Wednesday, February 10, 2010

"Miss Me Yet?" -- Yes, I Do


This is is the billboard that is being displayed on I-35 in Wyoming, Minnesota, with a picture of George W. Bush and the words, "Miss Me Yet?"


 The Washington Independent posted that Mary Teske, the general manager of Schubert & Hoey Outdoor Advertising reports, “The Bush Miss Me Yet? billboard was paid for by a group of small business owners who feel like Washington is against them. They wish to remain anonymous. They thought it was a fun way of getting out their message.”

Yes, I do miss George Bush. We need to return some sense of civility and decorum to the office of President and his administration. We need to return a sense of morality, free speech, liberties for all, respect for the constitution, and respect for civilians constitutional rights to the Office of President. We need a president who has a clue as to how to fight against terrorists and keep us safe. We don't need Mr. Whimpy (Obambi) who believes in the strategy of appeasement, but rather we need the cowboy who stood up to the terrorists and was willing to do what was necessary in order to keep this country and its citizens safe. Yes, I do miss Bush and wish we had a person of his moral fiber in the office of the president right now instead of the master of ceremonies and his three-ring circus that we have running our country now. I hate seeing our country's foundation being destroyed piece-by-piece by this administration. Yes, George Bush, I miss you.

49 comments:

Joe said...

Count me as a Bush misser with reservations. He was a far sight better than what we have now, but was not without his problems.

And I LOVE the billboard.

Fuzzy Slippers said...

Great post! I miss him, too. Muchly.

Opus #6 said...

I miss him too. He overspent, but nowhere near as badly as Obama. And he was a grownup.

Liberty said...

No actually, I don't. Sorry, but I really can't ignore 10 trillion in debt. Or two wasteful wars. Or the PATRIOT act. Or DHS. Or TSA. Or No Child Left Behind. Or underhanded Medicare abortion funding. All of that (and there's more...) makes it so I don't miss him.

Of course, I'm not so keen on Obama either. But the other side of the aisle had their turn. Let's go to the middle. :)

Teresa said...

Joe,
Yes, he was definitely better than Obama. Problems, yes, but no one is perfect.

Teresa said...

Fuzzy Slippers,
I'd have much rather had Bush as president for a 3rd term.

Teresa said...

Opie,
Your right. Bush did overspend but not like the runaway freight train that Obama is on. Bush did act like an adult, unlike Obama.

cube said...

I've been missing him every day since 1/20/09.

Fuzzy Slippers said...

Liberty, please include a link to $10 trillion debt that is due to President Bush, I'd be interested to see it.

Also, how many seniors are getting abortions on MediCare?

The Patriot Act was necessary at the time, and I supported it. I rather regret it now, but only because this freak of socialist-radical nature is in the WH now and has its powers (you'll note BO didn't undo it).

DHS, again, a good idea, but as always giant government bureaucracy failed. Yet more evidence that BO's push for bigger and bigger government is a huge mistake. It doesn't help that it's being headed by someone who shouldn't be allowed outside without supervision or that the message from the WH is essentially, "don't jump to conclusions about Muslim extremists . . . but keep an eye on those "dangerous" conservative Americans!"

No Child Left Behind would be working . . . if not for democrats wanting to keep minorities and the poor in their place so they can use them for political gain.

As to the two wars, again, hard to support or justify Iraq, but once we were there and committed to being there, it was DEMS who made them drag out for a decade by blocking funding that would have allowed the full measure of American force brought to bear in the region. In other words, we'd have been in and out . . . if allowed to do it right. As is, we just keep plugging along, under-funded, our guys and girls without sufficient support, armor, weaponry, and freedom to do their job correctly (i.e. quickly, efficiently, with little loss of life . . . and at far less cost!). Doing this half-ass, as the DEMS insist, is what is costing so much money and taking so much time! It's their strategy, for God's sake, so don't whine about cost and waste. That's the DEMS.

Teresa said...

@Fuzzy,

Thanks for reminding me of the reason that our troops couldn't get the job done correctly in Iraq. If it wasn't for the Dems blocking funding than we would have been out of Iraq a long time ago. Great points!

Teresa said...

@Liberty

This article shows how abortion advocates have been disgruntled since 1976, when the Hyde Amendment was passed. Only certain states allow for assistance when an abortion isn't necessary, like when its necessary to save the life of mother, etc.

The funding included other items besides abortions. And honestly, how many 65 year olds are having abortions these days?

http://www.aclu.org/reproductive-freedom/public-funding-abortion



And, Clinton is the President who lifted the ban on
abortion funding through medicare.
"There’s a long and winding backstory here that starts with Ronald Reagan. He imposed a rule that said the funds, known as Title X funds, couldn’t go to clinics that perform abortions or that refer women to clinics that do. The move was challenged in court and ultimately upheld by the Supremes, but Bill Clinton scrapped the rule when he took office. Even if Bush does reinstate the rule, it’s all but certain to be scrapped again if a Democrat is the next president."

http://blogs.wsj.com/health/2008/05/23/activists-push-bush-to-cut-funds-for-abortion-clinics/tab/article/

If DHS hadn't been created than either another agency or an additional department in CIA or FBI would have been added or created to focus on terrorism. After 9/11 this was necessary and is still necessary today.

The Patriot Act was needed as a tool to stop terrorists. I only regret it now because of its possible misuse by the Obama administration in targeting the civilians in the opposition or non-threats, instead of the real threats. But, I do think the Patriot Act needs to be revamped.

As far as the wars go -- I don't consider doing everything necessary to protect our country as a waste of money. If money was the priority than if we would have gone off the beaten path during WWII, and thought money as a priority over keeping our freedom we might be speaking German right now, and lost the freedoms that go hand-in-hand with our Constitution.

Liberty said...

Sorry on the debt thing- typed it wrong. I meant to say Bush took us to 10 trill, adding 4 trill (according to my research) during his term.

I'll respond more in depth later. On my iPod, and my thumbs hurt. :P

Liberty said...

FuzzySlippers-
"Also, how many seniors are getting abortions on MediCare?"

Oops. 'Nother typo. Typing quick because I had places to be. :P I meant medicaid. Bush didn't stop foreign abortion fundings, but just hid it in the medicare funding.

"The Patriot Act was necessary at the time, and I supported it. I rather regret it now, but only because this freak of socialist-radical nature is in the WH now and has its powers (you'll note BO didn't undo it)."

So because the President is different, that's the only thing that makes legislation bad? ....Wha'? How does that work? Sorry, but last time I checked, unconstitutional was unconstitutional, regardless of the Partisan Establishment that is currently in power.

DHS was a bad thing from its conception. It didn't work then, it hasn't worked now, and it didn't work any better during Bush's reign than during Obama's. All it did was work to centralize power now.

Sorry, but you can't just blame everything on the Democrats. The Republicans have done shoddy stuff too. Lots of it. Six years of it. And before that, we had years of shoddy Republican rule under Clinton. They let him run slip-shod. Whose fault was that?

"No Child Left Behind would be working . . . if not for democrats wanting to keep minorities and the poor in their place so they can use them for political gain."

And once again, we're back to the Partisan Blame Game. NCLB is, was, will be a failure. It was a dumb idea. All it does is make it so teachers teach for a test, not for true learning. That won't get anything done under a Democrat regime, and it won't get anything done under a Republican regime either.

"it was DEMS who made them drag out for a decade by blocking funding that would have allowed the full measure of American force brought to bear in the region. In other words, we'd have been in and out . . . if allowed to do it right."

IIRC, Congress never denied Bush the funding he asked for. Ever. Except possibly in the last two years of his reign, which was his own fault for doing such a bad job.

Teresa said...

@Liberty

In fact, Dems in their partisanship did not support our President and had strings attached for the troops withdrawal right around when the surge had started working. That's you being partisan in blaming Bush when it wasn't his fault that his Congress didn't support him. Your partisanship in favoring the Democrats no matter what Bush did and tried to do correctly in his policies really comes out in a very harsh tone. You just can't blame everything on Republican as you have consistently done.

Liberty said...

Teresa-
"The funding included other items besides abortions."

This was not the point.

Once again, we keep diverting everything back to the Democrats. That doesn't make very good politics.

"If DHS hadn't been created than either another agency or an additional department in CIA or FBI would have been added or created to focus on terrorism. After 9/11 this was necessary and is still necessary today."

I will concede that terrorism is a threat. But we did just fine for lots of years without a red-tape machine like the DHS. Could we have revamped the CIA/FBI to make it so they could focus more on terrorism? Probably, and with a lot less cost and power-shifting.

