User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 2/2/2006 10:48:33 AM EDT
[#1]
I love all these people who claimed to have voted for him when they didn't.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/2/2006 10:55:31 AM EDT
[#2]
Just like you didn't? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/2/2006 11:06:05 AM EDT
[#3]
NO, he's lost it over the course of his tenure  +1 for your ideas |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 2/2/2006 11:10:00 AM EDT
[#4]
[sarcasm]Well you must be a liberal TROLL! And you never voted for him![/sarcasm] |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 2/2/2006 11:15:32 AM EDT
[#5]
+2....... |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/2/2006 11:15:49 AM EDT
[#6]
I got my guns and 2 supreme court justices and a great economy.
All I can ask for is... 1. Win the war on terror 2. Lower gas prices 3. Less illegals He needs to work on number 3. The him and the congress must work on number 2 (Think about all of the hippies who say "If we drill ANWAR we wont see results for 10-20 years, I guess we shoulda drilled it in 1975 or 85 then!) We are winning the war on terror. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/2/2006 11:16:36 AM EDT
[#7]
these aren't DEM talking points : Senate Leader Defends Spending Spree Rather Than Enacting Reforms by Brian M. Riedl October 19, 2005 WebMemo #887 A recent Heritage Foundation report detailed the 33 percent expansion of the federal government since 2001 that has pushed federal spending to nearly $22,000 per household—the most since World War II.[1] This report, based largely on government data, analyzed recent large across-the-board increases in entitlement and discretionary spending, as well as the recent surge in pork projects. Rather than take action to pare back runaway spending, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist’s office responded with a memorandum to Senate staff defending the recent spending spree with assertions that do not stand up to close scrutiny.[2] This paper refutes that memo’s assertions. Assertion #1: “[F]ederal spending has grown these last 5 years, but for very clear and understandable national security reasons.” Reality: Defense is responsible for less than one-third of the $610 billion increase in spending since 2001. Rather than contain new spending to vital national security priorities, lawmakers have increased spending on education by 100 percent, international affairs by 94 percent, housing and commerce by 86 percent, community development by 71 percent, health research and regulation by 61 percent, and veterans’ benefits by 51 percent, just to name a few examples. Perhaps most egregiously, the number of annual pork projects jumped from 6,333 in 2001 to 13,999 this year. Assertion #2: “If it were not for this 1 percentage point increase in funding for our national security between 2000 and last year, federal spending overall would be a remarkable 19.2 percent, well below the previous two decades.” Reality: This point seems to recommend excluding the costs of the war on terrorism from spending analyses. But this spending did not occur in a vacuum. During World War II, lawmakers reprioritized their budgets and cut non-war spending in half—even eliminating many of President Roosevelt’s New Deal programs. During the Korean War, Congress cut one-fourth of all non-war spending in just one year.[3] Rather than set priorities and offset important wartime spending, today’s lawmakers simply ask budget watchdogs to pretend that such spending is not there. If only taxpayers could also pretend that the coming IRS bills for such spending are not there either. Assertion #3: “Federal spending as a share of our economy in 2005 represents about 20.2 percent. How does this ratio—federal spending to the size of our economy—compare to previous periods? For the decade of the 1980’s, federal spending averaged 22.2 percent of GDP—a whole 2 percentage points higher than last year.” Reality: There are two major differences that show why current spending totals are much less justified. First, President Reagan inherited a bloated federal government that spent 21.7 percent of GDP, and he reduced that burden to 21.2 percent—even while fighting the Cold War and working with an often-Democratic Congress that regularly sought to increase spending further. By comparison, lawmakers in early 2001 inherited a leaner budget that, as a result of difficult decisions made by previous Congresses, had been pared down to 18.4 percent of GDP, and they promptly responded with across-the-board spending hikes that pushed spending all the way back to 20.2 percent of GDP by 2005. Second, unlike in the 1980s, this current spending spree occurs less than three years before the first of 77 million baby boomers retires. Over the next decade, Medicare will expand by 9 percent annually, Medicaid by 8 percent annually, and Social Security by 6 percent annually. Just to keep pace with this spending, lawmakers would have to raise tax rates every year until they reached a level that is 60 percent higher than today. Lawmakers can avert this crisis only with direct and immediate entitlement reforms. Yet, so far, lawmakers have instead dug the nation’s fiscal hole even deeper by creating an unaffordable universal drug entitlement in Medicare. Simply put, lawmakers went on this spending spree at the very moment the nation could least afford it. Assertion #4: “[T]he Medicare Rx bill has become a symbol of federal spending out of control, though the