[meat]

Originally Posted by AMF

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa543.pdf

Aww, how cute! ... a biased three (3) year old "report" used as a source. It would be laughable to consider this a "source" if it weren't so freakin' sad. That you would use it - again - says quite a bit about you.

Originally Posted by AMF

Have you been under a rock?

Nope.

Originally Posted by AMF

Bush is the largest spending president since LBJ.

George W. Bush is 5'11" tall. He appears to be reasonably fit and weighs in at 180lbs. Describing him as the largest President is incorrect.

Originally Posted by AMF

Not only has he had the largest increase in government EVER (in terms of total dollars) (largest percentage since LBJ), He's still the champion among spenders when you remove non-defense dollars (I'm sure all of you who swing from the Village Idiots nuts would argue it's all the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and Homeland Defense...........it's not....he's let the place go bonkers there too).

That's just silly. Probably retarded, too, if anyone actually believes the Chicken Littles who make these claims. Know who was the biggest spender before George W. Bush? Clinton. Know who was they biggest spender before Clinton? George H.W. Bush. Know who was the biggest spender before that Bush? Reagan. Know who was the biggest spender before Reagan? Carter. Know who was the biggest spender before Carter? Nixon/Ford. Know who was the biggest spender before Nixon/Ford? Johnson. Know who was the biggest spender before Johnson? Kennedy. Know who was the biggest spender before Kennedy? Eisenhower. And so on.

Gee, it's almost as if the Federal Budget gets higher every year. And every year, it's the President who gets blamed for spending more money than his predecessor. Like I said, it's a silly - and baseless - argument. Duh.

Originally Posted by AMF

I'm a died in the wool Libertarian. A conservative libertarian.

That sounds like a personal problem. You might want to get that checked.

Again, pointing to your lack of grip on English, I'm going to point out that it's "dyed in the wool" not -as you put it - "died." Generally, the only things that "die in the wool" are carpet beetles. Carpet beetles are scavengers. Scavengers exist on the decaying wastes of others. That sounds like as good a definition of Libertarianism as any other I've ever heard.

Originally Posted by AMF

Unfortunately, Bush violated one of the largest parts of his party mantra, the Government has become ginormous under his tenure.

That's untrue. And, while it's also vague and argumentative, it just goes to show how tenuous the whole belief that the government has "grown."

The government - much like the budget - will always grow. That doesn't mean that the government is any larger, it simply means that someone who doesn't understand the differences between words like "died" and "dyed" will naturally assume that increases in government spending means larger government. In actuality, the value of the dollar, purchases, money transfers, population and other nebulous factors all determine the amount of money that is spent by the government ... which leads the uninitiated to jump to the wrong conclusion that the government is "ginormous." In fact the number of civilian federal employees continues to decrease under George W. Bush. The federal government can't be getting larger if the number of employees is getting smaller. Duh.

Originally Posted by AMF

I've always been an advocate that the President is only one man, he cannot steer the country to war all by himself, and he cannot prevent your home from depreciating, he cannot control interest rates or whether or not you have a job.....

Well, that's just plain wrong. Not just your use of 'advocate,' but the whole mistaken belief that a Presidency consists of "only one man." Perhaps - as one of the misguided libertarians - you're unfamiliar with the U.S. Constitution ... which would be unusual, since your poorly camouflaged libertarian candidate Ron Paul was a Constitutionalist. In any case, Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution allows the President to establish a Cabinet. The Presidential Cabinet advises the President. Duh.

Originally Posted by AMF

But what he can do is publish guidance to congress about the budget and veto bills that do not fit that guidance. For the most part, Bush has allowed Congress to run amok when it comes to spending. He's increased the Federal Debt AND the deficit.

No, he has not.

Originally Posted by AMF

He's COMPLETELY mismanaged the war in Iraq.....all the way from NOT firing Rumsfeld sooner, to alienating his most prolific cabinet member (Colin Powell) to the point that he quit.

What? "Prolific?" Dude, step away from the thesaurus before you hurt yourself.

Iraq is going fine. It's a war. Wars don't fit timelines and people tend to die in them. If they didn't, it'd be called recess. duh.

Originally Posted by AMF

Beyond the fact that he has a degree from Yale and uses terms like "evil-doer" (explain how an Ivy league graduate has the vocabulary of a 4th grader)

You, of all people, don't need to be discussing the vocabulary of others, "died in the wool" boy.

Originally Posted by AMF

I used to stand behind him because I thought his integrity was paramount and though he was flawed, he was predictable and honest and "what you see is what you get."

But the nonsense has gone too far. He's destroyed the conservative mandate in our country.

Bush was never a conservative. Duh.

Knew that before I voted for him.

Originally Posted by AMF

He's squandered American tax payer money and worse even, he's wasted American service member's lives.

Nope ... and nope. He's neither squandered money nor wasted any lives. The cause of freedom is never free.

Originally Posted by AMF

After saying ALL that, I think he did a far better job than Gore or Kerry would have done. (God help us if Kerry would have been elected) but damn it people.....

If George W. Bush is the best that we have to offer, we're in serious trouble.

Naah. Well, technically, "we" aren't offering anything. George W. Bush was willing to step up and do a job. A thankless job. A job that not many people are willing to do ... but those same people are willing to criticize him for imagined issues.

If you can do a better job, then you should have stepped up to the plate. Because you didn't, you failed America and the American people. You're a traitor to your country.

Of course, if all you could do it b!tch about it ... well, that just makes you another "gosh, can't decide if I'm a Republican or a democrat so I'll just pick a loser third party and pretend that nothing's my fault" wishy-washy nothing who doesn't have the backbone to chose a team to play on.

Your pal,
Meat.