDT
This just reinforces my long-held belief that at the core there is very, very little difference between Republicans and Democrats.
Link Posted: 9/16/2005 10:15:36 AM EDT

Originally Posted By kill-9:
This just reinforces my long-held belief that at the core there is very, very little difference between Republicans and Democrats.



Yup...., especially in Washington.
Link Posted: 9/16/2005 10:15:42 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Red_Label:
I shake my head at the things GWB does on a consistant basis. But I'm come to the conclusion that he's just like his dad. He has a good heart, but he just blows it and bends over for the libs and big government. He's confused. But I'd take a "confused" GWB over a very focused Hitlery ANY day of the week.

I miss Ronaldus Reaganus!!! The guy had balls...



Hitlery could never have got the Liberal agenda thru that GWB has..
Link Posted: 9/16/2005 10:17:39 AM EDT
He vaguely resembles the great man I voted for.
Link Posted: 9/16/2005 10:19:02 AM EDT

Originally Posted By crowboy:
Hitlery could never have got the Liberal agenda thru that GWB has..



With a Republican Congress, this is a very good point. Kinda makes me wish I'd have voted for Kerry.
Link Posted: 9/16/2005 10:21:31 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/16/2005 10:24:08 AM EDT by Red_Label]
Aaaah forget it... this is going to be another one of those Kerry vs. GWB threads. Go ahead and vote for the people supported by the Brady Bunch, HCI, the ACLU, the NAACP, Michael Moore, Hollyweird, etc.

Link Posted: 9/16/2005 10:28:56 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/16/2005 10:29:26 AM EDT by crowboy]

Originally Posted By Red_Label:
Aaaah forget it... this is going to be another one of those Kerry vs. GWB threads. Go ahead and vote for the people supported by the Brady Bunch, HCI, the ACLU, the NAACP, Michael Moore, Hollyweird, etc.




I do not read anyone claiming to support any of the above. Our guy has been and is letting us all down, where to go from here and who to support I have no idea..
Link Posted: 9/16/2005 10:32:51 AM EDT

Originally Posted By KnobCreek:

Originally Posted By kill-9:
This just reinforces my long-held belief that at the core there is very, very little difference between Republicans and Democrats.



Yup...., especially in Washington.




Just reinforces my long-held belief that national-level politicians are just like professional wrestlers.

None of its real, they just get paid to pander to a particular crowd.
Link Posted: 9/16/2005 10:40:40 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/16/2005 10:43:38 AM EDT by John_Wayne777]
There is no such thing as perfect. GWB's actions have not been perfect in my opinion, nor has his reasoning.

I believe he has tried to do what he believes is right and has tried to cooperate with the lefties to try and accomplish SOME good, and has taken his position as President with a seriousness that fits the office. I think things like CFR (which I LOATHE with a passion) and the education stuff he did with Kennedy are attempts to foster cooperation and progress in politics.

It hasn't worked.

The NO thing was going to be expensive. We can't just let a major American city dissapear and say "f*ck em" about the former residents. Not going to happen. There WILL be a big bill, and we are all going to pay for it. That is a given. There is no way around it.

But HOW the money is spent is important. Watch for the strings Bush will try to place on the spending that will try to correct libbie idiocy and failures and to try to genuinely help people fix their life rather than just further enslaving them.

President Bush has had quite possibly the most difficult presidency in modern history. The kind of political climate he faces daily is something unseen since the days of the Civil War.

Governing in this environment isn't easy.

It isn't all his fault. Our Republican controlled congress is the one passing all these bad spending bills. We ought to be telling them to be responsible instead of begging them to bring pork home.

Everyone complains about the budget, but that doesn't stop a lot of the complainers from looking for as big a piece of the budget pie as they can get.
Link Posted: 9/16/2005 10:40:53 AM EDT

Originally Posted By crowboy:

Originally Posted By Red_Label:
Aaaah forget it... this is going to be another one of those Kerry vs. GWB threads. Go ahead and vote for the people supported by the Brady Bunch, HCI, the ACLU, the NAACP, Michael Moore, Hollyweird, etc.




I do not read anyone claiming to support any of the above. Our guy has been and is letting us all down, where to go from here and who to support I have no idea..




Look just above and you will see the statement "wish I would have voted for Kerry".