actual spending from that legislation, let alone the benefits to be derived from it, have only now begun. The spending criticism of the Rx legislation falls into the category of anticipated spending, which there clearly will be, but not actual spending. And as you heard this week, the costs of the program could be significantly less than what was anticipated as increased competition in drug pricing now becomes a reality.” Reality: This point seems to defend the Medicare drug entitlement on the basis that it has not yet been implemented, and therefore no costs have yet been incurred. But if lawmakers managed to expand the federal government by 33 percent in four years even without a Medicare drug entitlement, how fast will federal spending leap once its exorbitant costs (estimated at $724 billion in the first decade alone) begin mounting on January 1, 2006? As for the claims of significant savings, they seem to have escaped the escalating cost projections coming from the Congressional Budget Office, Office of Management Budget, Medicare Trustees, and nearly all independent health economists. Assertion #5: “It has been the increases in federal spending for the Global War on Terrorism that has been the most significant driver these last 5 years, not highway bills, not energy bills, nor a Medicare drug bill.” Reality: Again, it is odd to defend the bloated budgets of the past by describing the new layers of spending that are just now being added on top of them. Furthermore, the problems with the highway bill and the energy bill extend well beyond their total cost to taxpayers. Polls show that 71 percent of Americans are more bothered by how their taxes are spent than by the amount of taxes they pay and that the average American feels that nearly half of his or her tax dollars are wasted.[4] So it is no surprise that Americans are offended by a highway bill that diverts nearly $25 billion into over 6,000 pork projects, many of which are totally unrelated to roads. Similarly, the energy bill relied more on special-interest subsidies and tax breaks than on adequately actually addressing America’s energy needs. Assertion #6: “[N]o other industrial nation’s centralized government spends less than the United States measured as a share of their economy.” Reality:Spending less money than bureaucratic, stagnant, social welfare states like France and Germany is hardly anything to brag about. Yet the memo’s assertion is actually misleading. According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), total U.S. government spending (including state and local government spending) reached 35.9 percent of GDP in 2005, which is more than was spent by the governments of Australia (35.5 percent), Ireland (35.2 percent), and New Zealand (35.1 percent).[5] Granted, the memo specifies spending by central governments, but when measuring the total economic burden of government, there is no reason to ignore other levels of government, which is why virtually no international measures do so. Furthermore, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid threaten to push U.S. government spending to the same Western European levels that the Frist memo compares America favorably to. Conclusion The memo released by Sen. Frist’s office is a signal that congressional leaders still do not grasp the depth and consequences of their historic spending spree. The federal budget expanded by $610 billion between 2001 and 2005, and lawmakers have failed to prepare the federal budget—and taxpayers—for the coming avalanche of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid costs. Rather than make excuses for past excesses, lawmakers should instead focus on reining in runaway spending. They should start by delaying the unaffordable Medicare drug entitlement and finally placing a moratorium on pork project spending. Brian M. Riedl is Grover M. Hermann Fellow in Federal Budgetary Affairs in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [1] Brian M. Riedl, “Federal Spending: By the Numbers,” Heritage Foundation Webmemo No. 881, October 11, 2005, at http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/wm881.cfm. [2] See “Not Encouraging,” Heritage Foundation Policy Weblog, October 19, 2005, at http://www.heritage.org/press/dailybriefing/ policyweblog.cfm? blogid=0A44B83D-CED1-04B9-0C11038984748CEB. [3] Mitch Daniels, remarks to the National Press Club, November 28, 2001, at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/speeches/ natl_press_club.html. Daniels states that non-defense spending decreased by 22 percent between 1939 and 1942 and then by 37 percent more between 1942 and 1944. [4] See Karlyn Bowman, “Public Opinion on Taxes,” American Enterprise Institute, updated April 15, 2005, pp. 12-13, at http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.16838/pub_detail.asp. [5] Data provided by the Organization for Economic C-operation and Development, at http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/5/51/2483816.xls. The author thanks Chris Edwards of the Cato Institute for his contribution to this section. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- © 1995 - 2006 The Heritage Foundation All Rights Reserved. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 214 Massachusetts Ave NE Washington, DC 20002-4999 phone - 202.546.4400 | fax - 202.546.8328 e-mail - [email protected] I see an awful lot of facts there |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 2/2/2006 11:26:23 AM EDT
[#8]
Want to gain my confidence.............................