"I only regret it now because of its possible misuse by the Obama administration in targeting the civilians in the opposition or non-threats, instead of the real threats."

See my comment to Fuzzy Slippers. ;)

Also, I'd like to add that Obama isn't the only one that has committed trespasses against the First Amendment. Let us remember "Free Speech Zones" (another link), his sham "town hall" meetings...you get the idea.

"I don't consider doing everything necessary to protect our country as a waste of money. If money was the priority than if we would have gone off the beaten path during WWII, and thought money as a priority over keeping our freedom we might be speaking German right now, and lost the freedoms that go hand-in-hand with our Constitution."

1. We'd probably be speaking Japanese. They were the ones who attacked us, and Germany was too busy with Europe to bother with somebody an ocean away. Japan had more time on its hands.

2. I do agree that when we really need that money, it isn't a waste. But as I've pointed out before, the wars really weren't the best way to go about defending ourselves. They're wasteful and they're fruitless. I've pointed out several ways we could have better spent that money. Prevention is the best medicine.

Liberty said...

"In fact, Dems in their partisanship did not support our President and had strings attached for the troops withdrawal right around when the surge had started working. That's you being partisan in blaming Bush when it wasn't his fault that his Congress didn't support him.

As I stated, to my knowledge, Bush never failed to get what he wanted passed. Even during the times when he had a Democrat-controlled Congress (his last two years), he never failed to get appropriations and funding bills passed. And if they were less, well that was his own fault for doing a lousy job and disenfranchising American voters. Sorry if that's too harsh for you.

"Your partisanship in favoring the Democrats no matter what Bush did and tried to do correctly in his policies really comes out in a very harsh tone."

I am going to say when people do something wrong. I don't take account of what their politics/party affiliations are before I do so. As you very well know, I have gone against Obama, and I have gone against Bush. Both of them did/are doing wrong, unconstitutional, sometimes downright stupid things. When/if they did/do something right, I will acknowledge it. But I really can't think of anything substantial Bush did that helped us in any great way. His bailouts were a failure. His wars are a failure. His education bills are a failure.

I'd like to expose an underlying hypocrisy here. Bush can do no wrong. Even the bills HE signed, HE engineered, HE pushed, if they failed, it was all the Dems fault. He cannot be held accountable for what went on during his reign because, after all, he was just a poor, unwitting tool in the hands of the evil Democrats.

But if OBAMA dares to fail...if he signed, engineered, pushed a bill, and even if it does something good, it's evil. Let's forget the fact he has no more power than Bush, except the power you attribute to him in your mind (and any power he does have was, surprise surprise, given to him by Bushie!). Everything is his fault, no matter what it was, if it is done on his watch- or even it it wasn't.

Bush can do no wrong, but Obama can do nothing but evil. How does that work?

"You just can't blame everything on Republican as you have consistently done."

You're right. I can't. And I don't. Just the things that should be blamed on them. Like the things that were done on their watch.

Teresa said...

@ Liberty

You are letting your partisanship cloud your judgement. The Democrats were playing partisan politics when they had strings attached to Bush's budget for the troops.

You are so Anti-Bush over all of his policies that that it is in fact clouding your judgement.

Obama is by far more in control over his policies and is a promoter of tyranny and anti-free speech when it comes to targeting his opposition. Bush promoted freedom for all people including in Afghanistan and Iraq. But, you are not for us spreading freedom and stopping tyrannical regimes that murder and brutalize their own people. That is what Bush stood up for-- Spreading freedom and democracy to oppressed peoples.

Did you know that Ted Kennedy sponsored that education bill?
Bush showed that he cared about the education of students but you won't even give him one iota of credit for that. He was trying to do something to improve the quality of education instead of relying on the failed policies promoted by teachers unions and yet you can't seem to give him credit for at least trying to better education.

I call a President who advocates for murder of innocent unborn babies and even infanticide in allowing babies from botched abortions to just lie there and die as EVIL. I call a President who seems to care more about the evil terrorists rights instead of our troops and keeping our citizens safe irresponsible, callous and much more because he deserves it. Bush was not for abortions and did his best to advocate against abortions. He even stopped federal funding for embryonic stem cell research because it was and is now proven to harm and not to help people- they cause cancer. Bush was so much better on the social issues than Obama. Bush cared about our security and did his all to stop the terrorists unlike Obama. I agree with Obama about 1% of the time. When Obama does an about face and changes all of his policies than I will support him.

I have already expressed to you some policies that I disagreed with Bush on, but it wasn't many because overall he was a good President. Obama has already claimed the title of being the worst President in history. I am sure Carter is thankful for that. Obama has tried to shove a health care revolution down our throats that the American people don't want. Bush NEVER tried to take over 1/5 of the economy like Obama is right now.

Bush cared about all of us, including you, more than you will ever understand, becuase you have bought into liberal and Marxist peacenick beliefs that your teachers have obviously indoctrinated you with.

You hold Bush to a much higher standard than Obama and that is clear from your words. I hold them both to the same high standard and just happen to disagree with Obama about 99% of the time with his policies.

Liberty said...

"You are letting your partisanship cloud your judgement. The Democrats were playing partisan politics when they had strings attached to Bush's budget for the troops."

I'm not a Democrat.

"Obama is by far more in control over his policies..."

So why hasn't he gotten healthcare reform passed yet? Or DOMA repealed? Or the PATRIOT act repealed? He's been caught in a stalemate in Congress for the past half year over healthcare.

Now, I wish he'd branch out and stop being so fanatically linked to that one issue. He could get DOMA repealed so easily, and the PATRIOT act wouldn't be so difficult. And he needs to do it quick, before he loses his majority this year (which he will almost certainly do, and the American people will merely exchange one evil for another) and his time is up to repeal them.

I very rarely agree with Obama. But on those two things- repealing DOMA and the PATRIOT act, I can be amicable about. I agree with him. I have been saying the same things for a long time. I think they are both unconstitutional.

There are other issues I disagree with him about though- healthcare is one. I think the current plan, especially, will do very little to help us, and that we could come up with something better that would solve the problem. Of course, in a perfect world, people would wake up and stop blindly trusting their insurance companies, but it doesn't look like that's going to happen anytime soon, unfortunately.

I also disagree with him on foreign policy. I don't think we should be telling other countries what to do. That's dumb, and it's only going to get us in bigger trouble than we're already in. Goodness knows half of them already hate our guts. I disagree with him on the environment and on energy issues. I don't think ethanol is the way to go, and he is very dedicated to that. I don't think man-made global warming is true...so I'm right in line with the "Right" on that one.

I said all that to make the point that I am far from a Democrat. But I am also far from a Republican. I most commonly ally myself with the Libertarians, but I'd vote for a Republican or a Democrat. Hey, if there wasn't anyone else with integrity, I'd vote for a Green Party candidate! At least he'd admit he was coming after my liberties, so I'd have advance warning.

"But, you are not for us spreading freedom and stopping tyrannical regimes that murder and brutalize their own people."

Nope. I'm not. I don't see how that's any of my government's concern. My government was instituted to stop that kind of stuff. The Founding Fathers were sick of other countries messing in their business. You remember that whole American Revolution thing? Yeah. They were mad because the Britishers (an entirely different country for all intents and purposes) was messing in their business. And guess what happened to Britain. Bye-bye. Rome was spread too thin, had too much "freedom spreading" and "nation building" to do. Don't see much of the Roman Empire nowadays.

When a country gets too concerned with what is going on in other countries, they fall.

Liberty said...

"Did you know that Ted Kennedy sponsored that education bill?"

....And I care because?

"Bush showed that he cared about the education of students but you won't even give him one iota of credit for that."

I'll give him individual credit. Good for him. He was a nice man.

But good intentions don't run a country. Good intentions don't reduce a national deficit. Good intentions don't keep us from doing stupid things like trying to be the world's policeman. Good intentions don't keep us from making complete fools of ourselves in front of the world. Sorry.

In politics, it isn't the thought that counts- it's the action.

"He was trying to do something to improve the quality of education instead of relying on the failed policies promoted by teachers unions and yet you can't seem to give him credit for at least trying to better education."

I'll give him that. But Obama is just trying to better our healthcare system. And Obama is just trying to fix our economy. It's a two-way street Teresa. If we're going to play the good-intentions card, we've got to play it for both sides.

