The monarchization of America under Bush

Grim Bongmaster · #1 (**permalink**) 10-19-2004, 01:07 PM

I thought this was a good read, hopefully it will get some of those libertarians voting bush to vote libertarian **cough**gilligan**cough**

by Bill Winter

The Bush Betrayal, by James Bovard. 330 pages. Published by Palgrave Macmillan. Hardbound, $26.95. Available at: Amazon.com.

The Chicago Tribune once described humorist P.J. O'Rourke as "a trophy hunter let loose in an unguarded zoo." They should have saved that description for James Bovard.

In his new book, The Bush Betrayal, Bovard opens fire on President George W. Bush with a thunderous barrage of facts and revelations that proves, beyond any doubt, that Bush has broken every small-government promise he ever made, and has shattered any credibility his Republican lackeys in Congress have for claiming to be a party of "limited government."

The premise of the book is simple: Bush is a terrible president who is savagely shredding the liberties of the American people.

As Bovard writes in the first chapter: "Bush is expanding federal power and stretching prerogatives in almost every area that captures his fancy."

Sure, Bush loves to talk about "freedom." But, as Bovard acerbically notes, "Bush is as qualified to speak about freedom as former President Clinton is to speak about chastity."

You want specifics? The only question is where to start, because the "unguarded zoo" that is the Bush Administration is a target-rich environment for Bovard. Here's a sample of the Bush Administration's big-government crimes:

* On stifling dissent: Bush's Secret Service detail arrested or detained peaceful American protesters who made the mistake of carrying "No War for Oil" or other anti-Bush signs at Bush campaign appearances in Arizona, California, Connecticut, Michigan, New Jersey, New Mexico and Texas. As Bovard notes, the Secret Service has now apparently been relegated to suppressing "any affront to the dignity of the supreme ruler."

* On free trade: Despite claiming that he is a "fierce free trader," Bush slapped a 30 percent tariff on imported steel in 2002. One consulting firm estimated that the move destroyed eight American manufacturing jobs for every one steel-producing job it saved. But as Bovard notes, the tariff was never about fair trade -- it was about "the president's own political advantage," since some steel-producing states were up for grabs in the 2004 election.

* On education reform: Bush claimed that his No Child Left Behind (NCLB) program, which mandated standards and testing for local schools, was "the boldest plan to improve our public schools in a generation." However, Bovard notes that the law only requires schools to improve their "baseline" standards -- so most states immediately dumbed-down their existing standards so they could easily show future gains. For example, the NCLB baseline standard set in Delaware required only 33 percent of children to test at grade-level in math. NCLB also required states to identify "dangerous" schools. So, New York politicians mandated that 5 percent of a student body had to be suspended for weapons violations before a school could be declared "dangerous." Such standards, notes Bovard, "practically guarantee no school would be found guilty." Needless to say, NCLB also came with a hefty price tag. At various times, Bush boasted that he had increased federal spending on education by 36 percent or 49 percent.

* On continuing the Clinton legacy: Bush has been the #1 fan of former president Bill Clinton's AmeriCorps program, which pays people $16,000 a year in cash and benefits to "volunteer." Bush increased funding for the program -- whose employees engage in such vital civic activities as organizing gay proms at high schools, paying children a $5 bounty for toy guns, and recruiting people for food stamp programs -- by more than $120 million in 2004.

* On government subsidies: During his 2000 campaign, Bush claimed to support a "market-driven approach" to agriculture. So, when he became president, he signed a bill that earmarked an additional $50 billion in federal handouts to farmers over 10 years. The bill funneled two-thirds of that money to the richest 10 percent of farmers, and will, by one estimate, cost every American family $4,377 over the coming decade in higher taxes and inflated food costs.

* On government-run health care: In 2003, Bush pushed through Congress a $400 billion-a-year Medicare bill to provide prescription drugs to seniors. (More accurate estimates later said the annual cost would actually be $576 billion.) Bovard notes that the program is the "worst financial blow Medicare ever suffered" -- and pushed Medicare's bankruptcy forward by seven years, to 2019.