I had typed out a long response illustrating the differences, but erased it when I realized that it's a glass half full vs. one half empty arguement. Yeah, looks like the very same thing. But the way you look at it (or how you vote) at least says something about the person. Yeah, the end result may be the same. But I'll be damned if I'll ever KNOWINGLY vote for the likes of those I mentioned. I'd just rather NOT vote than to actually cast a vote for the communist/socialist bastards who don't even pretend to be otherwise.
Link Posted: 9/16/2005 10:42:51 AM EDT

Originally Posted By kill-9:
Kinda makes me wish I'd have voted for Kerry.



If you people actually cannot see the difference between Kerry and President Bush, you are hopeless.
Link Posted: 9/16/2005 10:43:27 AM EDT

Originally Posted By John_Wayne777:
The NO thing was going to be expensive. We can't just let a major American city dissapear and say "f*ck em" about the former residents.



Pity.
Link Posted: 9/16/2005 10:44:48 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Red_Label:

Originally Posted By crowboy:

Originally Posted By Red_Label:
Aaaah forget it... this is going to be another one of those Kerry vs. GWB threads. Go ahead and vote for the people supported by the Brady Bunch, HCI, the ACLU, the NAACP, Michael Moore, Hollyweird, etc.




I do not read anyone claiming to support any of the above. Our guy has been and is letting us all down, where to go from here and who to support I have no idea..




Look just above and you will see the statement "wish I would have voted for Kerry".

I had typed out a long response illustrating the differences, but erased it when I realized that it's a glass half full vs. one half empty arguement. Yeah, looks like the very same thing. But the way you look at it (or how you vote) at least says something about the person. Yeah, the end result may be the same. But I'll be damned if I'll ever KNOWINGLY vote for the likes of those I mentioned. I'd just rather NOT vote than to actually cast a vote for the communist/socialist bastards who don't even pretend to be otherwise.


I cant argue with that, but my point is exactly what you wrote, what you describe is what we ended up with.
Link Posted: 9/16/2005 10:45:11 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Old_Painless:

Originally Posted By kill-9:
Kinda makes me wish I'd have voted for Kerry.



If you people actually cannot see the difference between Kerry and President Bush, you are hopeless.



Not hopeless, just being good "conservatives". I have noticed that conservatives more than anyone else look for a reason to be defeated and for an opportunity to be canibals than any other political group. Noble aims but no patience and little optimism and a certain propensity to want to take the ball and go home.

Not very productive.
Link Posted: 9/16/2005 10:46:08 AM EDT

Originally Posted By NimmerMehr:

Originally Posted By John_Wayne777:
The NO thing was going to be expensive. We can't just let a major American city dissapear and say "f*ck em" about the former residents.



Pity.



We are Americans.

There are some scumbags in NO, but there were a LOT of good people who got screwed too.

We don't tell those good people to go to hell.

We help them.

That's the American way.
Link Posted: 9/16/2005 10:47:16 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Old_Painless:

Originally Posted By kill-9:
Kinda makes me wish I'd have voted for Kerry.



If you people actually cannot see the difference between Kerry and President Bush, you are hopeless.



you people? this isnt about Kerry or Clinton other than the fact that our President has accomplished more Liberal agenda than the Commies like Hillery, Bill and Kerry could have ever hoped for.
Link Posted: 9/16/2005 10:49:20 AM EDT

Originally Posted By NimmerMehr:

Originally Posted By John_Wayne777:
The NO thing was going to be expensive. We can't just let a major American city dissapear and say "f*ck em" about the former residents.



Pity.



Its not like New Orleans is a major port, with 25% of imports/exports going through there or anything....

Oh right, it is, and getting New Orleans functioning is, in fact, critical to the US economy.

His speach needs to be backed up with more details, it didn't sound like a "lets fling truckloads of money at it" solution to me.
Link Posted: 9/16/2005 10:50:10 AM EDT

Originally Posted By kill-9:
This just reinforces my long-held belief that at the core there is very, very little difference between Republicans and Democrats.




uh.....Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!
Link Posted: 9/16/2005 10:50:51 AM EDT

Originally Posted By John_Wayne777:

Originally Posted By Old_Painless:

Originally Posted By kill-9:
Kinda makes me wish I'd have voted for Kerry.



If you people actually cannot see the difference between Kerry and President Bush, you are hopeless.



