What do you actually know about Mr. Peroutka except that he states this or that. Do you have any actual inkling of how he intends to accomplish anything he puts forward.
If you are thinking about voting for Kerry, please read this first.
Discussion in 'Free-For-All Archives' started by Jailminister, Jun 8, 2004.
Page 5 of 6
-
When you voted for Bush in 2000, did you have his four year plan for every issue laid out in front of you?? What is Bush going to do about abortion? It's not even mentioned anywhere on his campaign Web site.
We could go in circles until November, or we can take the time to research each candidate, and make a well thougth out and prayed about choice in November. I am in favor of the second choice. -
ballfan, what would you like me to do? If I am to believe his statements, then I see him as the best alternative candidate.
I could pose the same question to you about Mr. Bush. What did you know except he stated this or that?
I believed Mr. Bush in 2000 when he stated this and that, I will not fall for it again.
If Mr. Peroutka turns out to be President and is like Mr. Bush, then I will not vote for him in 2008. All we can do is vote for the candidate with the best message that lines up closer to our beliefs. That's what I intend to do.
NP, how can I write in a candidate when our ballots are electronic? Maybe I'll just vote for Mr. Kerry and pray that a good candidate comes along 2008. If Mr. Bush is re-elected, a conservative has no chance in 2008. -
I voted electronically here in Arkansas in the primary and I noticed there was a slot for a write-in vote. You can ask a poll worker if the procedure isn't clear. And you can ask your county clerk, or whomever it is in Texas who handles elections, ahead of time about the procedure.
Or maybe you could do an absentee paper ballot. -
Joseph Botwinick -
I have to admit I knew what George W. Bush was offering in 2000 with his phrase "compassionate conservatism". I should have connected all of the dots and not just some of them to know he would simply be a reprise of his father's presidency.
"Compassionate conservatism" was simply a code phrase for socialism, Republican style.
I bought that pig in a poke in 2000. I refuse to do so again in 2004, the war on terrorists notwithstanding. -
Bush Sr.: Raised Taxes / W: Cut taxes twice
Bush Sr.: Buckled to the wishes of world opinion and the UN and pulled out of Iraq without removing the threat / W: Removed the threat
Bush Sr.: Did absolutely nothing about abortion, didn't even try anything / W: PBA ban, Pickering, and the new law acknowledging the fetus as a life and prosecuting those who kill the baby in commission of a crime as murderers.
Bush Sr.: Called tax cuts and Reaganomics "voodoo economics" / W: Embraces Reagan's tax cuts idea.
They certainly might have some similarites in there, but I can also see some strong differences as well.
Joseph Botwinick -
Both Bushes - increased federal spending.
Both Bushes - increased the power of the federal government.
Both Bushes - supported globalization/one world government.
Both Bushes - had a recession during their time in office.
Both Bushes - ran huge federal budget deficits. -
-
-
Both Bushes - increased the power of the federal government.[/QUOTE]
In all fairness to Bush Sr., I don't remember him enacting the Patriot Act. However, I will say that much good has come from the PA such as better coordination between our intelligence agencies.
Both Bushes - support globalization/one world government.[/QUOTE]
I think this is true. Can't dispute that. I disagree with that. But, again, this doesn't prove your earlier assertion that they are the same people.
Both Bushes - had a recession during their time in office.[/QUOTE]
Bush Sr. raised taxes. Bush Jr. Lowered taxes. W also had another variable factored in. It was called 9-11, and I think you know very well that this did considerable damage to our economy. But, as was predicted, through his tax cuts, the economy has rebounded and things are much better now.
Both Bushes - ran huge federal budget deficits. [/QUOTE]
Again, I don't agree with everything W does, but he is certainly better than the viable alternative.
Joseph Botwinick -
Michael Peroutka is experienced in Constitutional Law and is the founder of the "Institute on the Constitution", which has been educating people nationwide about the US Constitution, It may be a good idea for George W. Bush to take this class from Mr. Peroutka, he may learn something that would help him run our nation like he is supposed to. -
Joseph Botwinick -
I know
I should have used a [sarcasam] TAG, that is why I told him to "call your local election board and ask them". -
Michael Peroutka is experienced in Constitutional Law and is the founder of the "Institute on the Constitution", which has been educating people nationwide about the US Constitution, It may be a good idea for George W. Bush to take this class from Mr. Peroutka, he may learn something that would help him run our nation like he is supposed to. </font>[/QUOTE]I think I would like someone who isn't just an idealistic Constitutional theorist, but someone like Bush, who actually has experience in doing the things that he promises he is going to do and understands how to get things done politically. Peroutka certainly knows how he thinks things ought to be. I am just not sure he knows how to implement his idealism. I have voted for idealists before who were going to change the world and give us the moon. But then they got in and the reality of politics changed them because they didn't understand how the political system worked and how to implement their ideas. This is the perception I have of Peroutka.
Joseph Botwinick -
But, even after you subtract the spending on the war, you still have over %25 increase in federal spending over the last three and a half years compared to less that 3% average increase in Clinton's eight years. This is a 25% increase that has nothging to do with 9/11 or the "war on terror". -
Let's compare apples to apples and cite our source. What was the federal spending in the first 3 1/2 years of Clinton. Not the average of all 8 years. Somehow the way you worded that seems decieving to me.
Joseph Botwinick -
It's an easy choice for me to make! -
As Clinton's budget surpluses have turned to deficits, Bush has come under criticism from all sides, liberals complaining about tax cuts and, conservatives complaining about spending.
A Cato Institute analyst wrote Jan. 23 calling the increase "The Republican Spending Explosion,” and said discretionary spending increases signed by Bush -- once adjusted for inflation -- "are 3 of the 10 biggest annual increases in the last 40 years.”
A Heritage Foundation analyst wrote that "spending has increased twice as fast under President Bush as it did under President Clinton," and attributed the spending surge less to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 than to a lack of "self-discipline required to balance fiscal priorities."
SOURCE -
According to one recent analysis, the government now spends $20,000 a year for every household in America, the most since World War II.
SOURCE
Page 5 of 6