* On the government's failure to stop the 9/11 terrorist attacks: After the attacks, Bush claimed that no one "could envision flying airplanes into buildings." But Bovard notes that "in the previous few years, the CIA had issued several warnings that terrorists might fly commercial airplanes into buildings or cities."

* On spying on Americans: Bush enthusiastically endorsed the USA Patriot Act, which expanded the federal government's ability to read your e-mail, search your home without notifying you, obtain a list of the books you checked out at your local library, and subpoena information from businesses without a court order. Bush's hand-picked attorney general, John Ashcroft, explained that the USA Patriot Act protects what he called "ordered liberty." Bovard disagrees, and writes, "The only way to reconcile the Patriot Act with freedom is to assume that unjustified government intrusions into people's lives are irrelevant to freedom."

* On extra-Constitutional powers: On November 13, 2001, Bush signed an executive order giving himself the power to designate Americans as "enemy combatants" and put them on trial before secret military tribunals -- with no right to appeal. The move, which stripped Americans of their Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, and Eighth Amendment rights to a fair trial, was necessary to fight terrorism, Bush declared. In fact, Bovard counters, if Bush can, by imperial decree, deprive Americans of fundamental civil liberties at his whim, it means the president is no longer "bound by the Constitution." And that, ultimately, is more dangerous than any terrorist.

* On waging unnecessary war: Bush invaded Iraq after claiming that Saddam Hussein possessed "the most lethal weapons ever devised." After intensive postwar searches turned up no such weapons (and after more than 1,000 American soldiers where killed in an increasingly violent insurgency against the U.S. occupation), Bush backpedaled slightly and claimed the invasion was justified because of the "possibility" that Hussein might acquire weapons of mass destruction. As evidence for even that claim evaporated, Bush backpedaled further, and said the invasion was necessary because the United States has "an obligation to help the spread of freedom." In reality, Bovard notes, "Bush was determined to demagogue the American people into war" -- no matter how feeble the rationale. Bovard notes, "Bush's war against Iraq may be his greatest abuse of power."

That's not all: The Bush Administration also launched a campaign to arrest medical marijuana users; proclaimed Thailand a "force for good" after its government ordered police to execute 2,700 suspected drug dealers (and innocent civilians) without trials; federalized airport security at a cost to taxpayers of more than $10 billion; helped cover up the brutal beating of dozens of post-9/11 detainees in U.S. prisons; and signed the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act, which made it illegal for Americans to engage in certain kinds of free speech in federal elections.

By the way, Bovard doesn't just make these claims; he documents them. If some of his allegations seem unbelievable, just check the 42 pages of footnotes -- it's all there.

Add up all of the president's anti-freedom actions, and you can't help but to agree with Bovard when he writes: "The monarchization of America is proceeding by leaps and bounds under Bush."

As I read The Bush Betrayal, I thought about the group called "Libertarians for Bush," which supports the president's re-election. After finishing the book, I am tempted to write to them and encourage them -- in the interest of accuracy -- to change their name to "Libertarians for Massive Government." As Bovard makes clear, any Libertarian who votes for George W. Bush is voting for a bloated, expensive, un-Constitutional, warmongering, civil liberties-smashing, anti-free trade, pro-Drug War federal leviathan. Could you please explain to me how any so-called "libertarian" could support that?

There's almost nothing to quibble about in this book. Yes, Bovard does recycle Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 claim that Bush sat in a Florida classroom with a "deer-in-the-headlights" look after being informed of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. So what? I would prefer that Bush sat and did nothing -- if our choice was the barrage of un-Constitutional measures that followed once he stood up. Why waste time criticizing Bush for the one time he didn't do something bad?

But, wisely, Bovard sticks to the important issues most of the time. And it's that relentless focus on Bush's war against freedom that makes this book so shocking, eye-opening, and important.

With The Bush Betrayal, Bovard cements his claim as America's journalistic superman -- fighting for truth, justice, and the American way of freedom and limited government. We may have been stuck with George W. Bush for four years, but at least we have Bovard on our side.

And that evens the odds just a bit.

[About the author: Bill Winter is communications director for the Advocates for Self-Government. From 1997 to 2004, Winter was editor of LP News.]