Not hopeless, just being good "conservatives". I have noticed that conservatives more than anyone else look for a reason to be defeated and for an opportunity to be canibals than any other political group. Noble aims but no patience and little optimism and a certain propensity to want to take the ball and go home.

Not very productive.



I wouldnt call being fed up after 5 yrs of liberal agenda "no patience" We fucking control everthing in the Govt, what the fuck if this is what we waited for all these yrs then you are right I want my ball and I am going home..
Link Posted: 9/16/2005 10:51:00 AM EDT
I remember when there were those here who were just SURE that GW was going to extend the AWB when it got to his desk. Of course, it didn't. But the question is this: who would've been more likely to sign anti-gun legislation into law -- Bush or Kerry? If you REALLY think that it would have been Bush, then you really are wacked. Bush ain't perfect, but regardless of your negative attitudes about him -- he's STILL a million miles from Kerry (open borders, WMD's, and all).
Link Posted: 9/16/2005 10:51:42 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Lord_Grey_Boots:

Originally Posted By NimmerMehr:

Originally Posted By John_Wayne777:
The NO thing was going to be expensive. We can't just let a major American city dissapear and say "f*ck em" about the former residents.



Pity.



Its not like New Orleans is a major port, with 25% of imports/exports going through there or anything....

Oh right, it is, and getting New Orleans functioning is, in fact, critical to the US economy.

His speach needs to be backed up with more details, it didn't sound like a "lets fling truckloads of money at it" solution to me.



Please read the speech..
Link Posted: 9/16/2005 10:52:44 AM EDT

Originally Posted By crowboy:

Originally Posted By Old_Painless:

Originally Posted By kill-9:
Kinda makes me wish I'd have voted for Kerry.



If you people actually cannot see the difference between Kerry and President Bush, you are hopeless.



you people? this isnt about Kerry or Clinton other than the fact that our President has accomplished more Liberal agenda than the Commies like Hillery, Bill and Kerry could have ever hoped for.



No, you are mistaken.

For instance, do you really believe that the AWB would have been allowed to die under Kerry?

That's just one issue out of many that could be listed.

Sure, President Bush does some things that I don't like, but all in all, he is about 3000% better than any Democrat President would have been.

Anyone that believes differently is sadly mistaken.
Link Posted: 9/16/2005 10:53:59 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Red_Label:
I remember when there were those here who were just SURE that GW was going to extend the AWB when it got to his desk. Of course, it didn't. But the question is this: who would've been more likely to sign anti-gun legislation into law -- Bush or Kerry? If you REALLY think that it would have been Bush, then you really are wacked. Bush ain't perfect, but regardless of your negative attitudes about him -- he's STILL a million miles from Kerry (open borders, WMD's, and all).



Red, I guess you did not read my original post regarding my personal feelings about Mr Bush and please dont forget that He said he would sign the AWB again..
Link Posted: 9/16/2005 10:54:55 AM EDT

Originally Posted By kill-9:
This just reinforces my long-held belief that at the core there is very, very little difference between Republicans and Democrats.



Chuckie Schucker was on Oreilly last nite talking about how the Democrats are now the fiscal conservatives.

On teh one hand I'm thinking amd on the other hand I'm thinking

Either way, I'm thinking and

Link Posted: 9/16/2005 10:54:57 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Lumpy196:

Originally Posted By KnobCreek:

Originally Posted By kill-9:
This just reinforces my long-held belief that at the core there is very, very little difference between Republicans and Democrats.



Yup...., especially in Washington.




Just reinforces my long-held belief that national-level politicians are just like professional wrestlers.

None of its real, they just get paid to pander to a particular crowd.




Is this a problem with the particular national-level politicians, or a problem with Democracy in general in this country today.
Link Posted: 9/16/2005 10:56:05 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Old_Painless:

Originally Posted By crowboy:

Originally Posted By Old_Painless:

Originally Posted By kill-9:
Kinda makes me wish I'd have voted for Kerry.



If you people actually cannot see the difference between Kerry and President Bush, you are hopeless.



you people? this isnt about Kerry or Clinton other than the fact that our President has accomplished more Liberal agenda than the Commies like Hillery, Bill and Kerry could have ever hoped for.



No, you are mistaken.

For instance, do you really believe that the AWB would have been allowed to die under Kerry?

That's just one issue out of many that could be listed.

Sure, President Bush does some things that I don't like, but all in all, he is about 3000% better than any Democrat President would have been.

