Poll for Fellow-Conservatives

[The Mark]

How do I explain Bush winning? It's simple, the conservatives came out and voted.

And so did the Liberals. He won because there were more conservatives.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Bush winning proves "... the conservatives are [not] the ones who are winning elections."

He's a borrow-and-spend big-government liberal.

 

[JKD COBRA]

And so did the Liberals. He won because there were more conservatives.

Yes, more people voted for Bush.

Bush winning proves "... the conservatives are [not] the ones who are winning elections."

He's a borrow-and-spend big-government liberal.

Now your just saying things that are opinion. Conservatives wouldn't vote for a big government liberal. So, no, Bush is not a liberal.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Now your just saying things that are opinion. Conservatives wouldn't vote for a big government liberal. So, no, Bush is not a liberal.

Or, perhaps the people who voted for him weren't conservatives.

Or, perhaps you're trying to draw the exceptionally fine line of distinction between borrow-and-spend big-government liberals and borrow-and-spend big-government conservatives.

Or, perhaps your tautology isn't well founded.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Bush has done a fair job, I'd rate him at 50%.

He put Bolton in the UN, that's good, the only thing better would be getting the US out of the UN.

He kept Gore away. Not many things can be better than that.

Ke kept Kerry away, one of the few things better than keeping Gore away.

Ted Turner got a federal subsidy for his farm. Someone has to think federal subsidies to private businesses are a good thing. I'm not one of them, though.

Ted Kennedy got his education bill signed, and Bush got in trouble for hiring a flack to issue bogus news stories in favor of that same bill. That was very amusing.

Spending is up on every single government program. No one congratulate there except Bush and all the Republicans, right?

Bush intervened in a lawsuit contending the legality of race-based quotas, on the side of quotas, and the courts agreed.

He refused to investigate or prosecute any of Clinton's cronies, including Clinton's bitch wife. We'll know who to thank when the Red Queen steals more White House silverware and furniture, won't we?

American citizens are being held indefinitely in jail without charges and without trial.

I could go on and on, but really, why are you people supporting Bush going to complain when a Democrat takes the White House in 2008? There's no way the Democrats could have gotten as much done to further their agenda if Gore and Kerrey had been in the White House.

And some of you jump on others that point these things out for being "unsupportive of the party". Go ahead, jump on me too. After all, I'm an American, not a Republican.

 

[TurtleDude]

What SImon and the rest of the isolationists fail to understand is that there is a huge difference when the GOP occupies the WH and when the dems do. it involves the most important and lasting thing a president and his party does. APPOINTS FEDERAL JUDGES. the most important judges -in terms of most people are NOT the supreme court. Its the trial and appellate judges. Big government GOP president or a more pure conservative president-IT DOES NOT MAKE A DIFFERENCE because for those appointments it is the party in the state where the seat is located that recommends the nominees.

if SImon and the rest of his like minded "conservatives" really think Bush was no better than Kerry or Gore it merely proves he really knows very little about how important the courts are

 

[Stinger]

I stopped being a conservative after I saw the way the right wing fought the Clintons at every turn...it was a disgusting display,

Really? The only thing they fought them on was the government take over of the medical system. Other than that he didn't propose much of anything and the driving force in the 90's was the Republican congress. Now Clinton did try to fight them but he wasn't successful at it in the long run. So what exactly is it as far as a political philosophy that you gave up. What conservative priniciples did you believe before that you gave up because you had such an affection for Clinton?

 

[TurtleDude]

Really? The only thing they fought them on was the government take over of the medical system. Other than that he didn't propose much of anything and the driving force in the 90's was the Republican congress. Now Clinton did try to fight them but he wasn't successful at it in the long run. So what exactly is it as far as a political philosophy that you gave up. What conservative priniciples did you believe before that you gave up because you had such an affection for Clinton?

sound argument. There appears to be lots of NEOLIBERALS these days :mrgreen: :mrgreen:

 

[Hoot]

Really? The only thing they fought them on was the government take over of the medical system.