Gilligan · #2 (**permalink**) 10-19-2004, 05:26 PM

"As I read The Bush Betrayal, I thought about the group called "Libertarians for Bush," which supports the president's re-election. After finishing the book, I am tempted to write to them and encourage them -- in the interest of accuracy -- to change their name to "Libertarians for Massive Government." As Bovard makes clear, any Libertarian who votes for George W. Bush is voting for a bloated, expensive, un-Constitutional, warmongering, civil liberties-smashing, anti-free trade, pro-Drug War federal leviathan. Could you please explain to me how any so-called "libertarian" could support that?"

Damnit! I got called out.
The only reasons i will probably vote for Bush:
1) in a 2 party system, i vote conservative over liberal
2) he is strong on defense
3)........
I think anyone who is libertarian is voting for bush for only those reasons. Bush hasnt done jack to narrow the scope of govt, but i know for damn sure Kerry will increase it more.

Nice article by the way.

"Bush is as qualified to speak about freedom as former President Clinton is to speak about chastity." hahaha.

I posted this in another thread, but bush has a double didget lead in ga, he hasnt even campaigned here once, so every day im thinking more and more about voting Bednarik. If he could pull 1 million or more votes, he might draw some attention. Also, i think we have 7 libertarians on ballots in GA, one even was in the debate for a senate seat or a state senate seat or something.

Reasons i dont like bush:
1) read above article
2) damn patriot act
3) damn isreal

I dont care too mch for his stance on drugs, but Kerry will not be much improvement. The only ones willing to take that issue on are the 3rd parties.

oiseau777 · #3 (**permalink**) 10-19-2004, 06:39 PM

Folks, any of you who read the above article and do not think it is time for regime change have got to have your heaqd checked!

Will Kerry be better? Who can say?

But he will be different!

And if you agree with the article and you agree Badnarik won't win then vote for regime change and elect John Kerry!

And fuck defense! This country wastes more money on defense then anything else! Including welfare!

Gilligan · #4 (**permalink**) 10-19-2004, 06:57 PM

umm, the article is about how buch is expanding govt, which goes against everything libertarian. Libertarians Voting for the #1 liberal senator would be like the jews voting for hitler. Id not vote before i voted for kerry.

I dont like some of the things bush has done, but i would rather have him in power than Kerry. He hasnt shown me anything but tax and spend and a global test.

Defense is the #1 issue among americans bro. We should pull out of countries like germany.

oiseau777 · #5 (**permalink**) 10-19-2004, 07:14 PM

Tax and spend! Did you read the article? PLEASE! GW has spent out of control! He is BIG Government! Kerry maybe Tax and Spend but Bush is just Spend, SPend SPend! He doesn't care that the country is going farther and farther into debt!

I love how republicans say that we have to defend ourselves? From what? terrorists? PLEASE! I'm more afraid of getting run over by a moron in an SUV then getting killed by a terrorist and I live in NYC!

If America was under attack, it was under attack for about one hour. Once all those planes crashed the attack was over.

There has never been another threat to the USA and we do not have to "defend" ourselves from anyone or anything.

The real question is "Why would someone hate a country that "spreads freedom"?

Grim Bongmaster · #6 (**permalink**) 10-19-2004, 07:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gilligan

umm, the article is about how buch is expanding govt, which goes against everything libertarian. Libertarians Voting for the #1 liberal senator would be like the jews voting for hitler.

HAHAHAHAHA!!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gilligan

Id not vote before i voted for kerry.

same here, but you forgot gun rights in your list. Thats another main reason I like kerry less than bush.

Sorry to call ya out man, but I had to do it.

Badnarik 04!!

Gilligan · #7 (**permalink**) 10-19-2004, 10:50 PM

I did forget gunrights!