The fact is that NCLB failed. Big time. It made it so that teachers' incentives were way messed up...and they were still yoked to unions. So instead of dramatically changing our entire education system and starting over, which is pretty much what needs to be done, he kept going. He didn't even admit he had made a mistake, like with stem cell research (Which, BTW, he started funding for, then had to limit because outcry was too loud).

"I call a President who advocates for murder of innocent unborn babies and even infanticide in allowing babies from botched abortions to just lie there and die as EVIL."

Agreed.

"I call a President who seems to care more about the evil terrorists rights instead of our troops and keeping our citizens safe irresponsible, callous and much more because he deserves it."

Agreed. But, that's really not what Obama says. He cares about our troops too. He has given respect to our troops numerous times, even going to their funerals. He has promised to bring them home so no more of them have to die in a wasted effort- something Bush never did.

" Bush was not for abortions and did his best to advocate against abortions."

He did a great job with the rhetoric, just like Obama did.

Here's something you need to repeat to yourself whenever Bush-worship threatens to get the better of you-
"Bush was nothing but a politician. Bush was nothing but a politician. Bush was nothing but a politician."
(Obama supporters should do the same thing, but substitute 'Obama' for 'Bush'. ;) )

"He even stopped federal funding for embryonic stem cell research because it was and is now proven to harm and not to help people- they cause cancer."

...No he didn't. He started funding for ESC research. Then, of course, outcry got too much for him to bear, and he had to limit research. Wimp.

Liberty said...

"Bush was so much better on the social issues than Obama."

Like?

"I agree with Obama about 1% of the time."

Me, too.

"When Obama does an about face and changes all of his policies than I will support him."

And if Bush recants all his past positions, then I might support him. But I'll still say he did bad things in the past.

"...but it wasn't many because overall he was a good President."

Really? Because I really can't think of one good thing he did. He could talk the talk awful well, just like Obama (well maybe not quite as well as Obama), but that was about it. His policies were failures, they're still failures, and I really can't think of much I agree with him on and can say "attaboy!" Of course, some of his rhetoric I could applaud, but I don't, for the same reason I don't applaud Obama's. With Obama, I'm going to wait and see if his promises bear fruit. I've seen the outcome of Bush's.

BTW: nice little tidbit...Bush promised, in '04 and '06 (election years, imagine that) that the budget deficit would be cut in half by 2009.

"Obama has already claimed the title of being the worst President in history."

In my book, FDR had that one locked up years ago. Traitor.

"Bush NEVER tried to take over 1/5 of the economy like Obama is right now."

No, he just tried to take over the banking industry. Not the same thing at all.

"Bush cared about all of us, including you, more than you will ever understand...

I'm touched. But as I said earlier...good intentions don't make good politics.


"...becuase you have bought into liberal and Marxist peacenick beliefs that your teachers have obviously indoctrinated you with."

My teachers? Oh, you mean my mom! Because I'm homeschooled, you see. And she's a Libertarian, and was a Republican (lemming) until just about three years ago.

Or do you mean my sunday school teachers? Because they're all Republicans and are convinced I've finally gone off the deep end, because *gasp* I'm a teenager and I care about politics! Did I mention they're all conservatives?

Yeah, not much liberal and marxist ideology there...of course, I did start reading the Communist Manifesto a few months ago. Still haven't finished. It's sitting on a shelf next to Mein Kampf somewhere. Couldn't finish that one, either. Sounded too much like a Republican book. ^.^

"You hold Bush to a much higher standard than Obama and that is clear from your words."

Not really. You must have missed all that bad stuff I said about Obama on my blog.

Teresa said...

@Liberty

Your letting your childish wishes for a utopian society get in the way of using common sense. Yes, on many issues you have shown to have liberal leanings and that you buy into the Democrats weak security mentality.

You keep on putting the entire onus on NO Child Left Behind on Bush when it was a Democrat that came up with the idea and Bush only worked with Kennedy and crossed the aisle on this issue. Another example of you being blind to reality.

The Czars are an overreaching power by the Obama administration. He has been trying to shove this health care bill down our throats and not working in any bipartisan fashion. It is the American people who stopped the Dems and Obama's runaway health care freight train.

Bush did not do tresspasses against the first amendment. He did the majority of things with approval from Congress. So, go ahead and blame Congress for authorizing/passing the pieces of legislation that you don't like.

Okay you call loans to banks that most have paid back, taking over the banking industry. Obama is the one who made the leap to take over the banking industry. Obama is the one that wants to play with the money and allocate the money to places where its not supposed to be used.

Bush is much better on social issues, in standing up against abortion and other key pro-life issues. If you can't see than I really feel sorry for you. Because there is a HUGE difference between Obama and Bush on those issues.

Obama lifted the Mexico City Ban that Bush put back in place after Clinton-funding abortion overseas. Obama lifted the ban on federal funds being used to fund embryonic stem cell research when its been proven that embryonic stem cells cause cancer. That is another ban that Bush had in place and how he stood up for unborn babies that Obama has reversed course on.

Usually homeschoolers aren't brainwashed with a combination of liberal Marxist ideologies with a dash of libertarianism ideology. Somehow, it seems that common sense was missed from your educational experience. Did your mom grow up in the 60's? Or around then? If so, then that explains a lot.

You should follow your Sunday Schools teachers advice. Stop going off the deep end and look at the reality of the situation instead of thinking the world can become some utopian society.

Are you mad because Bush got things done to keep this country safe after 9/11? That's exactly what he did. He did what he had to do at that period of time, after 9/11. And, because of his policies he staved off another major terrorist attack.

Yes, BUSH IS MUCH BETTER THAN OBAMA.

MUCH MUCH BETTER ON BOTH SOCIAL ISSUES AND NATIONAL SECURITY.

Obama is the weakest President ever on National Security. I want the cowboy back instead of a spineless President who negotiates with terrorists.

If you want a weak and a spineless President than you can have Obama but I miss President Bush.

Do you realize who is responsible for our President's security? The secret service. He has to follow the rules set forth by the secret service. At the townhall it was the Secret Service's decison to throw our a rowdy interfering person out and NOT President Bush's decison. It wasn't Obama's decision to have someone thrown out from a townhall in MA but the Secret Services decision and job to do that. It is the same thing.

Yes, I miss President Bush and he is much better than Obama the commie.

I have seen you be in agreement with Obama about 80% of the time. The only thing I have seen you criticize is his foreign policy initiatives.

BUSH LEAVES OBAMA IN THE DUST. BUSH IS SO MUCH BETTER than Obambi.

Fuzzy Slippers said...

@ Liberty, I wasn't going to bother with responding to you because you are so clearly ill-informed, but Teresa's excellent response got me all fired up and cheering! So here I am, yet again, to try to explain to you what should be clear as day.

I do not trust BO. Not one tiny ounce. I had and have absolute faith in President Bush's patriotism and in his sole desire being to keep America safe from foreign terrorists. BO sees conservatives at home as the enemy, the extremist, and the Muslim extremists as people who should not be jumped to conclusions about. You want scary? That's scary. I am the enemy of my country's president, but the guys who want to blow up our planes are not?

That's what makes it different for me, and it has caused me to rethink my support of the Patriot Act and other grants of power to the executive branch. For any future (and of course this current) president. This is commonly referred to as learning from one's mistakes, and growing in one's worldview.

And no, DHS was NOT a bad idea from its conception; you obviously do not understand the functions and purview of both the CIA and FBI. You write about them as if they do the same thing. They do not. You can Google it; if you don't know these simple things, you can't hope to understand why the DHS was a good idea.

Republicans can and have made major mistakes, no doubt about it. But the things that you are complaining about are not among those mistakes. That's all. In fact, MOST of the mistakes made by republicans are now being held up by this administration as a MODEL for how to continue. It's insane.

LOL, yes, Congress held up funding due to the DEMS pulling stunts that they now accuse republicans of (again, you can look this up). And you are kidding, right? You do understand that in 2006, the dems regained control of Congress? That's why they were able to actively block funding, not because "it's his own fault for doing a bad job." Good grief, that's an absurd statement.

Fuzzy Slippers said...

@ Liberty. "Disenfranchising" means denying the vote. From whom did President Bush revoke voting privileges? Are you referring to felons? If so, read this: http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/2/3/6/3/2/p236325_index.html

Bush did many things wrong, most of which are being either continued or continued on steroids by BO. TARP, massive spending, disregarding our national debt/building deficit, extending amnesty to illegals (BO's busy on that one as we speak), and a handful of other things. Bush made mistakes, but it seems that these are trumpeted as wonderful things when BO does them (including misspeaking, saying stupid as hell things, and acting like an ill-brought up buffoon--though actually, President Bush always had excellent manners. BO does not.) Where's that hypocrisy again?