Are you serious? Do you really want me to embarrass you by listing all the ways republicans fought the White House under the Clintons?! Do your own research...I suggest you read "The Hunting of the President," 'The 10 year campaign to destroy Bill and Hillary Clinton.' I have the book right in front of me, if you really want the sordid, sickening, well-financed, power mad attemps to destroy American Democracy.

Of course, you would never read anything that might offend your view of the republican party...and right here, I readily admit that much of what the republicans attempted to do was brought on by Bill's own recklessness, but that doesn't forgive the millions spent to embarrass our nation and usurp power.

Other than that he didn't propose much of anything and the driving force in the 90's was the Republican congress.

Clinton made a ton of proposals...from education..Pell grants...deficit reduction, terrorism efforts, tax proposals, public investment, education and schools, healthcare, housing vouchers, crime and violence, trade, minimum wage, equal pay, columbia drug fighting, Bio-medical research, science and technology...etc...etc...blah blah blah...Frankly Stinger, you only show your own narrow minded biased opinion when you come on this forum and state Clinton didn't propose much of anything. Please get serious.

Why are you such a Clinton hater? I don't hate Bush. Clinton isn't president any longer...what is it that causes such deep rooted hatred for one man? Not healthy, Stinger.

What conservative priniciples did you believe before that you gave up because you had such an affection for Clinton?

I didn't say I had such an affection for Clinton, so please do not 'spin' my words. I grew up in a republican household..both my older brother and sister are staunch republicans...I've voted for republicans, including reagan. Bush is no reagan, and never will be.

I resented the way organizations like the Conservative Political Action Committee had no thought or care about the lies they spread about the White House and the harm it might do our nation...their only concern was a grasp of power...that's when I began to see this new form of republicans, as not the fiscally conservative republicans my parents grew up with, but a reckless form of new breed...out for themselves, even at the expense of our democracy.

Besides, I like the fact that when dems spend money, they actually expect us to pay for their spending...maybe through the evil of tax increases, yes, but that's a far better proposition for the future of our nation then the spend and borrow and pass the bill onto future generation republicans that we now have holding power.

I hope that answered your question.

 

[JKD COBRA]

Or, perhaps the people who voted for him weren't conservatives.

Or, perhaps you're trying to draw the exceptionally fine line of distinction between borrow-and-spend big-government liberals and borrow-and-spend big-government conservatives.

Or, perhaps your tautology isn't well founded.

hahah, I don't think I have ever met someone who talked like that. Sorry man, I don't debate someones opinion, I debate facts. You can go use your big words with someone else. :2wave:

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

I've said it a thousand time so I'll say it again: "Bush is not a conservative president!" He's more liberal than Clinton eg expansion of federal government, and ridiculous spending, however, I support the way he has conducted much of the war on terror eg bringing the fight to the enemy but there is still much room for improvement. So I gave him a 30-60% I fall b/e 45-50% support. I'd still vote for him over Kerry or Gore any time though, we don't need a war protester as prez during ww3.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

What SImon and the rest of the isolationists fail to understand is that there is a huge difference when the GOP occupies the WH and when the dems do. it involves the most important and lasting thing a president and his party does. APPOINTS FEDERAL JUDGES. the most important judges -in terms of most people are NOT the supreme court. Its the trial and appellate judges. Big government GOP president or a more pure conservative president-IT DOES NOT MAKE A DIFFERENCE because for those appointments it is the party in the state where the seat is located that recommends the nominees.

if SImon and the rest of his like minded "conservatives" really think Bush was no better than Kerry or Gore it merely proves he really knows very little about how important the courts are

Yeah. Judges are important. But its not the most important aspect of the Presidency. What is?

Well, the Constitution calls the presidency the "Executive Branch". I suspect the framers believed that the president's primary role was to faithfully enforce the laws passed by congress, and to veto those laws he believed violated it.