I can not vote for kerry. Bush is a gunslinger, and i like that about him, but that is the only real reason i would vote for him. That and it doesnt go any further left in mainstream US politics than John F'n Kerry. I might would vote for zell miller!! He was my governor that started the lotto which funds the HOPE scholarship. It pays full tuition for anyone attending a public college or university and half of books that keeps a B average. For that, he is the shit. And he didnt change our state flag like goddamn sunny purdue.

oiseau777 · #8 (**permalink**) 10-20-2004, 08:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gilligan

I might would vote for zell miller!! He was my governor that started the lotto which funds the HOPE scholarship. It pays full tuition for anyone attending a public college or university and half of books that keeps a B average. For that, he is the shit. And he didnt change our state flag like goddamn sunny purdue.

Jeez, Gilligan, seems like your a bit upset. Judging by your lack of English and horrible spelling I guess you couldn't keep a B average. Too bad, maybe you can get a scholarship for being a gunslinger. This kind of shit isn't cool and it won't float here at the City. *RMJL

jmcguire30 · #9 (**permalink**) 10-20-2004, 08:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gilligan

I did forget gunrights!

I can not vote for kerry. Bush is a gunslinger, and i like that about him, but that is the only real reason i would vote for him. That and it doesnt go any further left in mainstream US politics than John F'n Kerry. I might would vote for zell miller!! He was my governor that started the lotto which funds the HOPE scholarship. It pays full tuition for anyone attending a public college or university and half of books that keeps a B average. For that, he is the shit. And he didnt change our state flag like goddamn sunny purdue.

Bush is a Connecticut elitist never had a hard day in his life. Gunslinger my ass, Obviously we have another Bush bobble head here.This is the 2nd post of yours that I've had to jump into because you feel the need to get personal. 2nd post=2nd warning. Make your argument without attempting to put another memberr down. *RMJL Let me ask you something gilligan, if he's such a gunslinging tough guy why did he puss out on Vietnam ? A war he supported as long as rich scumbags did not have to go.

Gilligan · #10 (**permalink**) 10-20-2004, 10:32 PM

yawn.

Accually, i dont use the HOPE scholarship, i have others i use. My GPA is well above a 3.0, I am not very good a spelling, but there is spell check on word so it doest really bother me. Spelling doesnt help me with the 7 latyers of the OSI model or solve networking problems.You would be amazed what u qualify for when you accually fill out the paperwork.

I didnt know being in the national guard was pussing out. The national guard was this nations first armed force. Atleast he isnt a draft dodger like one former president i bet you supported... That same draft dodger had several chances to kill osama bin laden.

Sounds like you have major class envy also. Dont hate on the rich, they are the ones paying all the taxes and carrying this country....

jmcguire30 · #11 (**permalink**) 10-20-2004, 11:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gilligan

yawn.

Accually, i dont use the HOPE scholarship, i have others i use. My GPA is well above a 3.0, I am not very good a spelling, but there is spell check on word so it doest really bother me. Spelling doesnt help me with the 7 latyers of the OSI model or solve networking problems.You would be amazed what u qualify for when you accually fill out the paperwork.

I didnt know being in the national guard was pussing out. The national guard was this nations first armed force. Atleast he isnt a draft dodger like one former president i bet you supported... That same draft dodger had several chances to kill osama bin laden.

Sounds like you have major class envy also. Dont hate on the rich, they are the ones paying all the taxes and carrying this country....

You republicans always blame clinton well I got news for you Bill was not our president on 9/11, dumbass was, having been installed by a far right wing supreme court. Bush had plenty of warnings and did... nothing. Anyway seeing how the rethuglicans benefitted so much from 9/11 I think history will see 9/11 as a 21st century Reichstag fire.

As far as Clinton and bush dodging the draft, one man was against the war(CLINTON) while the other one hypocritcally supported it while daddy was calling every political prostitute in Texas to get him out of harms way. National Guard was this nations first armed force? Who gives a shit that was a long time ago, during Vietnam the Guard was a way to avoid combat(see Dan Quayle).

Lastly, Clinton had all these chances to kill osama bin forgotten? Maybe he would have had the hypocritical jesus freak in congress not tried to impeach him over the stupid ass lewinsky shit. When Clinton sent rockets in to afghanistan he was criticized by the right. There is no way congress would have approved an invasion back then.