So you blame the things that happened under Bush, on his watch, as his fault. Fair enough. Do you also blame all of the mistakes, the things that have happened on BO's watch on him (massively expanding our deficit, massive unemployment, etc.)? Or let me guess, you blame all that on Bush, too?

The "stalemate" in Congress is because the DEMS can't agree, they have SUPERmajorities, they can legally pass any damn thing they want . . . if they could only play nicely together and get it done. Well, they could have. Now they don't have a supermajority anymore. Thank God for small favors.

BO will NEVER repeal the Patriot Act; one of his first acts in office was to extend the "illegal" wire-tapping measure that he bashed Bush over. Look it up. He'll also NEVER close Gitmo. And he'll never repeal DODT or DOMA (he's said he'll "work on the former" and has always said he supports civil unions, not gay marriage). Do you even know who he is or what he stands for?

And we need to tell other countries what to do when it comes to radical loons obtaining nukes and then handing them over to terrorists. We need to stop that before it happens for the simple fact that if we don't there will be nuclear holocausts throughout the Middle East and right here in America. If they wanted them to just look at and feel good about, that'd be one thing. But they plan to use them, don't you understand that? You think they should be permitted to do so, that we should just react after the devastation? That is not in-line with ANY American president of any era, ever. Even this moron is starting to get a clue. In theory, sure it's nice to say that everyone should be able to bomb whomever they wish, but that's not really good foreign policy or a recipe for peace, now is it?

Um, prior to the American Revolution we were "Britisher" subjects. You know that, right? We were ruled by Britain, not a sovereign nation, under another country's rule (get it?). Without the help of Spain and France, we may not even have been successful in our bid for independence. Please read a history book sometime. Really.

Ugh, honestly, I can't even read any more of your comments. Sorry. I don't have Teresa's patience for utter ignorance.

Liberty said...

"Yes, on many issues you have shown to have liberal leanings and that you buy into the Democrats weak security mentality."

I'm a Libertarian. We agree with both the Democrats and Republicans on some issues. Then, on some issues, like personal freedom, moral issues, and the Constitution, we are free thinkers.

"You keep on putting the entire onus on NO Child Left Behind on Bush when it was a Democrat that came up with the idea and Bush only worked with Kennedy and crossed the aisle on this issue. Another example of you being blind to reality."

Might I point out that the PATRIOT act was originally proposed by Clinton and Gore. Bush used 9/11 to get it passed. Yet another example of the fact that there is absolutely zero difference between Dems and Reps, especially when Constitution-shredding is at stake.

In any case- I really don't see how it should matter to me that it was proposed by both Dems and Reps. That is inconsequential to me. It is a failed program. From its conception it was silly. Kudos for wanting to improve something, to both Ted and Bush. But it didn't work. (Kudos to Obama for wanting to fix our broken healthcare system, too. At least he has good intentions at heart, and all that.) But as I said, good intentions don't run a country.

Both you and Fuzzy seem to be under the impression that I somehow approve of Obama more than I approved of Bush. That is far from true. I disagree with Obama on nearly every issue- healthcare, national defense, foreign policy, monetary policy, fiscal policy, the economy period, educational policy, energy policy, environmental policy, legislative policy, constitutional policy...

I just flat disagree with him. I have two things I could get behind him about: repealing the PATRIOT act, which he has since said he's not going to do, and repealing DOMA, which he's probably not going to do, at least to all appearances. That's about it. Other than that, he talks a good talk, and I can agree with some of his rhetoric just like I could agree with some of Bush's rhetoric. But rhetoric isn't actual progress.

"The Czars are an overreaching power by the Obama administration."

Just thought I'd point out that the czars aren't without precedent. Obama has taken it way overboard, but Bush had czars too, as did every President since FDR.

I'd like to say here that the fact that everything from past admins is getting worse with Obama is because every successive President views what the previous President did as a floor, not a ceiling. In other words, he views the restrictions, legislation, and limits placed by/imposed on the former President as a foundation he can use to build his own parthenon, not a ceiling of his limits. It is a flawed outlook, and one that is highly unconstitutional, but it is a fact that things have gotten progressively worse practically since the ink dried on the Constitution. Perhaps that is human nature; we always want to exploit weaknesses.

"He has been trying to shove this health care bill down our throats and not working in any bipartisan fashion."

No kidding. It really annoys me how, even now, he trumpets 'bipartisanship', then does absolutely nothing that could be termed bipartisan. *rolls eyes* Really annoying.

"Bush did not do tresspasses against the first amendment. He did the majority of things with approval from Congress."

...That's not the First Amendment.

The First Amendment is the freedom of religion (DOMA, anyone?), freedom of speech (closed 'town hall meetings', 'free speech zones'), right to petition the government (Bob Schultz, founder of the Continental Congress/We The People Foundation has been sending in ignored petitions for a very long time- including during the Bush admin), and freedom of press.

No First-Amendment-Stomping there at all.

Liberty said...

"Okay you call loans to banks that most have paid back, taking over the banking industry. Obama is the one who made the leap to take over the banking industry."

Bush set the precedent, just as Bush set the precedent for preemptive action overseas. Bush pushed the stimulus, which so many people bashed Obama for. It. Was. The. Same. Exact. Thing. The only difference was the President in power.

(This hypocrisy goes both ways- the Dems complain about Bush doing it, then praise Obama to the skies. Still infuriating when they do it.)

"That is another ban that Bush had in place and how he stood up for unborn babies that Obama has reversed course on."

According to my knowledge, Bush merely placed limits on ESCR, didn't actually end it. After he started funding on it.

Usually Libertarianism and Marxism doesn't go together. Actually, it never does. Do you even know what Libertarians believe? Because they are in no way even remotely related to Marxist ideology. They're like opposite poles on magnets- it's impossible to force them together.

"Are you mad because Bush got things done to keep this country safe after 9/11?"

I'm not mad. I merely disagree with him. Passionately.

I disagree with him because he did things that were unconstitutional and that cost us a lot of money.

I think you're missing one major thing here- the PATRIOT act. Unconstitutional (Fourth amendment- freedom from unlawful, unwarranted searches and seizures). Iraq War. Unconstitutional (Congress must declare war with a formal, written declaration). Afghanistan War. Unconstitutional for same reason. DOMA. Unconstitutional (First Amendment- freedom of religion which equates to freedom of moral thinking, as that is the essence of religion). Many of his abortion statutes. Essentially unconstitutional (While I agree abortion is terrible, it is not the federal government's place to interfere. First Amendment- freedom of religion which equates to freedom of moral thinking, as that is the essence of religion).

(Obama, sometimes both combined) Stimulus. Unconstitutional (such power not given to Federal Government). Energy regulations. Unconstitutional (same reason). Environment regulation. Unconstitutional (same reason).

(I'd like to point out that Bush's list is longer than Obama's because Bush had eight years to mess things up, Obama has only had one. But he's trying awful hard to catch up. :P )

Teresa said...

@Liberty

The DOMA does not violate anyones religious rights. Marriage is not a religion. Plus, Bill Clinton is the one that signed it into law. I am for couples having all the legitimate rights but not on the basis of sexual gender. What I mean by that, is two sisters or two brothers should have access to each others medical records or health insurance etc. I am for civil unions which gives the same exact legitmate rights to gay couples as heterosexual couples have. It is not possible for a gay couple to be open to the possibility of natural procreation so therefore it is impossible for them to have a valid marriage. A civil union would give them all the rights without making a mockery of marriage.

Many politicians have held closed townhalls and that doesn't infringe on any person's free speech rights. That is like saying a country club with membership fees infringes on others who cannot afford to join that country club.

Bush, himself, had no control over which petitions were answered and which weren't. Believe it or not he did not have total control of what went on within his administration. Bush let certain departments handle issues such as the petitions. He did not micro-managing the departments within his administration.

No, Bush did not trample on freedom of speech rights.

The PATRIOT ACT was needed at the time. Yes, it definitely needs to be revised. But, something is still needed to wiretap and capture terrorists. Yes, I do want that repealed but only because of this President and how he targets his opposition in this country more than the terrorists abroad.

Liberty said...

"Yes, BUSH IS MUCH BETTER THAN OBAMA."

This is opinion, not fact. ;)

"Obama is the weakest President ever on National Security. I want the cowboy back instead of a spineless President who negotiates with terrorists."