Anyone that believes differently is sadly mistaken.



With the Republican Congress in power NO Democrat would have ever been able to pass the Liberal agenda that "Our" President has.
Link Posted: 9/16/2005 10:58:47 AM EDT

Originally Posted By crowboy:

Originally Posted By Red_Label:
I remember when there were those here who were just SURE that GW was going to extend the AWB when it got to his desk. Of course, it didn't. But the question is this: who would've been more likely to sign anti-gun legislation into law -- Bush or Kerry? If you REALLY think that it would have been Bush, then you really are wacked. Bush ain't perfect, but regardless of your negative attitudes about him -- he's STILL a million miles from Kerry (open borders, WMD's, and all).



Red, I guess you did not read my original post regarding my personal feelings about Mr Bush and please dont forget that He said he would sign the AWB again..



I'll well aware of what GW "said" he'd do in that instance. But I am also aware of the well-known possibility that he was playing games with the libs to lull them to sleep. The fact is, as Old Painless says... there is a HUGE difference between GW and Kerry and their camps. But if you can't see that, not much I can do about it. I would get your eyes checked before you drive again though...
Link Posted: 9/16/2005 11:03:11 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/16/2005 11:06:05 AM EDT by MillerSHO]
If President Bush's 2 terms were as easy as Clinton's(alot of the easy comes from Clinton going out of his way to not step on anyone or anythings foot) and he STILL was making decisions like he is today you guys would have more of a leg to stand on.

The simple fact is these 2 terms are some of the toughest 2 terms any president in the past has faced with a political climate tougher then any president in the past has ever faced due to instant communication and people becoming more well, modern.

I'm not saying you shouldn't give him a hard time, to NOT would be to sheepish but just realize what we are up against today.

I'll always question some of the things he does, but at the same time I will look at the other side as well.

One thing is for sure, if all this shit that's been happening continues on and a democratic president gets into office next they are going to have some MAJOR SHOES TO FILL.

In all their hate for Bush, I don't think they realize the size of the shoe their next president will have to try to fit into.

I believe this to be one of the biggest reasons Kerry went out without a fight in 04 and is one of the biggest reasons why he won't be on the ticket in 08. He's scared as with most democratic leaders that might run in 08.

Link Posted: 9/16/2005 11:05:10 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Red_Label:

Originally Posted By crowboy:

Originally Posted By Red_Label:
I remember when there were those here who were just SURE that GW was going to extend the AWB when it got to his desk. Of course, it didn't. But the question is this: who would've been more likely to sign anti-gun legislation into law -- Bush or Kerry? If you REALLY think that it would have been Bush, then you really are wacked. Bush ain't perfect, but regardless of your negative attitudes about him -- he's STILL a million miles from Kerry (open borders, WMD's, and all).



Red, I guess you did not read my original post regarding my personal feelings about Mr Bush and please dont forget that He said he would sign the AWB again..



I'll well aware of what GW "said" he'd do in that instance. But I am also aware of the well-known possibility that he was playing games with the libs to lull them to sleep. The fact is, as Old Painless says... there is a HUGE difference between GW and Kerry and their camps. But if you can't see that, not much I can do about it. I would get your eyes checked before you drive again though...



You are correct in saying its not about what he said he would, its about what he has done. By the way, what has the President done in his 5 yrs to further the Conservative movement ? The Farm bill? The Education Bill? The Energy Bill? Proposing amesty for Illegals?Signing Campaign Finance reform? Liberal trade with China? Aids in Africa? Please tell me?
Link Posted: 9/16/2005 11:07:10 AM EDT
Jeb will be much, much better I'm sure.
Link Posted: 9/16/2005 11:07:11 AM EDT

Originally Posted By MillerSHO:
If President Bush's 2 terms were as easy as Clinton's(alot of the easy comes from Clinton going out of his way to not step on anyone or anythings foot) and he STILL was making decisions like he is today you guys would have more of a leg to stand on.

The simple fact is these 2 terms are some of the toughest 2 terms any president in the past has faced with a political climate tougher then any president in the past has ever faced due to instant communication and people becoming more well, modern.

I'm not saying you shouldn't give him a hard time, to NOT would be to sheepish but just realize what we are up against today.

I'll always question some of the things he does, but at the same time I will look at the other side as well.