One last thing Gilligan, I suspect you are a jesus freak, you probably think it was a bigger crime to lie about a blowjob then to lie about WMD. When Clinton lied no one died.

Grim Bongmaster · #12 (**permalink**) 10-21-2004, 12:44 AM

this thread wasn't meant to be a haven for liberals, they're just as bad as bush, don't kid yourself, and don't think your kidding me! Kerry is going to be even worse for for this country!

Gilligan · #13 (**permalink**) 10-21-2004, 12:45 AM

No, im not very religious.

What did bush lie about? WMDs? The intelligence came from russia, britian and from our own sources. It passed through the senate intelligence committee which kerry and edwards are members of, before Bush made any decision. Going on information you think is true, as did most people, and lieing is different things.

Watch the History Channel special on 9/11. Clinton had him several times. And he made the call not to act. Nothing to do with congress.

Lieing on a grandstand to me is not very good.

jmcguire30 · #14 (**permalink**) 10-21-2004, 12:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gilligan

No, im not very religious.

What did bush lie about? WMDs? The intelligence came from russia, britian and from our own sources. It passed through the senate intelligence committee which kerry and edwards are members of, before Bush made any decision. Going on information you think is true, as did most people, and lieing is different things.

Watch the History Channel special on 9/11. Clinton had him several times. And he made the call not to act. Nothing to do with congress.

Lieing on a grandstand to me is not very good.

Bush wanted a war w/ Iraq before 9/11 the repukes are willing to say anything to get their way. Bush had Bin Forgotten in Afghanistan then handed it over to the locals. What brillance!

jmcguire30 · #15 (**permalink**) 10-21-2004, 12:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grim Bongmaster

this thread wasn't meant to be a haven for liberals, they're just as bad as bush, don't kid yourself, and don't think your kidding me! Kerry is going to be even worse for for this country!

What you own this thread? Its funny how pseudo libertarians like yourself bitch about your right to free speech and then try to tell others what they can say and where they can say it. Boy, I suggest you read a book or two and not just the back cover of a book before you start commenting on others political views.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
ABC Transcript: War On Drugs, A War On Ourselves	superjoint	General Marijuana News from around the World	8	07-19-2007 02:47 AM
Closer Look at The Patriot Act. ( Sounds like 1930's Germany? )	AmsterdamdreamN	Pandora's Box	9	04-10-2006 09:39 PM
How to destroy America	TooSicKs	General	23	03-09-2006 10:27 AM
Why I HATE bush	NuBBiN	Pandora's Box	139	02-22-2004 08:00 PM
Bush gets his 87 mill	Bud Head	General	4	09-14-2003 12:02 AM

