It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Bush Pursues Big-Gov Nanny State

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 29 2004 @ 02:05 PM
link   
For all those who are still laboring under the misperception that Bush is a conservative, regardless of how he and congress are spending our money, read this piece:


In Time magazine this week, conservative pundit and blogger extraordinaire Andrew Sullivan penned an excellent column on the nanny-state policies of President Bush.

Sullivan rattled off a litany of domestic micro-government programs (search) supported and proposed by the president, which aim to use the power of federal purse strings to manipulate even the most mundane decisions we make about our lives.

www.foxnews.com...




posted on Jan, 29 2004 @ 02:59 PM
link   
Chip chip chip one little piece at time, we watch our rights being taken away.

If its not the Libs telling us what we can say, who we employ or house - then its the Right telling us they can check our bank accounts, what we read and search our homes any time they want.

When are all the voters going to wake up, both liberal and republican?



posted on Jan, 29 2004 @ 03:00 PM
link   
You don't have to tell me to wake up. Already did.



posted on Jan, 29 2004 @ 03:05 PM
link   
i think the only way to curb this exponential government corruptions is to do away with the two party system. i borrowed this quote from Shoktek's site:

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!"
--Benjamin Franklin



posted on Jan, 30 2004 @ 10:32 AM
link   
The problem is many people are going to vote for bush because they don't want a democrat in power.
Even though they don't agree with his policies, they will vote because he is conservative.. ie/my husband!

I hope people wake up and see we need something new besides always voting lib or con....
They both suck the big one in my opinion.
Along time ago, both parties used to be somewhat normal...

:w:



posted on Jan, 30 2004 @ 12:02 PM
link   
Again, TrueLies, Bush is not, repeat, NOT, a conservative.
Your husband is probably voting for Shrub because, unfortunately, there is no candidate that is a more suitable option.
True conservatism prefers to stay along constitutional lines, and that is where we are supposed to be. Unfortunately, neither of the two major parties feel constrained by the constitution.



posted on Jan, 30 2004 @ 01:42 PM
link   
Sometimes ( often ? ) peoples can be so blind. Fortunately, some of us awake before it's too late. But it's still a minority, that's where is the problem.



posted on Jan, 30 2004 @ 01:46 PM
link   
I keep telling you people how to deal with this but it always falls on deaf ears... sigh!



posted on Feb, 9 2004 @ 07:44 AM
link   
You've just been led to believe your in the minority..The population of this country isn't as gullible as you seem to think. A little slow, but 24+ years of waiting for something/someone better to come along will even get us fat, lazy Americans off our duffs.



posted on Feb, 9 2004 @ 07:50 AM
link   
Better do something quick or you'll end up like us. Our politicians don't even bother to lie to us anymore. The Premier of Ontario put forth a piece of unpopular legislation last month and admitted "yeah, it's a cash grab."



posted on Feb, 9 2004 @ 08:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
Again, TrueLies, Bush is not, repeat, NOT, a conservative.
Your husband is probably voting for Shrub because, unfortunately, there is no candidate that is a more suitable option.


Start calling these people what they are - cowards. IT IS TIME FOR REPUBLICANS TO BREAK FROM THEIR CACOON OF SUPPOSED UNITY AND VOTE FOR AMERICA, INSTEAD OF VOTING FOR THE PARTY.
It's cowardice, plain & simple.
Ease it to them by explaining that the Democrat in the White House will be "kept in check" by a Republican majority Congress.
"the Devil you know" vote argument in keeping Bush around fails on two BIG levels:

1) There is zero realizable benefit in the continuation of policies set to date or those being proposed. We will be a 2nd World Country with the continuation of faith based economic/social/foreign policy.

2) Republicans would be missing a Golden Example of sending the loudest message possible that they don't want their party's platform managed like this or to include these issues. Voting for another Bush term and bowing to the party line will only give the impression that they have a mandate.......something that can never be disputed is that this Administration has never had one.



posted on Feb, 10 2004 @ 10:09 AM
link   
I have said it a thousand times the Libertarians are this countries only hope, but as long as the big two and the media keep the lie going that there are ONLY two choices these will continue. It does not matter which one you vote for you cant tell the difference between them anymore.

Until we wake up and see that this two party system is just a scam to keep those in power in power than NOTHING will change. I hope that my country men will wake up while things can still be changed with ballots instead of bullets.

I fear for my country and I hope that it is not too late. I wonder if the powers that be would ALLOW a third party to come into power?



posted on Feb, 10 2004 @ 10:17 AM
link   
The party shifted fiscally right under Clinton and nobody noticed. These aren't Mondales running people.

If you liked the fiscally responsible, socially liberal Libertarians in the 70's and 80's you should LOVE the Democrats now.

Little side note: Libertarians are for gay marriage. They are the 100% civil liberties ACLU flag waving party. If that stuff scares you, the Dems are more moderate than Libs. But when it comes to the economy and spending, Dems now ARE Libertarians. Bush isn't close.

Taxes are a dead issue. Everyone (but Dean) is for middle class tax cuts.



posted on Feb, 10 2004 @ 10:26 AM
link   
www.lp.org...

Go there and see if they are democrats, come on Rant give me a break the Dems are closer to the republicans than the libertarians.

And since when are civil libertys a bad thing? I thought that was the point behind america was freedom as long as you did not harm someone else

What Democrat is

Against gun laws
Against drug laws
Against interfering in ANY other countries affairs
Against to sending our troops ANYWHERE that is not a direct threat to the US
Against ALL taxes


The list goes on go to the sight and see for yourself

Democrats are libertarians HAHAHAHAHJA



posted on Feb, 10 2004 @ 10:39 AM
link   
Dems are closer to Libertarians than Republicans by a long shot.

Repubs get the nod on guns, but that's it. The civil liberties party are the Dems now. And the tax thing is moot.

My point is in the last 10 years, the Dems moved right on fiscal issues (like Libertarians) and stayed left on liberty issues while Republicans moved right.

The Dems then are more like Libertarians than Republicans. I subscribe to alot of libertarin newsletters. It's what I see and they keep saying as a victory for Libertarians. The LIbertarians I keep hearing HATE HATE HATE big government, big spender pro-war Bush.

You may be pro-war AMUK, but that's not a Libertarian view. They are XENOPHOBES. Screw Iraqi welfare.

Ok, I misread you. You're against the war too. See you're more Dem than Repub already!

[Edited on 10-2-2004 by RANT]



posted on Feb, 10 2004 @ 10:47 AM
link   


You may be pro-war AMUK, but that's not a Libertarian view. They are XENOPHOBES. Screw Iraqi welfare.


You are totally wrong this one, I am against the war I am for my brothers under fire.

I think going into Iraq was stupid on the evidence that I know of but I also know what its like to be fighting a war I dont even believe in and coming home to people spiting on you and calling you a baby-killer.

Now I think there was a reson to go after the Taliban but I have not seen any reason to be in Iraq but since we are there allready I will support my troops untill they get home.

I dont know how to say this any clearer I am against the war but for the troops, if you will notice most of my posts on the issue are defending the troops not the idiot that put them there.



posted on Feb, 10 2004 @ 10:49 AM
link   
Yup, I just misread you. I'm anti-war too, but no vet spitter.


Hopefully, that contingent has gone by the wayside.



posted on Feb, 10 2004 @ 10:50 AM
link   


Ok, I misread you. You're against the war too. See you're more Dem than Repub already


Nope I am a card carring Libertarian, the only thing other than a motorcycle club I joined voluntary in my life



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join