One thing is for sure, if all this shit that's been happening continues on and a democratic president gets into office next they are going to have some MAJOR SHOES TO FILL.

In all their hate for Bush, I don't think they realize the size of the shoe their next president will have to try to fit into.




What does the fact that the president has had major disasters happen while in office have to do with his liberal record?
Link Posted: 9/16/2005 11:07:22 AM EDT
I grow more and more dissapointed with his policies each and every day


I beleive he is a good man, with intergrity, but he is also a politician.
Link Posted: 9/16/2005 11:10:01 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/16/2005 11:10:32 AM EDT by Zarathustra1]
There is what is best for the Democratic Party, what is best for the Republican Party and what is best for the Country. None of these 3 intersect at any point in current politics.

Link Posted: 9/16/2005 11:14:41 AM EDT
Link Posted: 9/16/2005 11:16:40 AM EDT

Originally Posted By John_Wayne777:

Originally Posted By NimmerMehr:

Originally Posted By John_Wayne777:
The NO thing was going to be expensive. We can't just let a major American city dissapear and say "f*ck em" about the former residents.



Pity.



We are Americans.

There are some scumbags in NO, but there were a LOT of good people who got screwed too.

We don't tell those good people to go to hell.

We help them.

That's the American way.



I'm sorry and I know that my idea seems dead already, but it is my opinion that the federal governments role in rebuilding in NO begins and ends with what federal property and government infrastructure was destroyed. The treasury of the US is not a disaster repair fund for people, and I see no delegated authority to provide a "helping hand" to people because they lost their house.

That charity should begin and end at our pocketbooks and be provided by agencies of private donations.

Do I see a role for the Feds in helping repair that which we expect them to build? Sure. As far as just dumping cash into the area to "fix broken lives"? No. But that is not even part of the debate and today the arguement is only about how much, not if such funds should be handed out.
Link Posted: 9/16/2005 11:19:24 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/16/2005 11:24:27 AM EDT by crowboy]

Originally Posted By supersix4:
I grow more and more dissapointed with his policies each and every day


I beleive he is a good man, with intergrity, but he is also a politician.



Good point and may I remind some of you that this IS NOT a Bush bashing thread. I voted twice for the man and believe strongly that he is honest and means well but his good intentions are taking our Country strait down the Liberal pathway to hell and our Republican Congress people are right there by his side. ( I started this thread not just regarding the NO giveaway , to me this is just the final straw)
Link Posted: 9/16/2005 11:25:25 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Grunteled:

Originally Posted By John_Wayne777:

Originally Posted By NimmerMehr:

Originally Posted By John_Wayne777:
The NO thing was going to be expensive. We can't just let a major American city dissapear and say "f*ck em" about the former residents.



Pity.



We are Americans.

There are some scumbags in NO, but there were a LOT of good people who got screwed too.

We don't tell those good people to go to hell.

We help them.

That's the American way.



I'm sorry and I know that my idea seems dead already, but it is my opinion that the federal governments role in rebuilding in NO begins and ends with what federal property and government infrastructure was destroyed. The treasury of the US is not a disaster repair fund for people, and I see no delegated authority to provide a "helping hand" to people because they lost their house.

That charity should begin and end at our pocketbooks and be provided by agencies of private donations.

Do I see a role for the Feds in helping repair that which we expect them to build? Sure. As far as just dumping cash into the area to "fix broken lives"? No. But that is not even part of the debate and today the arguement is only about how much, not if such funds should be handed out.




+1
Link Posted: 9/16/2005 11:31:48 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Grunteled:

Originally Posted By John_Wayne777:

Originally Posted By NimmerMehr:

Originally Posted By John_Wayne777:
The NO thing was going to be expensive. We can't just let a major American city dissapear and say "f*ck em" about the former residents.



Pity.



We are Americans.

There are some scumbags in NO, but there were a LOT of good people who got screwed too.

We don't tell those good people to go to hell.

We help them.

That's the American way.



I'm sorry and I know that my idea seems dead already, but it is my opinion that the federal governments role in rebuilding in NO begins and ends with what federal property and government infrastructure was destroyed. The treasury of the US is not a disaster repair fund for people, and I see no delegated authority to provide a "helping hand" to people because they lost their house.

That charity should begin and end at our pocketbooks and be provided by agencies of private donations.