Site links

FAQ

Important

Extra

#1 (permalink) 10-19-2004, 01:07 PM
Grim Bongmaster Banned Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Aux Arcs Posts: 2,361	The monarchization of America under Bush I thought this was a good read, hopefully it will get some of those libertarians voting bush to vote libertarian coughgilligancough by Bill Winter The Bush Betrayal, by James Bovard. 330 pages. Published by Palgrave Macmillan. Hardbound, $26.95. Available at: Amazon.com. The Chicago Tribune once described humorist P.J. O'Rourke as "a trophy hunter let loose in an unguarded zoo." They should have saved that description for James Bovard. In his new book, The Bush Betrayal, Bovard opens fire on President George W. Bush with a thunderous barrage of facts and revelations that proves, beyond any doubt, that Bush has broken every small-government promise he ever made, and has shattered any credibility his Republican lackeys in Congress have for claiming to be a party of "limited government." The premise of the book is simple: Bush is a terrible president who is savagely shredding the liberties of the American people. As Bovard writes in the first chapter: "Bush is expanding federal power and stretching prerogatives in almost every area that captures his fancy." Sure, Bush loves to talk about "freedom." But, as Bovard acerbically notes, "Bush is as qualified to speak about freedom as former President Clinton is to speak about chastity." You want specifics? The only question is where to start, because the "unguarded zoo" that is the Bush Administration is a target-rich environment for Bovard. Here's a sample of the Bush Administration's big-government crimes: * On stifling dissent: Bush's Secret Service detail arrested or detained peaceful American protesters who made the mistake of carrying "No War for Oil" or other anti-Bush signs at Bush campaign appearances in Arizona, California, Connecticut, Michigan, New Jersey, New Mexico and Texas. As Bovard notes, the Secret Service has now apparently been relegated to suppressing "any affront to the dignity of the supreme ruler." * On free trade: Despite claiming that he is a "fierce free trader," Bush slapped a 30 percent tariff on imported steel in 2002. One consulting firm estimated that the move destroyed eight American manufacturing jobs for every one steel-producing job it saved. But as Bovard notes, the tariff was never about fair trade -- it was about "the president's own political advantage," since some steel-producing states were up for grabs in the 2004 election. * On education reform: Bush claimed that his No Child Left Behind (NCLB) program, which mandated standards and testing for local schools, was "the boldest plan to improve our public schools in a generation." However, Bovard notes that the law only requires schools to improve their "baseline" standards -- so most states immediately dumbed-down their existing standards so they could easily show future gains. For example, the NCLB baseline standard set in Delaware required only 33 percent of children to test at grade-level in math. NCLB also required states to identify "dangerous" schools. So, New York politicians mandated that 5 percent of a student body had to be suspended for weapons violations before a school could be declared "dangerous." Such standards, notes Bovard, "practically guarantee no school would be found guilty." Needless to say, NCLB also came with a hefty price tag. At various times, Bush boasted that he had increased federal spending on education by 36 percent or 49 percent. * On continuing the Clinton legacy: Bush has been the #1 fan of former president Bill Clinton's AmeriCorps program, which pays people $16,000 a year in cash and benefits to "volunteer." Bush increased funding for the program -- whose employees engage in such vital civic activities as organizing gay proms at high schools, paying children a $5 bounty for toy guns, and recruiting people for food stamp programs -- by more than $120 million in 2004. * On government subsidies: During his 2000 campaign, Bush claimed to support a "market-driven approach" to agriculture. So, when he became president, he signed a bill that earmarked an additional $50 billion in federal handouts to farmers over 10 years. The bill funneled two-thirds of that money to the richest 10 percent of farmers, and will, by one estimate, cost every American family $4,377 over the coming decade in higher taxes and inflated food costs. * On government-run health care: In 2003, Bush pushed through Congress a $400 billion-a-year Medicare bill to provide prescription drugs to seniors. (More accurate estimates later said the annual cost would actually be $576 billion.) Bovard notes that the program is the "worst financial blow Medicare ever suffered" -- and pushed Medicare's bankruptcy forward by seven years, to 2019. * On the government's failure to stop the 9/11 terrorist attacks: After the attacks, Bush claimed that no one "could envision flying airplanes into buildings." But Bovard notes that "in the previous few years, the CIA had issued several warnings that terrorists might fly commercial airplanes into buildings or cities." * On spying on Americans: Bush enthusiastically endorsed the USA Patriot Act, which expanded the federal government's ability to read your e-mail, search your home without notifying you, obtain a list of the books you checked out at your local library, and subpoena information from businesses without a court order. Bush's hand-picked attorney general, John Ashcroft, explained that the USA Patriot Act protects what he called "ordered liberty." Bovard disagrees, and writes, "The only way to reconcile the Patriot Act with freedom is to assume that unjustified government intrusions into people's lives are irrelevant to freedom." * On extra-Constitutional powers: On November 13, 2001, Bush signed an executive order giving himself the power to designate Americans as "enemy combatants" and put them on trial before secret military tribunals -- with no right to appeal. The move, which stripped Americans of their Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, and Eighth Amendment rights to a fair trial, was necessary to fight terrorism, Bush declared. In fact, Bovard counters, if Bush can, by imperial decree, deprive Americans of fundamental civil liberties at his whim, it means the president is no longer "bound by the Constitution." And that, ultimately, is more dangerous than any terrorist. * On waging unnecessary war: Bush invaded Iraq after claiming that Saddam Hussein possessed "the most lethal weapons ever devised." After intensive postwar searches turned up no such weapons (and after more than 1,000 American soldiers where killed in an increasingly violent insurgency against the U.S. occupation), Bush backpedaled slightly and claimed the invasion was justified because of the "possibility" that Hussein might acquire weapons of mass destruction. As evidence for even that claim evaporated, Bush backpedaled further, and said the invasion was necessary because the United States has "an obligation to help the spread of freedom." In reality, Bovard notes, "Bush was determined to demagogue the American people into war" -- no matter how feeble the rationale. Bovard notes, "Bush's war against Iraq may be his greatest abuse of power." That's not all: The Bush Administration also launched a campaign to arrest medical marijuana users; proclaimed Thailand a "force for good" after its government ordered police to execute 2,700 suspected drug dealers (and innocent civilians) without trials; federalized airport security at a cost to taxpayers of more than $10 billion; helped cover up the brutal beating of dozens of post-9/11 detainees in U.S. prisons; and signed the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act, which made it illegal for Americans to engage in certain kinds of free speech in federal elections. By the way, Bovard doesn't just make these claims; he documents them. If some of his allegations seem unbelievable, just check the 42 pages of footnotes -- it's all there. Add up all of the president's anti-freedom actions, and you can't help but to agree with Bovard when he writes: "The monarchization of America is proceeding by leaps and bounds under Bush." As I read The Bush Betrayal, I thought about the group called "Libertarians for Bush," which supports the president's re-election. After finishing the book, I am tempted to write to them and encourage them -- in the interest of accuracy -- to change their name to "Libertarians for Massive Government." As Bovard makes clear, any Libertarian who votes for George W. Bush is voting for a bloated, expensive, un-Constitutional, warmongering, civil liberties-smashing, anti-free trade, pro-Drug War federal leviathan. Could you please explain to me how any so-called "libertarian" could support that? There's almost nothing to quibble about in this book. Yes, Bovard does recycle Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 claim that Bush sat in a Florida classroom with a "deer-in-the-headlights" look after being informed of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. So what? I would prefer that Bush sat and did nothing -- if our choice was the barrage of un-Constitutional measures that followed once he stood up. Why waste time criticizing Bush for the one time he didn't do something bad? But, wisely, Bovard sticks to the important issues most of the time. And it's that relentless focus on Bush's war against freedom that makes this book so shocking, eye-opening, and important. With The Bush Betrayal, Bovard cements his claim as America's journalistic superman -- fighting for truth, justice, and the American way of freedom and limited government. We may have been stuck with George W. Bush for four years, but at least we have Bovard on our side. And that evens the odds just a bit. [About the author: Bill Winter is communications director for the Advocates for Self-Government. From 1997 to 2004, Winter was editor of LP News.]