A. I'm sorry, but I don't particularly want a 'cowboy' as a President. They have this annoying propensity to just shoot off their guns (and their mouths) and make people mad. Which isn't really what America needs at this moment.

B. I haven't seen Obama negotiating with any terrorists. Maybe you're thinking of Hamid Karzai, who is planning to (he may actually have started them, not sure) start talks between Afghan factions, including the Taliban.

"If you want a weak and a spineless President than you can have Obama but I miss President Bush."

I don't want either. You can have them both. :)

"Do you realize who is responsible for our President's security? The secret service."

The SS works for the President. If Bush had seen they were escorting a peaceful citizen away, he could have stopped them, quite easily. If he had known (which he should have) that the SS was imprisoning protestors/citizens in a 'secure' area, he could have, and should have, protested. But did he? No. Lest we forget, the President is still their boss, and he can tell them to back off.

As for me, I really didn't like Bush the Socio-Fascist anymore than I like Obama the Fasci-Socialist.

Fuzzy Slippers-
Thanks for stopping by again. Teresa will tell you I absolutely love debate. :)

Anyway-

"I do not trust BO. Not one tiny ounce."

Me either. But then, I didn't trust Dubya either. Bush and President Obama are equally bad in my book- mainly because they're both just two sides of the same coin. Obama has done nothing to change the path our country is on- as you so aptly pointed out (thanks for saying that all so eloquently by the way :) ), and is just continuing Bush's worst mistakes.

"BO sees conservatives at home as the enemy, the extremist, and the Muslim extremists as people who should not be jumped to conclusions about. You want scary?"

I agree that's scary. If he actually said it. And I've never actually seen a quote by him that had him saying that. Do you have a link?

"That's what makes it different for me, and it has caused me to rethink my support of the Patriot Act and other grants of power to the executive branch."

I still don't understand how President-change influences your stance on unconstitutional power-grabbing by the executive branch. If it is wrong, it is wrong. Politicians are politicians, regardless of whether they are Democrat or Republican, and men are men. Bush had just as much potential to take advantage of that power as Obama, and he did, just as Obama is now.

"And no, DHS was NOT a bad idea from its conception; you obviously do not understand the functions and purview of both the CIA and FBI. You write about them as if they do the same thing. They do not."

I've never seen DHS do much of anything besides churn out a bunch of legalese and red tape. The FBI (which is made to take care of domestic security concerns) and our military (which is supposedly made to take care of foreign security concerns) could have taken care of any security threats, in conjuction with the CIA (which I also don't trust, BTW). After all, our military has such an excellent track record with finding those terrorists and all.

Liberty said...

"In fact, MOST of the mistakes made by republicans are now being held up by this administration as a MODEL for how to continue. It's insane."

So you admit there is no difference between Democrats and Republicans and Obama and Bush!?

(As a sidenote- examples please? Since the things I mentioned apparently weren't among those mistakes.)

Also, I'd like to ask both you and Teresa- since Obama is continuing Bush's non-mistake (preemptive warfare that 'keeps us safe'), shouldn't you agree with him more than 1% of the time?

"You do understand that in 2006, the dems regained control of Congress? That's why they were able to actively block funding, not because "it's his own fault for doing a bad job.""

That wasn't my point. My point was that Bush lost his Republican majority (in 2006) because the Reps were doing a bad job. What, you think a majority of Americans voted against the Republicans just because they felt like voting Democrat on election day?

"Bush did many things wrong, most of which are being either continued or continued on steroids by BO."

Something I dislike very much, and yet another reason I believe there is absolutely zero difference between the two of them and their respective parties.

"Do you also blame all of the mistakes, the things that have happened on BO's watch on him (massively expanding our deficit, massive unemployment, etc.)?"

Yes. Although I think taking a compartmentalized view of history like that isn't a good thing- and bear with me. I'm not about to say what you think.

Our current monetary problems can be traced back all the way to 1913, when Wilson signed the Federal Reserve Act. The rabic Constitution-stomping started before that, with Abraham Lincoln and his submission of the south, that was contrary to state's rights (I'm not slamming Lincoln, understand, not completely. I think he did the best he could with what he had, but there were other options that were not fully explored).

Fast-forward to the 1940s, with the signing of the UN Charter, which effectively did away with our sovereignty, as treaties are more legally binding than the Constitution. It has been a long, flowing process- as all history is. (I love history. *delighted smile*)

I totally understand about the supermajority. And they could get it passed. And they could play nicely. And they should have. Thankfully, they didn't, and they didn't inflict us with something that would be hanging over our heads for 6 more years with the promise of much money-grabbing to come before it finally took effect. (I still can't find it in my heart to be thankful for Scott Brown the Republican Liberal though. It would have been nicer if the Independent had been elected.)

Liberty said...

Sorry this got so long. :P

"Do you even know who he is or what he stands for?"

I read his book. And his campaign website. And I've been closely following his administration. Yes, I do know what he stands for. I also know he's a politician. And yes, I know he's not going to, as I acknowledged. I merely said I'd be happier if he did do those things. Unfortunately, he's a wimpy politician who's a slave to public opinion- as we all are, in one way or another.

On nukes-
I don't see how it's any of our business. Iran has nukes. So? How do you know they "plan to use them?" Are you telepathic now? America is the only country that has used nukes, BTW. Not exactly a position of high moral authority.

"Um, prior to the American Revolution we were "Britisher" subjects. You know that, right? We were ruled by Britain, not a sovereign nation, under another country's rule (get it?)."

But there for a long while, we were actually quite 'independent', in many senses of the word. We were almost like Australia or Canada at one point, but then Britain needed money. So they started taxing us unfairly. We got tired of it, and revolted. Britain replaced our elected governers with stooges of their own. Same basic principle. Most Americans of that era identified themselves not as Britons, but as Americans.

"Please read a history book sometime. Really."

......You do realize I've averaged six history books a month since I was 10. And I'm not talking little kid history books. I'm talking books like David McCullough's John Adams or Stephen Ambrose's books (Undaunted Courage, Citizen Soldiers and a few others). I'm currently reading three histories, as well as a book on politics.

Have a nice day. :)

Liberty said...

"Plus, Bill Clinton is the one that signed it into law."

Oh. I did not know that. Thanks for correcting my misperception. :)

"The DOMA does not violate anyones religious rights. Marriage is not a religion."

Let me see if I can explain this briefly- the freedom of religion clause, as I briefly touched on in my comments, is argued to be 'freedom of morality', within limits. For instance, if your moral beliefs hold that gay marriage is A-OK, well that's your right.

Let me clarify, because I can hear your inevitable question. This freedom of morality clause does not extend to things like murder, because it takes away the rights of another human being- the murder victim. But gay marriage does not do so, hence it falls under the freedom of morality.

"It is not possible for a gay couple to be open to the possibility of natural procreation so therefore it is impossible for them to have a valid marriage."

...What exactly is a 'valid' marriage anyway? What if a heterosexual couple can't have kids? Does that make their marriage any less valid?

In any case- we're getting OT. I have so much more I could say on this subject, but I won't. ^.^

"Believe it or not he did not have total control of what went on within his administration."

Neither does Obama.

"Bush let certain departments handle issues such as the petitions. He did not micro-managing the departments within his administration."

Valid point. I concede. And perhaps this is an issue that should more properly be brought agaisnt Congress- they're supposed to handle that stuff. And they didn't.

"No, Bush did not trample on freedom of speech rights."

Would you like to tell me how he didn't?

On the PATRIOT act- I still don't understand how Partisan Change effects how bad the legislation is. Unconstitutional is unconstitutional, regardless of the President in power.

"But, something is still needed to wiretap and capture terrorists."

Not when it infringes on my rights.

"Any people that would give up liberty for a little temporary safety deserves neither, and will lose both."
Benjamin Franklin

Teresa said...

@Liberty

NONE of those things you mentioned were uncontitutional!!! Just because you disagree with them doesn't make them unconstitutional.


CONGRESS APPROVED EVERY ONE OF THOSE ACTS!!!!!!

Obama requested for "fishy" emails. Obama asked on neighbors to spy on neighbors and report "misinformation" being spread. Obama wants to start a civil security force full of brownshirts and indoctrinate our children.

So, Yes, IN MY OPINION BUSH IS A MUCH BETTER PERSON THAN Obama is and IS OF HIGH MORAL FIBER or CHARACTER than Obama.

Obama is far different than Bush and is much much worse than Bush.

That's all for now...

Liberty said...