Do I see a role for the Feds in helping repair that which we expect them to build? Sure. As far as just dumping cash into the area to "fix broken lives"? No. But that is not even part of the debate and today the arguement is only about how much, not if such funds should be handed out.



Exactly right. The recently-posted Davy Crockett speech is particularly poignant.
Link Posted: 9/16/2005 11:49:32 AM EDT

Originally Posted By John_Wayne777:
<snip>
We are Americans.

There are some scumbags in NO, but there were a LOT of good people who got screwed too.

We don't tell those good people to go to hell.

We help them.

That's the American way.



It's the unconstitutional way, anyway.
Link Posted: 9/16/2005 12:08:36 PM EDT

Originally Posted By garandman:

Originally Posted By kill-9:
This just reinforces my long-held belief that at the core there is very, very little difference between Republicans and Democrats.



Chuckie Schucker was on Oreilly last nite talking about how the Democrats are now the fiscal conservatives.

On teh one hand I'm thinking amd on the other hand I'm thinking

Either way, I'm thinking and




Don't worry about it. It is hilarious that Chuckie has to throw his supposed 'constituancy' under the bus for a cheap political shot and to make himself appear less liberal.

It isn't going to work.

Rebuilding New Orleans was always going to be hugely expensive and there is no doubt that it must happen. What do we propose then? Bill the folks of NO? That isn't any way to build a city. Bill those responsible for not upgrading the levies? That might get you a few hundred thousand at best.

In 3 years the country will be stronger for this, and will have a roaring economy. Mark my words, New Orleans is an INVESTMENT!
Link Posted: 9/16/2005 12:09:37 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Dance:

Originally Posted By John_Wayne777:
<snip>
We are Americans.

There are some scumbags in NO, but there were a LOT of good people who got screwed too.

We don't tell those good people to go to hell.

We help them.

That's the American way.



It's the unconstitutional way, anyway.



Thank God someone else gets it.

I couldn't give a crap who is "conservative" or "liberal". I just want a government that won't take a crap all over the constitution every chance they get.
Link Posted: 9/16/2005 12:10:31 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Dance:

Originally Posted By John_Wayne777:
<snip>
We are Americans.

There are some scumbags in NO, but there were a LOT of good people who got screwed too.

We don't tell those good people to go to hell.

We help them.

That's the American way.



It's the unconstitutional way, anyway.



It's unconstitutional to give disaster aid and rebuilding aid? Or is it unconstitutional to screw people? I'm confused.
Link Posted: 9/16/2005 12:14:10 PM EDT
What a difference a year makes around here.

I only voted for the CIC once.

The sad truth is it's only the opposition party that believes in fiscal discipline or small government, once they're in power they grab more and more. It's a game they play, it's all a game they play. Politics isn't a football game, there's no end zone and we're all on the same team, but are we? The us vs. them, left vs. right paradigm is divide and conquer pure and simple, it's we the people who are divided and conquered a bit more each day.

I don't believe GWB is an honest man, I don't believe he's interested in what is or isn't constitutional either.

Fascism is not a viable alternative to socialism.

Free market capitalism requires a free market for capital. We don't have one.

Big changes are coming, we need a CIC who's up to the job.

No neocon is going to win in '08, no third party will be strong enough that soon. The only alternative I see to a liberal win is a Ron Paul type on the GOP ticket.
Link Posted: 9/16/2005 12:14:18 PM EDT

Originally Posted By crowboy:

Originally Posted By Red_Label:

Originally Posted By crowboy:

Originally Posted By Red_Label:
I remember when there were those here who were just SURE that GW was going to extend the AWB when it got to his desk. Of course, it didn't. But the question is this: who would've been more likely to sign anti-gun legislation into law -- Bush or Kerry? If you REALLY think that it would have been Bush, then you really are wacked. Bush ain't perfect, but regardless of your negative attitudes about him -- he's STILL a million miles from Kerry (open borders, WMD's, and all).



Red, I guess you did not read my original post regarding my personal feelings about Mr Bush and please dont forget that He said he would sign the AWB again..



I'll well aware of what GW "said" he'd do in that instance. But I am also aware of the well-known possibility that he was playing games with the libs to lull them to sleep. The fact is, as Old Painless says... there is a HUGE difference between GW and Kerry and their camps. But if you can't see that, not much I can do about it. I would get your eyes checked before you drive again though...