Repeal the 1. Gun Control Act and Brady legislation 2. National I.D. Act 3. Patriot Act 4. Rico Laws 5. EPA laws 6. Gas tax 7. Farm subsidies and pass the...................... 1. National sales tax Disolve the ..................... 1. IRS 2. BATFE 3. Homeland Security 4. FCC Fire................. 1. Alberto Gonzalez 2. Donald Rumsfeld Drill............... 1. The Rockies (shale oil at $30 a barrell) 2. ANWAR Expand............... 1. Alternative fuel sources. Bomb......................... 1. Iran 2. Syria ............and put the Palis on notice. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/2/2006 11:31:07 AM EDT
[#9]
Where does a libertarian fit in that spectrum then? |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 2/2/2006 11:34:25 AM EDT
[#10]
Left of the middle. A libertarian like myself is a Liberal who sees the evil of govenment intervention in any aspect of life. Oddly enough in many ways we are more conservative than most loyal GOP voters. |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 2/2/2006 11:46:13 AM EDT
[#11]
Oh, the Heritage Foundation says it and it's on the internet, so it must be true.  Like I have already said in this thread, it is almost impossible to tell the far right nutcases from the left wing nutcases. They sound the same. Some of you seem to forget that a great deal of that is military spending. I guess you have forgotten what happened on Sept 11, 2001. |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 2/2/2006 11:47:18 AM EDT
[#12]
Just like I didn't what? I did vote for him. I don't spend all my time condemning every thing he does. Most of those that constantly slam him yet claim to have voted for him, are not being honest. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 2/2/2006 11:48:15 AM EDT
[#13]
What's wrong, did I hit a tender spot about that bullshit? Liberal troll, far-right troll, little to no difference. |
||||
|
|
|
Posted: 2/2/2006 11:54:14 AM EDT
[#14]
Is that when Saddam Hussein blew up the Empire State Building? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/2/2006 12:01:40 PM EDT
[#15]
I'd never brag about it, but I voted for him too the first time around. That was the time he promised fiscal responsibility and a "humble" foreign policy. Last election I voted for some Libertarian whose name escapes at the moment. |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 2/2/2006 12:02:18 PM EDT
[#16]
Like I said, far right, left wing, not much difference at all. That is a typical argument for those that are clueless. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 2/2/2006 1:04:21 PM EDT
[#17]
|
||
|
|
|
Posted: 2/2/2006 1:09:22 PM EDT
[#18]
"Some of the finest conservative minds in America today do their work in the Heritage Foundation "
Rush Limbaugh, Nov 10 , 2000 www.heritage.org/about About The Heritage Foundation The Heritage Foundation is a unique institution—a public policy research organization, or “think tank.” We draw solutions to contemporary problems from the ideas, principles and traditions that make America great. We are not afraid to begin our sentences with the words “We believe,” because we do believe: in individual liberty, free enterprise, limited government, a strong national defense, and traditional American values. We want an America that is safe and secure; where choices (in education, health care and retirement) abound; where taxes are fair, flat, and comprehensible; where everybody has the opportunity to go as far as their talents will take them; where government concentrates on its core functions, recognizes its limits and shows favor to none. And the policies we propose would accomplish these things. Our expert staff—with years of experience in business, government and on Capitol Hill—don’t just produce research. We generate solutions consistent with our beliefs and market them to the Congress, the Executive Branch, the news media and others. These solutions build on our country’s economic, political and social heritage to produce a safer, stronger, freer, more prosperous America. And a safer, more prosperous, freer world. As conservatives, we believe the values and ideas that motivated our Founding Fathers are worth conserving. And as policy entrepreneurs, we believe the most effective solutions are consistent with those ideas and values. We believe that ideas have consequences, but that those ideas must be promoted aggressively. So, we constantly try innovative ways to market our ideas. We are proud of our broad base of support among the American people and we accept no government funds. Our vision is to build an America where freedom, opportunity, prosperity and civil society flourish. Our Mission Founded in 1973, The Heritage Foundation is a research and educational institute - a think tank - whose mission is to formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/2/2006 1:12:26 PM EDT