Congress approving something doesn't make it Constitutional. Congress also passed the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, part of it passed Cap and Trade, they passed McCain-Feingold that was declared unconstitutional...

Just because Congress passes something does make it Constitutional.

That is because the Constitution has set certain limits for Congress, limits that tell them what they can do, and if it doesn't say they have it, they can't do it. Also, a bill that blatantly takes away certain rights that were guaranteed in the bill of rights (e.g.- the PATRIOT act) is unconstitutional.

The whole 'reporting fishy content' was creepy. I'll give you that. But like I said, he's just taking what Bush did one step further.

"Obama is far different than Bush and is much much worse than Bush."

Bush is no different than Obama and they're both Constitution-stomping Partisan hacks.

Teresa said...

@Liberty
The two pieces of legislation you mentioned were declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has not declared any of those items you aforementioned as unconstitutional so until the Supreme Court knocks any one of your aforementioned items or organizations down and rules them as being unconstitutional then in fact they are still constitutional.

Bush did nothing even close to the "fishy" email thing. He authorized the gathering of information of terrorists in order to stop terrorists. Yes, that term needs to be defined more accurately and honed in on, but Bush and his admin never purposefully targeted civilians who he and his administration knew were non-threats just because they spoke out against their initiatives. Yes, Bush defended his position but he never quelched speech as Obama has, or has tried to.

Bush is much better than Obama. The fact that you can't see that and can't admit that shows just how whacky a combination of ideologies you believe in-Libertarianism, Liberal, and Marxist. You have chosen to follow bits and pieces of these nonsensical ideologies, and mesh them together into your one- off the deep end philosophy- when they don't normally mesh together.

Liberty said...

The Supreme Court is corrupt, just like the rest of this out-of-control government. Numerous lawsuits have been brought up, not just against those bills, but others, and have been dismissed for lack of standing- without even benefit of a review.

I'm just curious, but I'm wondering if you've ever read the Constitution, or if you have, if you bothered to research the Constitution to see the citations I offered in one of my comments. Have you studied these bills and actions, and compared them to what the Constitution says? Have you studied it and used what you yourself know of the Constitution to be a guideline of Constitutionality? Or do you just trust our government to always do the Constitutional thing?

As I've stated before, the Constitution operates from the one basic premise that the People are the check, that they are the ultimate authority. And it operates on the one most fundamental belief- that the People will actually use the brains God gave them and search things out for themselves, instead of relying on what the news media or the commentators or the politicians tell them. Blindly accepting everything leads to tyranny, no matter the administration we are under!

"Bush is much better than Obama.

Bush was no different from Obama. Obama is merely continuing his mistakes, making them worse. But that's OK- keep repeating that to yourself. Maybe it'll come true. :)

"...whacky a combination of ideologies you believe in-Libertarianism, Liberal, and Marxist."

Give me one example of when I have promoted Marxist ideology.

I'm wondering- have you studied Marxist philosophy? Or Libertarian philosophy? Because the two are so diametrically opposed, it's impossible to put them together.

Teresa said...

@Liberty

If you think attacking how you think politically is attacking you personally than you are highly mistaken. If you want to return to the debate without using false accusations than I will be more than happy to do just that. I am not posting what I would classify as a think you know it all comment.

Liberty said...

1. I am not a Marxist.

2. I am more than willing to return to the debate.

Teresa said...

@Liberty
First of all, possibly misclassifying someone's belief system is not attacking them personally. Your belief system is all over the map so its hard to know in what category you fit. And, honestly you haven't really explained why you are not a Marxist, but only said you aren't. But, I will take your word on it for now. Maybe blog post on your social and economic beliefs? Whereas I am clearly a conservative in my beliefs.

But, I also can't understand how you can't see the huge differences between Obama and Bush's positions on social issues. It is quite stunning and horrifying as a supposed Libertarian that you have allowed your hate of Bush's foreign policies cloud your judgement on his positions on social issues. So, in that, you are acting much more like a partisan liberal. You may be a Libertarian but your obstinence to not see the truth clearly puzzles me.


I have studied both the Patriot Act and the Constitution over a number of years and they are simpatico with one another. In fact, The Patriot Act is half an an extension of an Act of 1978(need to look up exact act-its right within the Patriot Act). The other 1/4 states about funding the counterterrorism movement and the other 1/4 is authorizing wiretapping on terrorists and suspected terrorists and a couple other items. But, it is for the most part pretty specific on what the guidelines are for authorizing wiretapping etc. But, there are a few areas where it could and should be more defined more precisely for the sake of innocent Americans.




Can you prove that the Supreme Court is corrupt, or are those only your suspicions?

No. I don't trust the Government. It depends who is running the government.

I have studied all of those philospohies.

Liberty said...

"Your belief system is all over the map so its hard to know in what category you fit."

Why thank you. You just confirmed that I am a free thinker. :) If I fit into any one category, I'd be just like every other lemming out there. However, I do most commonly ally myself with the Libertarian/Constitutional camp. I guess that's what you could call me- a Constitution-supporter. If its Constitutional, I'm behind it. If not, it shouldn't be there.

"And, honestly you haven't really explained why you are not a Marxist, but only said you aren't."

I asked you to bring me one instance where I had ever said anything Marxist. You won't find it. Sorry, but I have never said we should all go live in communes and pool our money so everybody has an equal share.

"But, I also can't understand how you can't see the huge differences between Obama and Bush's positions on social issues."

The only difference is in rhetoric. Bush never really tried to get abortion stopped- and he could have. He had a majority in both the Supreme Court and the Congress. He had six years! Yet did he even try? No, not until election time that is. There was a Constitutional amendment Senator Ron Paul proposed that would have granted personhood to unborn children. But did Bush even say one word about it? No. Great pro-lifer there.

"I have studied both the Patriot Act and the Constitution over a number of years and they are simpatico with one another."

How can something be in line with the Constitution when it completely goes against an entire portion of said Constitution?

The Fourth Amendment protects us from unlawful (read- unwarranted) searches and seizures. Tapping my phone lines or anyone else's, without a warrant, because they might be a terrorist- that's an unlawful search. Coming into someone's house without a warrant because they might be a terrorist- unlawful search. Arresting someone without a warrant and without proof because they might be a terrorist- unlawful seizure.

The precepts of the Constitution were laid out for a reason. And when the Congress is just a-OK with trespassing against those, and Americans are OK with them doing so, where are we? We're one step away from tyranny, is where we are.

"Can you prove that the Supreme Court is corrupt, or are those only your suspicions?"

http://www.amazon.com/Corrupted-Power-Supreme-Court-Constitution/dp/0595325009
The Supreme Court has a very long history of dismissing cases for "lack of standing"...usually when they just don't want to face the case.
http://www.heartland.org/full/19281/Supreme_Court_Dismisses_Case_on_Tax_Breaks.html
http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/conlaw/2009/12/restricting-access-to-federal-courts-in-three-parts.html
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2008/12/08/supreme_court_declines_to_hear.html

"No. I don't trust the Government. It depends who is running the government."

No offense intended, but that's really not a good way to be a conscientious voter. If you only question the people who don't like, but blindly follow those you do, you are setting yourself up for trouble with a capital T. That is not what our system was set up to be. We are supposed to question all our leaders, even those we like. Why? Because if we don't, we run the risk that they will take our approbation as a get-out-of-jail-free card and will run slip-shod over our Constitution and we ourselves.

Teresa said...

@Liberty
Bush could not just reverse Roe vs. Wade. It is not merely a difference in rhetoric between Obama and Bush. I can tell partisanship runs rampant with you and your hate for Bush clouds your judgement. There has to be a constitutional amendment passed to reverse Roe vs. Wade and there was simply not enough support to do that. And, there were not enough Justices that would have agreed to overturn Roe Vs. Wade. And, there still isn't enough Justices to overturn Roe V. Wade. As I said before, Obama reversed bans that Bush had on federal funding of abortions abroad and funding of embryonic stem cell research. So, Obama is clearly pro-abortion and Bush is clearly Pro-life. You have to realize that a President has to work within his means at the time and that is what Bush did.

I wouldn't call you a free thinker per se. I would call you a follower of nonsensical policies with regards to foreign policy in its application by the Libertarian/Liberal belief systems. You obviously, for the most part, follow the medias misconceptions and falsehoods with relation to foreign policy and the safety of our country. You have made it clear that you favor the safety of terrorists and so called rights of terrorists over the safety and rights of innocent civilians. It is mindboggling to me that you are against wiretapping suspected terrorists, people aiding terrorists , and terrorists themselves in this country and abroad. There are clear guidelines to wiretapping and the evidence needed to wiretap a suspected terrorist. It is the same type of thing as when the police does a sting to catch a criminal.

