Under Bush, Federal Spending Increases at Fastest Rate in 30 Years

And voting for who is going to change that?

 

"Public servants say, always with the best of intentions, "What greater service we could render if only we had a little more money and a little more power." But the truth is that outside of its legitimate function, government does nothing as well or as economically as the private sector." -- Ronald Reagan

"A government big enough to supply you with everything you need is a government big enough to take away everything that you have.... The course of history shows that as the government grows, liberty decreases." -- Thomas Jefferson

"The only thing neccessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." -- Edmund Burke

"I am only one, but I am one. I cannot do everything, but I can do something. What I can do, I should do and, with the help of God, I will do!" -- Everett Hale

 

And how will they change federal spending from their law offices???

Voting for Peroutka is a vote to increase the government faster under John Kerry. Ken, get your head out of hte sand. Peroutka will not be able to change anything. You have to get elected to do that. It is fun to live in the dreamland if "If I were president," but he is not going to be. He does not have the wherewithal to mount a serious candidacy. He will not change federal spending.

 

He will ... and perhaps as much as Kerry. But there are still judicial appointments and the shape of the courst for years to come ...

 

(Ken shows that Bush is the wildest spender in 30 years)

Almost anyone. Note that Kerry is almost as bad.

But you don't have to vote for either wing of the demopublicans.

Peroutka.

 

Did you just get here?? I have said for a very long time what Bush has said, and whehter or not he backs it up, at least there is a chance, with Kerry there is no chance.

And Peroutka can't change a thing, Galatian. You actually have to get elected.

 

I believe that most conservative Christians will continue to support the Republican party, because "they are the only party that stands a chance of winning" for quite some time.

I had a pastor tell me the other day, that he would continue to support the Republican party even if they run a pro-abortion candidate in 2008 and take the pro-life plank out of the GOP platform, simply because "third-parties don't stand a chance".

When I vote in November I am not just looking at who will be in office for the next four short years. I am looking forward to 2008, 2012 and 216. If we don't stand up now, when will we?

 

Bush hasn't been screening his judicial appointments now for pro-life. In fact, he says he is opposed to doing so.

What makes you think he's going to change in the second term?

 

You know what I sm sick and tired of what you are saying about our president. What do dems. have against Bush except pure hate nothing or they would be hypocritical. Why? Bush has taken the democratic agenda from themselves. I don't agree with some of his jugdements but overall we shouldn't complain. Besides what is a vote for John Kerry going to do he's taken almost every position Bush has taken on almost every issue at one point or another. Did I here right that theresa Heinz-kerry said that she would give all her money to have her first husband back who was a Republican senator? I would probably do the same thing if my husband always blamed everything on me. The DN convention doesn't even have enough money to pay for food. they'll have a convention without a candidate John Kerry is so hypocritical the dems cant even allow a lot of alr time on TV for fear He'll say something wrong or lie or take ANOTHER position on another issue.

 

Your right Bush has taken the democratic agenda and made it his own, which is why he has attracted so many moderate and liberal voters. The only problem with this is that now that he has taken the democratic agenda for himself, he can't go back to the right or he will lose those voters. If he keeps taking democratic agendas for himself, what will make his agenda different from theirs?

In scrolling throgh this thread I don't see anyone who has said they will be voting for John Kerry. There are three Peroutka voters and including yourself, two Bush voters.

 

Most folks are sick and tired of the president, period.

You'd have to ask a democrat. I, for one, would be OK with him doing what Clinton did for the economy and foreign policy. He could even do the bad thing Clinton did, as far as I'm concerned, if he could just do a competent job.

If he messes up, it's our duty to complain.

That's pretty much inevitable. Bush has had just about every possible position on just about every issue.

If so, she should have no end of applicants. Money is pretty much the motivator for Republican senators.

 

Again, you show how uninformed you are, or at least are playing dumb. Bush has consistently said he will appoint strict constructionists. Virtually everyone understands this to mean pro life. That is why the pro abortion people are scared to death of him.

He may not appoint a pro life judge. But at least there will be a chance. With Kerry, there will be no chance. It would be hypocritical, IMO, to profess to be pro life while helping to elect Kerry. I can't do that. We need to take our best shot and not weasel out of it.

 

Bush I used the term "strict constructionists", but nominated pro-choice justices, Bush II used the term "strict constructionists" while govenor of Texas, but still appointed pro-choice judges. Bush appointed Alberto Gonzales to the position of screening potential U.S. Supreme Court justice nominees. Gonzales believes the Constitution is a living document and that only the nine black-robed brethren have sufficient understanding of the document to explain to the people what it means, that is not a "strict constructionists" understanding of the Constiution.

 

You betcha, Larry.

 

The Constitution Party is a do-nothing party. They are a type of para-church organization. They would abolish foreign aid in spite of the fact that in places like Sudan--in case you didn't watch it on tv this weekend--people are starving.

As for the Libertarians, I imagine that they are mostly pro-choice. They would never abolish abortion. However, they would abolish the laws against same-sex marriage, drugs, and prostitution. Is it any wonder that these two do-nothing parties actually say that they are close together? Their combined slogan is the imperial British slogan.