[#19]
Brian M. Riedl
Senior Policy Analyst in Federal Budgetary Affairs, The Heritage Foundation E-mail Brian Riedl areas of expertise: Federal spending, appropriations, economic growth, agriculture, welfare reform summary: Brian Riedl, The Heritage Foundation’s lead budget analyst, has built a solid reputation for providing meaningful insights into the often-arcane realm of federal budget policy. Indeed, much of the current backlash against runaway federal spending can be attributed to Riedl’s work. “Heritage’s [Brian] Riedl calculates that 55 percent of all new spending in the past two years, or $164 billion of $296 billion, is from areas unrelated to defense and homeland security,” The Washington Post wrote. “This has led federal spending to top $20,000 per household in today’s dollars for the first time since World War II – a jump of $4,000 in the past four years.” In December 2003, Riedl quickly exposed the omnibus spending bill’s 8,000 pork projects, including funding for the Please Touch Museum and the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. He also showed that the omnibus bill would increase discretionary spending by 9 percent, rather than the 3 percent figure commonly reported. Riedl’s budget research has been featured in front-page stories and editorials in The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post and The Los Angeles Times. He has discussed budget policy on NBC, CBS, CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, and C-SPAN. In addition to overall spending trends, Riedl targeted the 2002 farm bill, which distributed most of its $180 billion bounty to wealthy agri-businesses. “A Heritage Foundation report shows just how misguided this boondoggle is,” the Denver Post wrote of Riedl’s work. “After noting that two-thirds of all farm subsidies go to large farms and wealthy agri-businesses, most of which earn more than $250,000 a year, Heritage’s Brian Riedl concluded: ‘Congress could guarantee every full-time farmer a minimum income of 185 percent of the federal poverty line ($32,652 for a family of four) for ‘only’ $4 billion per year -- one-fifth the cost of direct subsidies in the new bill.’” In an op-ed essay published in dozens of newspapers nationwide, Riedl noted that “farm subsidies are America’s largest and most expensive corporate welfare program.” So effective were his criticisms that, weeks after the farm bill was enacted, the U.S. Agriculture Department felt it necessary to publish a 12-page report that tried to address many of the concerns Riedl had raised. Riedl also contributes to Heritage’s welfare research. In an op-ed published in The Washington Post, Riedl wrote that “Welfare recipients assigned to immediate work see their earnings increase more than twice as fast over the following five years as those first placed in education-based programs.” In another study, he debunked the myth of a child care crisis by showing that funding has more than tripled since 1996, leaving very few truly needy families without access to child care assistance. Before coming to Heritage, Riedl worked for Rep. Mark Green, R-Wis. He also served as a policy analyst for then-Gov. Tommy Thompson and for the speaker of the Wisconsin Assembly. Riedl holds a bachelor’s degree in economics and political science from the University of Wisconsin, and a master’s degree in public affairs from Princeton University yeah, he seems like a real right wing nutcase 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/2/2006 1:18:06 PM EDT
[#20]
The Heritage Foundation, a think tank located in Washington, D.C., is an influential public policy research institute. Conservative in its orientation, Heritage's operations have transformed the traditional concept of the "think tank" and significantly impacted the domestic and foreign policies of the United States government.