#2 (permalink) 10-19-2004, 05:26 PM
Gilligan Banned Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: GA Posts: 1,804	"As I read The Bush Betrayal, I thought about the group called "Libertarians for Bush," which supports the president's re-election. After finishing the book, I am tempted to write to them and encourage them -- in the interest of accuracy -- to change their name to "Libertarians for Massive Government." As Bovard makes clear, any Libertarian who votes for George W. Bush is voting for a bloated, expensive, un-Constitutional, warmongering, civil liberties-smashing, anti-free trade, pro-Drug War federal leviathan. Could you please explain to me how any so-called "libertarian" could support that?" Damnit! I got called out. The only reasons i will probably vote for Bush: 1) in a 2 party system, i vote conservative over liberal 2) he is strong on defense 3)........ I think anyone who is libertarian is voting for bush for only those reasons. Bush hasnt done jack to narrow the scope of govt, but i know for damn sure Kerry will increase it more. Nice article by the way. "Bush is as qualified to speak about freedom as former President Clinton is to speak about chastity." hahaha. I posted this in another thread, but bush has a double didget lead in ga, he hasnt even campaigned here once, so every day im thinking more and more about voting Bednarik. If he could pull 1 million or more votes, he might draw some attention. Also, i think we have 7 libertarians on ballots in GA, one even was in the debate for a senate seat or a state senate seat or something. Reasons i dont like bush: 1) read above article 2) damn patriot act 3) damn isreal I dont care too mch for his stance on drugs, but Kerry will not be much improvement. The only ones willing to take that issue on are the 3rd parties. Last edited by Gilligan; 10-19-2004 at 05:32 PM.