The Patriot Act is a law passed by Congress and is therefore a law. The Consitution empowers congress to pass laws and thus congress passed the Patriot Act. So, yes, it is simpatico with the Consitution and does not violate the Constitution.


I will take a look at your links, research them and counter them. It might take me a little while to do so.

Liberty said...

"I can tell partisanship runs rampant with you and your hate for Bush clouds your judgement."

I still don't understand this. I don't like Obama either. I disagree with him on so many issues. It is not just Bush I dislike. (And I don't 'hate' him either. I just disagree with him. Same with Obama.)

Bush was funding abortions through a loophole in the HHS and Medicaid appropriations bills:
Part 1: http://www.covenantnews.com/lefemine041011.htm
Part 2: http://www.covenantnews.com/lefemine041028.htm
Part 3: http://www.covenantnews.com/lefemine041031.htm

"There has to be a constitutional amendment passed to reverse Roe vs. Wade and there was simply not enough support to do that."

As I stated in my last comment, there was a Constitutional amendment that would have done this- The Sanctity of Human Life Act, proposed by Senator Ron Paul (R-Texas). Bush didn't even mention it. He never spoke about it, he never praised it, he never endorsed it. If he had, it might have had a chance. (It is one of the issues I disagree with Paul about, in a way, but I use this example to prove that Bush's pro-life record isn't all peachy.)

Clinton was originally the one who signed into law the act against giving federal funding to activities that would destroy a human embryo. Bush started funding of embryonic stem cell research under a loophole in the Dickey-Wicker Amendment. After he caved to public opinion (wimp) and limited it, there were still several million dollars in funds going to ESCR every year.

He also didn't ban it, but limited it (in much the same way Obama isn't going to stop federal spending...just limit it. Still spending, though.)
http://stemcells.nih.gov/policy/2001policy.htm

"I would call you a follower of nonsensical policies with regards to foreign policy in its application by the Libertarian/Liberal belief systems."

You realize Libertarians don't actually have policies yet- none of us are in power. :P

And Libertarians and Liberals usually don't go together. It's sort of like the Marxist-Libertarian thing...doesn't really work. Liberals (and conservatives for that matter) have a past history of disregard for the Constitution (understand I am speaking of the elected officials, not the actual people). Libertarians, at least the mainstream ones, believe the Constitution is the essence of law, and we cannot have our laws without it. Liberals also believe all power rests with the Federal Government, and Libertarians are adamantly opposed to that philosophy.

Liberty said...

"It is mindboggling to me that you are against wiretapping suspected terrorists, people aiding terrorists , and terrorists themselves in this country and abroad."

I am not opposed to it, per se...so long as there is a warrant involved. If the NSA/CIA can prove to a judge that there is just cause to wiretap someone, and they can get a warrant, they can wiretap that person into kingdom come. That is the due process of law, and hence is quite legal.

It is only when wiretapping is done while disregarding the due process of law that it becomes wrong. When the authorities disregard that law, what law is there? There is none; we have passed into tyranny and our country that has stood for a hundred years is truly dead.

"It is the same type of thing as when the police does a sting to catch a criminal. "

FTR, I am against many 'sting' operations as well. I find that many of them (cops pretending to be prostitutes, drug dealers, etc.) are more properly termed, not 'stings', but 'entrapment', which is just wrong.

"The Patriot Act is a law passed by Congress and is therefore a law. The Consitution empowers congress to pass laws and thus congress passed the Patriot Act. So, yes, it is simpatico with the Consitution and does not violate the Constitution."

You're way oversimplifying our rule of law.

Congress has limits. Do you know what the purpose of the Constitution is? It is to rein in the government and keep them from going wild with power. With that in mind, there are certain limits imposed upon Congress, mainly composed of a list of things they can do. Read Article 2 sections 8 and 9 sometime.

If something they do is not contained in section 8, goes against the limits imposed in section 9, or infringes upon a right that is guaranteed in the Bill of Rights, that bill is unconstitutional.

Also, we don't have to wait for the Supreme Court to somehow magically have an epiphany and bring the case to themselves that it's unconstitutional. That's OUR job- We the People. WE are the government. Did you know that Obama can't do a single stinking thing unless we let him? Pelosi, Reid, Brown, Paul, all the rest, they can't do anything unless we let them. We are the government.
http://www.wethepeoplefoundation.org/
http://www.givemeliberty.org/

Teresa said...

@Liberty

First, Bush in 2001 reninstated the Mexico City ban after entering office following Bill Clinton.
http://www.texlife.org/docs/bushreinstates.shtml

Bush called on Congress to pass the Unborn Victims of Violence Act.
http://www.nrlc.org/news/2001/NRL04/
Bush resricts RU-486 funding.
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2001/apr/01040303.html

Bush bans sex films from Air Force One.

May 16, 2001 U.S. House Backs President Bush in Denying Funds to Overseas Groups That Promote Abortion Legalization
http://www.consistentlife.org/US%20House%20Upholds%20Pro-life%20Mexico%20City%20Policy.htm


May 17, 2001 Bush Administration Begins Effort to Put Pro-Life Advocates on International Panels Source: Washington Post

May 21, 2001 Further Analysis Shows Bush's First Judicial Picks Promising Source: Pro-Life Infonet

May 26 Bush Overrules Powell on Nominee Appoints Pro-lifer to Important State Department Post
http://tennesseerighttolife.org/news_center/archives/05262001-03.htm

June 1, 2001 Bush Won't Issue Gay Proclamation, Opts Out of Gay Pride Day Source: Associated Press

June 21, 2001 Bush Supports Strongest Pro-Life Ban on Human Cloning Source: Associated Press

July 6, 2001 Bush Administration Awards Abstinence Grants to CPCs, Pro-Life Groups

August 13, 2001 Bush Would Veto Any Funding of Additional ESCR

August 16, 2001 Attorney General John Ashcroft recently warned that less than 10 % of judges nominated by Bush have even had a hearing before the Democratically led Senate Judiciary Committee

August 28, 2001 Bush Won't Back Down to the United Nations on Abortion Source: Reuters

October 15, 2001 Bush Administration Awards Adoption Awareness Grants- HHS Press Release

November 7, 2001 White House and Lawmakers Fight Pro-Abortion Amendments

November 7, 2001 Democratically Led Senate Attempts to Weaken Pro-Life Policies Are Blocked by Veto Threats and Pro-Life Lawmakers

December 5, 2001 Bush Selects Pro-Life Ex-Gov to Head Republican Party

December 10, 2002 Changes in the White House (from the Patriot's Herald)
http://www.patriotsherald.com/content/changed.php

January 31, 2002 Bush Administration Proposes Coverage of Unborn Children in Health Insurance http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2002/jan/02013106.html

February 26, 2002 President Bush's Remarks at St. Luke's Catholic Church
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/02/images/20020226-11.html

September 27, 2002 Bush Administration Finalizes Coverage of Unborn Child in Health Insurance http://www.vshl.org/press/2002/nrlc_20020927.shtml

January 18, 2002 Bush Declares Sanctity of Life Day January 20, 2002
http://www.priestsforlife.org/government/02-01-18bush.htm

January 22, 2002 Remarks By President Bush in Phone Call to March For Life Participants http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2002/jan/020122a.html

January 20, 2002 President Bush Seeks Increased Abstinence Funding Source: Associated Press

January 31, 2002 Bush Administration Classifies Developing Fetus as Unborn Child Source: Associated Press

States may classify a developing fetus as an "unborn child" eligible for government health care, the Bush administration said Thursday, giving low-income women access to prenatal care and bolstering the arguments of
abortion opponents.

February 1, 2002 President Bush has chosen an advocate for the aging who once worked with Mother Teresa to head his revamped effort to provide federal funds to religious charities. See the interview with Jim Towey in Crisis Magazine http://www.crisismagazine.com/june2002/feature6.htm

February 2, 2002 President Bush's Sincere Appreciation For Prayers Said For Him http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/bushprayerreq.htm
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/624592/posts

Teresa said...