Founded in 1973, Heritage's initial funding came from political conservative Joseph Coors, owner of the Coors Brewing Company. Conservative activist Paul Weyrich was its first head. Since 1974, Heritage's president has been Edwin Feulner, Jr., previously the staff director of the House Republican Study Committee and a former staff assistant to Congressman Phil Crane (R-IL). Until 2001, the Heritage Foundation published Policy Review, a highly-regarded public policy journal, which was then acquired by the Hoover Institution. Mandate for Leadership The Heritage Foundation is known for the wide-ranging and influential nature of its work. Its 1981 book of policy analysis, "Mandate for Leadership," revolutionized the character of public policy advice-giving. At 1000-plus pages, it offered specific recommendations on policy, budget and administrative action for all Cabinet departments and many agencies to be staffed by political appointees in the incoming conservative administration of President Ronald Reagan. Cold War involvement In the 1980s and early 1990s, the Heritage Foundation was a key architect and advocate of the Reagan Doctrine, by which the United States government channeled overt and covert support to anti-Communist resistance movements in such places as Afghanistan, Angola, Cambodia and Nicaragua and generally supported global anti-communism during the Cold War. Heritage foreign policy analysts didn't restrict themselves to research, but became active in efforts to provide political and military guidance to rebel forces in Angola, Cambodia, and Nicaragua, and to dissidents in Eastern bloc nations and Soviet republics. The foundation was instrumental in advancing President Ronald Reagan's belief that the former Soviet Union was an "evil empire" and that its defeat, not its mere containment, was a realistic foreign policy objective. Heritage also played a key role in building support for Reagan's plans to build an orbital ballistic missile shield, the ("Strategic Defense Initiative"). Free market domestic policies In domestic policy, Heritage is a proponent of supply-side economics, which holds that reductions in the marginal rate of taxation can spur economic growth. Internationally, and in partnership with the Wall Street Journal, Heritage publishes the annual Index of Economic Freedom, which measures a country's freedom in terms of property rights and freedom from government regulation. The factors used to calculate the Index score are corruption in government, barriers to international trade, income tax and corporate tax rates, government expenditures, rule of law and the ability to enforce contracts, regulatory burdens, banking restrictions, labor regulations, and black market activities. Deficiencies lower the score on Heritage's Index. Political influence Unlike traditional think tanks, which tend to house scholars and politicians-in-exile who produce large books, Heritage tends to employ bright, aggressive public policy analysts who produce comparatively shorter policy papers intended to pass what Heritage calls "the briefcase test" for busy politicians to read on the run. Heritage also pioneered the "marketing" of policy ideas by astute packaging and public relations, now a staple feature of Washington think tank activity. Although Heritage is just over 30 years old, it has earned a major place among Washington think tanks. Similar think tanks include the American Enterprise Institute and the libertarian Cato Institute. Heritage's liberal counterparts include the Brookings Institution and the Center for American Progress. In keeping with its emphasis on political accessibility, Heritage maintains its eight-story headquarters on Capitol Hill, a short walk from the United States Congress; most other think-tanks maintain offices in downtown Washington. Many Heritage Foundation personnel have held, or gone on to hold, influential roles in American business and government, includingRichard V. Allen, L. Paul Bremer, Elaine Chao, Lawrence Di Rita, Michael Johns, John F. Lehman, Edwin Meese, and others[1]. Financial support Though it boasts considerable clout on Capitol Hill, the Heritage Foundation does not "lobby." Like all other political advocacy groups, left and right, this allows Heritage to retain tax-exempt status as a "charity" under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. This status, in part, helped it collect $29.7 million in 2004 corporate and individual donations. Core funding comes from conservative foundations and individual donors: In 1995, 31 checks accounted for $8.5 million; another 123 donors supplied $2.6 million. The foundation receives comparatively little from corporations, which shy away from Heritage's activist approach to policy advocacy. Through direct mail fundraising, Heritage obtains millions more from small donors. Among Washington think tanks, Heritage is unique in obtaining a large, popular base of funding support. Richard Mellon Scaife In 1973, beer baron Joseph Coors contributed a quarter-million dollars to launch The Heritage Foundation. Since then, money has come from the founders of Amway Corp. and right-leaning foundations like the Bradley, Olin and Scaife foundations. Billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife and other wealthy philanthropists have been generous Heritage Foundation donors. Large corporations Heritage has received a long and steady flow of support from nearly 100 major corporations, including Chase Manhattan Bank, Dow Chemical Company, Ford Motor Company, General Motors, Mobil, Procter & Gamble, and GlaxoSmithKline.[2] Asian support With a long history of receiving large donations from overseas, Heritage also continues to receive a minimum of several hundred thousand dollars from South Korea and Taiwan each year. U.S. News & World Report reported in 1989 that its South Korean ties included partnerships with Rev. Sun Myung Moon's messianic Unification Church. In autumn of 1988, the South Korean National Assembly uncovered a document revealing that Korean intelligence gave $2.2 million to the Heritage Foundation on-the-sly during the early 1980s. Heritage has denied the allegation. Heritage's latest annual report acknowledges a $400,000 grant from the Korean conglomerate Samsung. And another donor, the Korea Foundation, which conduits money from the South Korean government, has given Heritage almost $1 million in the past three years. Support for conservative organizations The Heritage Foundation has provided start up assistance, including funding, office space, or management to various conservative organizations, including American Council for a Free Asia, Christian Voice, Citizens for America, Center for Peace and Freedom (now part of the Nixon Library), Committee for a Free Afghanistan, Free the Eagle and National Center for Public Policy Research. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/2/2006 1:20:41 PM EDT
[#21]
I worked on Richard Nixon's re-election campaign while in high school NJROTC. I soon became disillusioned with The goverment's non-winning attitude with Vietnam, the citizens spitting and cursing vets. I quit ROTC in the third and final year. I again entered politics when Ross Perot ran but again realized what a scam it all is. I'm embarassed to admit I thought things would be different the second time.