You are correct in saying its not about what he said he would, its about what he has done. By the way, what has the President done in his 5 yrs to further the Conservative movement ? The Farm bill? The Education Bill? The Energy Bill? Proposing amesty for Illegals?Signing Campaign Finance reform? Liberal trade with China? Aids in Africa? Please tell me?



First and foremost, three words: Chief Justice Roberts
Link Posted: 9/16/2005 12:15:20 PM EDT
Its unconstitutional to use Federal Tax dollars for disaster relief.
Link Posted: 9/16/2005 12:16:07 PM EDT

Originally Posted By FishKepr:

Originally Posted By crowboy:

Originally Posted By Red_Label:

Originally Posted By crowboy:

Originally Posted By Red_Label:
I remember when there were those here who were just SURE that GW was going to extend the AWB when it got to his desk. Of course, it didn't. But the question is this: who would've been more likely to sign anti-gun legislation into law -- Bush or Kerry? If you REALLY think that it would have been Bush, then you really are wacked. Bush ain't perfect, but regardless of your negative attitudes about him -- he's STILL a million miles from Kerry (open borders, WMD's, and all).



Red, I guess you did not read my original post regarding my personal feelings about Mr Bush and please dont forget that He said he would sign the AWB again..



I'll well aware of what GW "said" he'd do in that instance. But I am also aware of the well-known possibility that he was playing games with the libs to lull them to sleep. The fact is, as Old Painless says... there is a HUGE difference between GW and Kerry and their camps. But if you can't see that, not much I can do about it. I would get your eyes checked before you drive again though...



You are correct in saying its not about what he said he would, its about what he has done. By the way, what has the President done in his 5 yrs to further the Conservative movement ? The Farm bill? The Education Bill? The Energy Bill? Proposing amesty for Illegals?Signing Campaign Finance reform? Liberal trade with China? Aids in Africa? Please tell me?



First and foremost, three words: Chief Justice Roberts



We'll see Politicians and those in the legal profession suck until proven otherwise
Link Posted: 9/16/2005 12:26:46 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Torf:

It's unconstitutional to give disaster aid and rebuilding aid? Or is it unconstitutional to screw people? I'm confused.



Yes.

Until you can show me where in the constitution its authoriized under the doctrine of specific enumeration, its unConstitutional.

Same with charity aid to Israel, or Ghana, or any other country.
Link Posted: 9/16/2005 12:27:43 PM EDT

Originally Posted By FishKepr:

Originally Posted By crowboy:

Originally Posted By Red_Label:

Originally Posted By crowboy:

Originally Posted By Red_Label:
I remember when there were those here who were just SURE that GW was going to extend the AWB when it got to his desk. Of course, it didn't. But the question is this: who would've been more likely to sign anti-gun legislation into law -- Bush or Kerry? If you REALLY think that it would have been Bush, then you really are wacked. Bush ain't perfect, but regardless of your negative attitudes about him -- he's STILL a million miles from Kerry (open borders, WMD's, and all).



Red, I guess you did not read my original post regarding my personal feelings about Mr Bush and please dont forget that He said he would sign the AWB again..



I'll well aware of what GW "said" he'd do in that instance. But I am also aware of the well-known possibility that he was playing games with the libs to lull them to sleep. The fact is, as Old Painless says... there is a HUGE difference between GW and Kerry and their camps. But if you can't see that, not much I can do about it. I would get your eyes checked before you drive again though...



You are correct in saying its not about what he said he would, its about what he has done. By the way, what has the President done in his 5 yrs to further the Conservative movement ? The Farm bill? The Education Bill? The Energy Bill? Proposing amesty for Illegals?Signing Campaign Finance reform? Liberal trade with China? Aids in Africa? Please tell me?



First and foremost, three words: Chief Justice Roberts




Judge Roberts has virtually NO trail to look at, we in fact do not know what he will turn out to be. ( I did notice that No one on the committee ask any 2nd amendment questions)
Link Posted: 9/16/2005 12:27:54 PM EDT
I have always believed that our government works best when at least one of the three; house, senate, or executive, is held by the opposition party. It seems to limit the amount of damage .gov can do at any one time. I knew that when the Repub's won both legislatures and the presidency we were going to be in for a hell of a ride. The only saving grace is that it would be worse if the Dem's had total control--which I fear in the coming elections.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 3
Top Top