The Libbos aren't flocking in here like blackbirds going on and on about how, "Stewart nailed it!.
Hillarious!!!!
Ah... the usual escuxe - "there's more to why I support Him other than those hated GWB policies that he said He would reverse and has either kept or expanded". Of -course- there is.
Tell mw what you think of The Obama's out of control spending and retention of GWB's tax cuts for millions and millions of people.
Cuz , you see, the biggest gripe the left had w/ GWB were his securty-related policies and his deficits.
The left has been complaining about Obama's national security stance for quite a while now. Stewart is not going over any new feelings in this regard.
Do you have any idea how many times I've called Obama "Bush III" on this very forum?
The left has been complaining about Obama's national security stance for quite a while now. Stewart is not going over any new feelings in this regard.
Complaints lately are a far cry from where their stance was 3 years ago - when the national security stance was exactly the same. I'd say the same is probably true about international policy and the two wars we are continuing.
How was bush "very conservative"?
Seriously?
Strong right on national security issues (pro war, anti human rights, anti civil rights). Very strong right on religious social issues (anti abortion, anti stem cell, pro conservative christian). Very strong right on regulation (gutted regulations, very pro laissez faire business due to reducing regulations).
Pretty much the standard neocon faire.
And before you claim he is a liberal for his spending, no child left behind, etc. Conservatives do that stuff too. Libertarians are the ones that don't and those oppose conservatives on a lot of things as well. I am talking about standard modern conservative here, not some classical definition from days gone by. I have no interest in the whats a real conservative game. I will define it by what I see right here and right now.
Actually Bush was pro-stem cell research, he was just much more in favor of adult stem cell research rather than embryonic stem cell research. He gave a ton of aid to Africa for HIV research, etc.
He wasn't some extremist right winger even by the modern definition.
Actually Bush was pro-stem cell research, he was just much more in favor of adult stem cell research rather than embryonic stem cell research. He gave a ton of aid to Africa for HIV research, etc.
He wasn't some extremist right winger even by the modern definition.
Sorry, I was thinking embryonic. Thanks.
I wasn't really calling him an extremist. Those guys tend to go beyond conservative in my view. Perhaps an issue is the fact that there is no objective measure for these things. But yeah, I guess if you put Palin or Navy Pride as the benchmark for 100% very conservative and put Nader at the other end, I would rate bush about an 85%. Thats pretty subjective too though, unfortunately.
If I was using the modern definition of "conservative" (which would be focused more on social conservativism), I'd put Bush at about 55-60%.
If I was going with a more classical definition, using someone like Goldwater as the far end of the rating, Bush would be about 50-55%.
I didn't see him as all that conservative. :shrug:
Like Bush spending.....ugh. :dohReally? I see some of you comlaining, but no more than I saw many including myself complaining about certain bush policies back in the day. :shrug:
So, let me get this straight...I guess I shouldn't be surprised that you think taking the presidency as a whole is an excuse. :roll:
This speaks VOLUMES about your perspective.From my perspective, Bush was VERY conservative and did a lot of things to make me angry in general.
This speaks VOLUMES about your perspective.
GWB was moderate, at best, an easy 1130-1230 on the ideaological clock.
Neo-conservatives, after all, are social liberals w/ a pro-US foerign and domestic poit of view.
On the contrary -- you 'persepctive' discredits your argument in and of itself, as it exposes how far to the left you really are.My perspective is my perspective and as long as I can logically defend it, than there is nothing wrong with it. Using someone's perspective to try and discredit them is partisan hackery.
On the contrary -- you 'persepctive' discredits your argument in and of itself, as it exposes how far to the left you really are.
No kidding.I disagree.
No, you cuuld TRY to do that. That Bush was a moderate isn't a position I take because I am so far to the right that I see him as a moderate, he is a moderate because that's where his policies and actions, overall, fall in the political spectrum.I could easily reverse the argument back on you and discredit you for thinking bush was a moderate
No kidding.
But, like I said -- when you argue that GWB was 'conservative', for instance you cal him that because he is conservative compare to YOU. He was not ACTUALLY a conservative, but a moderate. So, your persepctive poisons your argument.
No, you cuuld TRY to do that. That Bush was a moderate isn't a position I take because I am so far to the right that I see him as a moderate, he is a moderate because that's where his policies and actions, overall, fall in the political spectrum.
So, you fail.
Meanwhile, your admittedly leftist perspective negates whatever argument you might care to make.This is great. Thanks for the laugh.
Meanwhile, your admittedly leftist perspective negates whatever argument you might care to make.
Enjoy.
And I am sure you do not. Sigh.I am sure you do view it this way.
And I am sure you do not. Sigh.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?