To me its quite obvious special interest ($), and "other" groups run the show. Kennedy found this out the hard way. Bush is no more than an erand boy. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/2/2006 1:35:27 PM EDT
[#22]
Very little, but more than Kerry. Thats probably why I didn't vote for either. Hey, at least he isn't trying to take my guns away. That's something.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/2/2006 2:47:02 PM EDT
[#23]
That and "It's a liberal news source, so it's worthless" even when it is directly from a conservative group or a Republican in office. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/2/2006 3:50:35 PM EDT
[#24]
Larry, I think you're flat wrong.
There are a lot of us who voted for Bush the first time, and many who voted for him twice, that have major issues with his policies. Not only did I vote for GWB in 2000, but I advocated for him after he'd won the nomination. And I've been horribly disappointed in his administration almost from day one. I'd have voted for him in 2004 also rather than for Badnarik had I been in a swing state, He was the only non-GOP vote I've ever cast in a statewide or national election, a few local libertarians have gotten my vote, several won. GWB completely lost me when his treasury secretary resigned because he couldn't be a part of "deluding the people" and "pandering to the lowest common denominator" (his words)and he appointed someone who had no problem doing so. I also, from the very beginning, thought the Iraq campaign was a very poor choice. Anyone who found himself POTUS on 9/11/2001 would have known a response was necessary, I don't think Bushs WOT has been particularly effective, I don't understand why he gets so much credit on the subject from so many. The GOP is a pretty diverse group, not all of us are pleased, for a variety of reasons. Kerry would not have come as close as he did to winning in 2004 if many republicans/ conservatives/libertarians weren't unhappy, almost anyone could beat Kerry, he was a weak candidate. There re many examples of policies that are widely unpopular among conservatives, but the bottom line is that "compassionate conservatism" really means "authoritarian republicanism" Big government is big government whether it's the right wing or the left leading it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/2/2006 3:57:42 PM EDT
[#25]
Noooooo, really? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/2/2006 6:41:25 PM EDT
[#26]
Or a far right "conservative" who sounds just like the liberals. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 2/2/2006 6:48:59 PM EDT
[#27]
Well said, stay the course. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/2/2006 6:53:50 PM EDT
[#28]
Briefly, taking advice from CAIR in regards to what he says in his speech is wrong
Referring to Illegal Aliens as Immigrants and stating that they're vital to the economy ? I do have confidence that he'll Bomb Iran if need be but I believe we have to secure this Nation That means Sealing Borders, a Moratorium on Any Immigration for now, and ferreting out any and all Al Q supporters and Jihadi Wahaabists |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/3/2006 6:42:02 AM EDT
[#29]
Mandate for Leadership The Heritage Foundation is known for the wide-ranging and influential nature of its work. Its 1981 book of policy analysis, "Mandate for Leadership," revolutionized the character of public policy advice-giving. At 1000-plus pages, it offered specific recommendations on policy, budget and administrative action for all Cabinet departments and many agencies to be staffed by political appointees in the incoming conservative administration of President Ronald Reagan. Cold War involvement In the 1980s and early 1990s, the Heritage Foundation was a key architect and advocate of the Reagan Doctrine, by which the United States government channeled overt and covert support to anti-Communist resistance movements in such places as Afghanistan, Angola, Cambodia and Nicaragua and generally supported global anti-communism during the Cold War. Heritage foreign policy analysts didn't restrict themselves to research, but became active in efforts to provide political and military guidance to rebel forces in Angola, Cambodia, and Nicaragua, and to dissidents in Eastern bloc nations and Soviet republics. The foundation was instrumental in advancing President Ronald Reagan's belief that the former Soviet Union was an "evil empire" and that its defeat, not its mere containment, was a realistic foreign policy objective. Heritage also played a key role in building support for Reagan's plans to build an orbital ballistic missile shield, the ("Strategic Defense Initiative"). so you weren't a Reagan voter  you consider the Heritage Foundation's principles/philosophy RIGHT of your own personal ideology ??? |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 2/3/2006 6:59:38 AM EDT