#3 (permalink) 10-19-2004, 06:39 PM
oiseau777 A Legend In His Own Mind Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: somewhere else Posts: 294	Folks, any of you who read the above article and do not think it is time for regime change have got to have your heaqd checked! Will Kerry be better? Who can say? But he will be different! And if you agree with the article and you agree Badnarik won't win then vote for regime change and elect John Kerry! And fuck defense! This country wastes more money on defense then anything else! Including welfare! __________________ Time it was and what a time it was it was.

#4 (permalink) 10-19-2004, 06:57 PM
Gilligan Banned Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: GA Posts: 1,804	umm, the article is about how buch is expanding govt, which goes against everything libertarian. Libertarians Voting for the #1 liberal senator would be like the jews voting for hitler. Id not vote before i voted for kerry. I dont like some of the things bush has done, but i would rather have him in power than Kerry. He hasnt shown me anything but tax and spend and a global test. Defense is the #1 issue among americans bro. We should pull out of countries like germany.

#5 (permalink) 10-19-2004, 07:14 PM
oiseau777 A Legend In His Own Mind Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: somewhere else Posts: 294	Tax and spend! Did you read the article? PLEASE! GW has spent out of control! He is BIG Government! Kerry maybe Tax and Spend but Bush is just Spend, SPend SPend! He doesn't care that the country is going farther and farther into debt! I love how republicans say that we have to defend ourselves? From what? terrorists? PLEASE! I'm more afraid of getting run over by a moron in an SUV then getting killed by a terrorist and I live in NYC! If America was under attack, it was under attack for about one hour. Once all those planes crashed the attack was over. There has never been another threat to the USA and we do not have to "defend" ourselves from anyone or anything. The real question is "Why would someone hate a country that "spreads freedom"? __________________ Time it was and what a time it was it was.

#7 (permalink) 10-19-2004, 10:50 PM
Gilligan Banned Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: GA Posts: 1,804	I did forget gunrights! I can not vote for kerry. Bush is a gunslinger, and i like that about him, but that is the only real reason i would vote for him. That and it doesnt go any further left in mainstream US politics than John F'n Kerry. I might would vote for zell miller!! He was my governor that started the lotto which funds the HOPE scholarship. It pays full tuition for anyone attending a public college or university and half of books that keeps a B average. For that, he is the shit. And he didnt change our state flag like goddamn sunny purdue.

#10 (permalink) 10-20-2004, 10:32 PM
Gilligan Banned Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: GA Posts: 1,804	yawn. Accually, i dont use the HOPE scholarship, i have others i use. My GPA is well above a 3.0, I am not very good a spelling, but there is spell check on word so it doest really bother me. Spelling doesnt help me with the 7 latyers of the OSI model or solve networking problems.You would be amazed what u qualify for when you accually fill out the paperwork. I didnt know being in the national guard was pussing out. The national guard was this nations first armed force. Atleast he isnt a draft dodger like one former president i bet you supported... That same draft dodger had several chances to kill osama bin laden. Sounds like you have major class envy also. Dont hate on the rich, they are the ones paying all the taxes and carrying this country....

#12 (permalink) 10-21-2004, 12:44 AM
Grim Bongmaster Banned Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Aux Arcs Posts: 2,361	this thread wasn't meant to be a haven for liberals, they're just as bad as bush, don't kid yourself, and don't think your kidding me! Kerry is going to be even worse for for this country!

#13 (permalink) 10-21-2004, 12:45 AM
Gilligan Banned Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: GA Posts: 1,804	No, im not very religious. What did bush lie about? WMDs? The intelligence came from russia, britian and from our own sources. It passed through the senate intelligence committee which kerry and edwards are members of, before Bush made any decision. Going on information you think is true, as did most people, and lieing is different things. Watch the History Channel special on 9/11. Clinton had him several times. And he made the call not to act. Nothing to do with congress. Lieing on a grandstand to me is not very good.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)