February 26, 2002 The President's Welfare Reform focuses on families, abstinence and work http://www.family.org/cforum/feature/a0019805.html

March 6, 2002 Bush's National Institute of Health Nominee Supports Complete Ban on Human Cloning Source: Washington Post, Baltimore Sun

March 14, 2002 Democratically led Senate quashes Nomination of Pro-Life Judge Charles Pickering
http://www.reclaimamerica.org/PAGES/NEWS/newspage.asp?story=918


April 10, 2002 President Bush's Remarks in Opposition to Human Cloning
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/04/20020410-4.html

April 11, 2002 President Bush Calls on Senate to Back Human Cloning Ban http://www.nrlc.org/nv041102.html

April 11, 2002 UN Decides Against Cairo+10, Fears Bush Administration Source: Friday Fax

May 2, 2002 Proclamation National Day of Prayer http://www.nationaldayofprayer.org/media/president.cfm

May 2, 2002 Bush Administration Opposing Abortion at UN Child Conference Source: Catholic Family & Human Rights Institute

May 23, 2002 Pro-Life Judge D. Brook Smith confirmed for Third Circuit Court of Appeals http://www.reclaimamerica.org/PAGES/SHAKE/shakeHome.asp

Teresa said...

October 3, 2002 Democrat-Controlled U.S. Senate Kills Pro-Life Bills Favored by President Bush and Passed by U.S. House
http://www.nrlc.org/Federal/LegUpdates/Congressionalwrapup100302.html

* The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act (H.R. 4965), passed by the House on July 24, 2002, 274-151.

* The Weldon-Stupak-Brownback legislation to ban all human cloning, including the cloning of human embryos (H.R. 2505, S. 1899), passed by the House on July 31, 2001, 265-162.

* The Unborn Victims of Violence Act (H.R. 503), a bill to recognize as a legal victim any unborn child who is injured or killed during commission of a federal crime, passed by the House on April 26, 2001, 252-172.

* The Child Custody Protection Act (H.R. 476), to make it a crime to take a minor across state lines for a secret abortion, if this abridges her parents ' right to be involved under their home-state law, passed by the House on
April 17, 2002, 260-161.

* The Abortion Non-Discrimination Act (H.R. 4691), to prohibit state and local governments from discriminating against hospitals and other health care providers for refusing to participate in abortions, passed by the House
on September 25, 2002, 229-189.

http://www.nrlc.org/Federal/LegUpdates/Congressionalwrapup100302.html

Liberty said...

Let me clarify something real quick- it is not that I think Bush is an inherently immoral or even amoral man. I think he may be sincere in his personal religious beliefs. My point in contesting his prolife record was, however, to show that he was not as 'pro-life' as he liked to seem. Many of the things you cited, in the end, were just rhetoric.

He put prolife judges into the SC. But did any of them even try to overturn Roe vs. Wade as they promised? Bush promised the same thing, but did he? No, he didn't even propose it.

So there's just a clarification. ;)

Teresa said...

@Liberty
My point by showing those examples (and there are more examples) was to show you that Bush's abortion policies and family policies are much different than Obama's record. Bush does have a much better pro-Life track record than Obama. Obama is pro abortion and not pro-life at all. As both a Senator and as President, Obama has been one of the most pro abortion senators/President's to ever serve . I am not saying that Bush is/was perfect, just that he is pro-life and has a much better pro-life record on abortion than Obama.

Here are some examples of Obama's record on abortion:

In 1997, Obama voted in the Illinois Senate against SB 230, a bill designed to prevent partial-birth abortions.
In the US Senate, Obama has consistently voted to expand embryonic stem cell research.

He has voted against requiring minors who get out-of-state abortions to notify their parents. The National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL) gives Obama a 100% score on his pro-choice voting record in the Senate for 2005, 2006, and 2007.
Source: Obama Nation, by Jerome Corsi, p.238-239 Aug 1, 2008

Obama has consistently refused to support legislation that would define an infant who survives a late-term induced-labor abortion as a human being with the right to live. He insists that no restriction must ever be placed on the right of a mother to decide to abort her child.

On March 30, 2001, Obama was the only Illinois senator who rose to speak against above mentioned bill.

http://www.ontheissues.org/Social/Barack_Obama_Abortion.htm

January 22, 2009 - Releases statement restating support for Roe v. Wade decision that allowed virtually unlimited abortions and has resulted in at least 50 million abortions since 1973.

January 23, 2009 - Forces taxpayers to fund pro-abortion groups that either promote or perform abortions in other nations. Decison to overturn Mexico City Policy sends part of $457 million to pro-abortion organizations.

Bush had reinstated the Mexico City Policy ban. Bush never stated support of Roe V. Wade.

http://www.thewordout.net/pages/page.asp?page_id=72071

Liberty said...

Did you read the links I posted in my second-to-last comment? They offer links/etc. to the places that Bush was feeding funds to Planned Parenthood too. He never ended funding to those organizations. In fact, I admire Obama for his stance- at least he's willing to do it out in the open, rather than hide it and lie about it.

Bush's prolife record wasn't all that peachy. Why did he never push to have Roe vs. Wade overturned when he promised to do so? (Although, FTR, overturning RvW would only send abortion back to the states...which is Constitutionally where it belongs.)

In any case, abortion is not the sum total of a man's Presidency. I still find it hard to ignore Bush's debt, his wars that nearly ruined us, his catastrophic foreign policy, his trespasses against the rights of ordinary Americans in the form of the PATRIOT act and TSA, etc.

Teresa said...

@Liberty
OK. You admire a man that supports the killing of innocent human life? And, supports the expansion of of abortion through the FOCA? If you are pro-life than you certainly don't display that by any stretch of the imagination.

Bush was very, very Pro Life and did all that he could while he was President to promote the pro-life agenda.

Regardless of whether Bush openly supported Ron Paul's human life act or not, there was NEVER enough support to pass that piece of legislation and Bush recognized that fact through logical reasoning.

Obama has a majority in both the Senate and House of Reps. so if he had the support he could pass the FOCA. Yes, the people could challenge it at the Supreme Court. Abortion violates our constitution by allowing women to kill innocent unborn babies, and violating their right to life, so therefore if Obama had the votes to pass the FOCA than yes, it could become law. But, it would probably be challenged. That goes the same for Bush. Bush did NOT have the votes to overturn Roe V. Wade but I guess you can't see reality.

"Bush's prolife record wasn't all that peachy."

You are trying to rationalize your unfounded and false position by saying the above statement when I clearly proved that Bush is pro-life and Obama is pro-abortion.

Who benefited? Who had deep enough pockets to bribe nine supreme court justices to ascertain a unanimous decision and what is their motivation for doing so?

"By contrast, the Cuno plaintiffs have no reason to pursue or
even respect such balance. Unlike plaintiffs in previous cases
addressing the Commerce Clause implications of state tax policy,
the Cuno plaintiffs do not allege that a state is using a particular tax
credit or exemption to favor a local competitor’s business interests
over their own or otherwise to discriminate against them personally.
While some taxpayer suits are motivated by idealistic dedication
to lofty constitutional goals such as free speech or equal protection,
the plaintiffs in Cuno and similar litigation are hardly motivated
by similar allegiance to Commerce Clause principles. Instead, the
Cuno case merely reflects an underlying policy disagreement
between those like the Cuno plaintiffs who see state tax incentives
as an improper allocation of state funds and a drain on state tax
revenues and state government officials who remain adamant that
the incentives are needed to encourage economic development; and
the Cuno plaintiffs are simply taxpayers who disagree with the
economic development policies pursued by their government
officials."

http://www.fed-soc.org/publications/pubid.826/pub_detail.asp

There was no basis for the Supreme Court to overturn the ruling. Cuno just disagreed with monetary policy.

Obama tripled all of Bush's debt in one year.

http://www.city-data.com/forum/politics-other-controversies/576977-obama-has-nearly-tripled-debt-bush.html

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=317827

Teresa said...

@Liberty

The wars have saved us from having another major terrorist attack on U.S. soil. By bringing the battlefield back to the terrorists home base we have stopped them from successfully achieving another terrorist attack in the United States. The wars were only 4.4% of our GDP.

http://www.heritage.org/research/Budget/bg2012.cfm


Bush fought for our safety, our freedom as well as others' freedom, our rights through the Patriot Act, TSA, engaging our enemy in the wars instead of waiting for the next attack to occur, DOHS, and more. I am proud that he was our president during such a tumultuous period of time and would much rather have him in office than Obama.

Bush is a far better person than Obama. Bush is a man of great character and of moral fiber.

Yes, I do miss Bush and would love to have Bush back in office.

This is the end of the discussion.

You can choose not to miss Bush. But whatever... I really feel sorry for you.