[#30]
let's see, Bremer, Chao, Di Rita & Johns have all worked in W's administration and Lehman served on the 9/11 commission & Meese has long been a staunch supporter of the 2nd Ammendment as an individual right all of these people got their start with the GOP in Nixon or Reagan adminstrations |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/3/2006 7:06:18 AM EDT
[#31]
+1 |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/3/2006 7:06:56 AM EDT
[#32]
Generally clueless. Sorry, but at one point I was quite into the whole libertarian thing, until I realized that "libertarian" simply meant a liberal with a gun. |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 2/3/2006 9:14:18 AM EDT
[#33]
Yeah, I voted for Reagan. Yes, I consider the Heritage Foundation to be very much RIGHT of my own ideology. What they were or did in the '80s and '90s is irrelevant. They now sound like right wing crackpots. It really doesn't matter. You and your cohorts will use anything as justification to bash Bush, just like the liberals. In fact, the crap some of you say isn't really that different from what one might read on DU. That's why I say the far right and the left sound pretty much the same. |
||||
|
|
|
Posted: 2/3/2006 9:39:58 AM EDT
[#34]
so the people noted above are "right wing crackpots" ??????????????? two of them still serve in the current administration  |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 2/3/2006 9:42:02 AM EDT
[#35]
Give it up, cnatra. This guy couldn't tell Ron Paul from Sheila Jackson Lee. They all look alike once the Koolaid kicks in. |
|||||
|
|
|
Posted: 2/3/2006 9:49:40 AM EDT
[#36]
I guess what I find puzzling about discussions with you Larry, you seem to have NO tolerance for criticism of the current administration, even if it's from within the party. No dissent or differences of opinion on policies even within the GOP ?? It's like the asumption is Bush & crew are infallible. How is constructive debate on policy issues a bad thing ? Isn't that what political discourse is all about ? Do you think William F. Buckley is a right wing crackpot ? What about George F. Will, is he a crackpot too ?? What about Dick Armey ? crackpot ?? Tom Coburn ? crackpot ?? John Kasich ? crackpot ?? All of those men have criticized some policies of the current administration & are long time conservatives. (just like the people mentioned in an earlier post) People in the Heritage Foundation are used by the current administration as policy advisors & several have served & contiunue to serve this administration. If some of the crackpots are in or serving the administration, why are they there ??? |
|||||
|
|
|
Posted: 2/3/2006 10:05:32 AM EDT
[#37]
Yes he has my confidence. He has some shortcomings, but it would be unreasonable for me to expect President Bush to fulfill my every desire. The man has done great.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/3/2006 10:17:13 AM EDT
[#38]
Shows your ignorance. Can you define the word, "Liberal"? |
||||
|
|
|
Posted: 2/3/2006 3:18:45 PM EDT
[#39]
yeah, I guess your right, he usually just resorts to name calling & now in addition to all the left wing crackpots out there those in the GOP(and there are many) that disagree with Bush & Co. on some significant issues are now right wing crackpots. interesting logic there, "my guy is always right & those that disagree are left/right wing crackpots" follow that logic & it's amazing how many people are "wrong" |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 2/3/2006 3:33:31 PM EDT
[#40]
Yes. 100%
It seems as liberals are still trying to figure out how he won 2 elections, aside from their moonbat conspiracies of crooked judges and diebold machines.  You Cindy Sheehan sheep need to realize this nation has become more conservative in the last 15 years and you'll never be in power again. Not in this lifetime. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/3/2006 10:07:49 PM EDT
[#41]
My confidence in Bush: ZERO
My confidence in Democrats: LESS THAN ZERO ZERO IS STILL GREATER THAN A NEGATIVE NUMBER |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/3/2006 10:20:16 PM EDT
[#42]
The only confidence I have in any politician , is
that they will always do what's best for themselves .
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/3/2006 10:24:17 PM EDT
[#43]
GW Bush needs to man up. A little less rich Texan and a little more hard working American.
Take care of the damn borders, and keep your fingers out of our wallets. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/3/2006 11:12:29 PM EDT
[#44]
what's the reason everyone is so hard on bush because of the borders, I realize they're a problem, but not 1 that sprung up overnight becuase of something he did. Seems the border has been an increasing problem in this country for decades, but everyone expects bush to have it figured out and stopped quickly?
Where was the empahsis about the border under other adminastrations? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/3/2006 11:56:52 PM EDT
[#45]
Homosexuals and abortion do not really bother me personally because I am not gay or would have an abortion. Those are the only issue I have seen him do something about.
It is amazing what lengths people will go through to justify his actions/inactions. I really did not like Kerry either, nor do I like most politicians. Bush apologists annoy me greatly. I personally think he is an idiot and has been bought (then again, what person in office has not been in any party). Oh, his war on pornography and people saying "adult" words on TV and radio appears to be gaining some ground too. I am shocked that Bush apologists play down the border thing. I guess they do not live in high risk areas where hispanic gangs full of illegals wreak havoc on small business owners and residents. I think it has gotten to the point where gangs are not a "problem" unless they hit some national chain store. If you think that armed robberies of small businesses and even shootings get reported in the news, you are ignorant. "Man sticks crappy home made bomb in Starbucks bathroom" = national news "Man holds business full of people hostage for 7 minutes while he robs the place" = not news (7 minutes is a very long time for armed robberies) |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/4/2006 2:51:14 AM EDT
[#46]
I am shocked that Bush apologists play down the border thing. I guess they do not live in high risk areas where hispanic gangs full of illegals wreak havoc on small business owners and residents.
the point being the border isn't an overnight problem, it's 1 that's been an increasing problem for decades and as it is with the war on terror, a problem with no easy answers. What's much easier than a solution is to blame bush. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/4/2006 5:07:55 AM EDT
[#47]
There have been border problems for decades, but that still doesn't lessen that Bush has done nothing about it. What he does shows that he doesn't want anything done about it. Things he has done that have made the problem worse: 1. He doesn't view it as a problem. During the State of the Union and other talks he has referenced how the USA needs immigrants (illegal aliens) for our economy and how they are good. I haven't heard him discuss the hundreds of billions lost yearly because of illegal aliens (medical, education, crimes, social programs, etc) 2. The only programs he puts forward and discusses are allowing more and more illegal aliens into the country as workers. 3. His staff includes people who want illegal immigrants kept here and not deported - undocumented but lawful immigrants. 4. He appoints people to head ICE that have no experience in the problems of illegal aliens, and are probably unfit for the post (similiar to Brown being put in charge of FEMA). 5. He and Vicente Fox are buddies and meet all the time, yet nothing about actually stopping illegal aliens comes out of these talks. 6. Mexican Military Incursions into the US and nothing has been done. Clinton didn't do anything, and Bush hasn't either. 7. Hypocritical: discussions about stopping terrorism in the US through Patriot Act and Foreign Wiretaps and how great it is going yet the Souther and Northern Border are wide open with many middle easterners and other possible terrorists crossing yearly. 8. He called Minutemen vigilantes and other "names" rather then stating they were Americans helping with a problem. Thats a few of the reasons why. He sets the whole tone for the debate of the problems of Illegal Aliens, and his tone is lacking. Edited to add: Saddam Hussein, Social Security, Terrorism, Medicare, the economy, etc have all been problems for decades also, like the border. Bush shouldn't do anything about them because they have been problems for decades? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/4/2006 5:16:57 AM EDT
[#48]
it's reached a tipping point. it's hard for people to accept massive new impositions on their freedoms whilst illegal aliens can commit crimes and get away seemingly scot-free. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/4/2006 5:35:27 AM EDT
[#49]
Like many others in this thread there are a few things he has done that I approve of and there are quiet a lot of things he has said/done that I do not approve of. I'd grade him a low-mid C at this point in the game, with tax cuts and active pursuit of terrorists being his major saving graces.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/4/2006 5:36:17 AM EDT
[#50]
Not at all.
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