The presidential oath of office is:

""I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Bush hasn't done that.


Then there's the Commander in Chief thing.

Make treaties, appoint ambassadors, and towards the end it mentions appointing judges to the "Supreme Court".

No, judges may be important, and frankly I haven't had any reason to complain about the judges Bush has nominated, outside of the Magical Mystery Miers broad, but there's too much other things of immediate importance.

And he's blowing those.

The Invasion from Mexico is totally ignored.

The Invaion of the Body Snatchers is complete. How else to explain former balanced budget whiners afflicted with unlimited-credit-card-itis?

Not one bit of the liberal socialist agenda has been slowed, let alone halted or better yet, reversed. Not one.

That BS the Repubbies gave us about "gradualism"? Sounded reasonable the first year they had the White House. It's nonsense, now.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

The problem isn't that the Republicans fought the Clinton notions in the 1990's.

The problem is the Republicans promoting the Clinton agenda under Bush.

 

[Thorgasm]

IF FDR had not imposed the NEW Deal on the nation, the power of the government to run up deficits would have been much limited.

If Jimmy Carter had dealt with the Iranian bandits properly, we wouldn't be in this war now

Yeah, Carter and his Iran-Contra fiasco, :rofl
Carter never should have armed Iran and Iraq at the same time. He should have never armed the Mujahadeen fighters either. Look where Carter got us!

 

[TurtleDude]

Yeah, Carter and his Iran-Contra fiasco, :rofl
Carter never should have armed Iran and Iraq at the same time. He should have never armed the Mujahadeen fighters either. Look where Carter got us!

interesting non answer- as clever in its avoidance as it is erroneous in its claims.

Carter -instead of arming the mujahadeen (which drove the soviets out) ruined the dreams of our Olympic athletes and did nothing to get the Russians out

so very typically liberal-punish innocent americans while harming the criminals absolutely not. sort of like the gun control the liberals love in this nation

 

[FiremanRyan]

those of you that say things like "you cant be a real GOP'er if you dont support Bush" are hard to take seriously when you all call yourselves conservative while you support a president thats from from that.

i know what i am and i know where i stand on issues like immigration, foreign policy, spending, etc. and without a doubt im a conservative, yet Bush's actions differ from those views almost 80% of the time. one thing that isnt true is that 'im buying into the media BS'. this has nothing to do with what i see in the media, rather the lack there of.

 

[Thorgasm]

interesting non answer- as clever in its avoidance as it is erroneous in its claims.

Carter -instead of arming the mujahadeen (which drove the soviets out) ruined the dreams of our Olympic athletes and did nothing to get the Russians out

so very typically liberal-punish innocent americans while harming the criminals absolutely not. sort of like the gun control the liberals love in this nation

I know, Carter would have been a hero if he would have armed our future enemies. I guess he didn't have that kind of vision.

 

[DeeJayH]

Carter didn't leave a deficit that will take 200 some odd years to pay off.

that is so absurd
due to the strong economy we have, as a result of Bushs Tax Cuts for every one who pays taxes, and the disgusting amount of federal spending, the Income to the Treasury is at a high
the deficit is shrinking, and will be gone shortly after Bush leaves office
that is unless Dems seize control in 08 and ruin the economy with tax increases

 

[Thorgasm]

that is so absurd
due to the strong economy we have, as a result of Bushs Tax Cuts for every one who pays taxes, and the disgusting amount of federal spending, the Income to the Treasury is at a high
the deficit is shrinking, and will be gone shortly after Bush leaves office
that is unless Dems seize control in 08 and ruin the economy with tax increases

Wow, can you cite a source that says that the deficit will be gone shortly after Bush leaves office. That is a new one to me. China might own us shortly after Bush leaves office.

 

[cnredd]

Wow, can you cite a source that says that the deficit will be gone shortly after Bush leaves office. That is a new one to me. China might own us shortly after Bush leaves office.

This goes beyond comprehension...

Find out who has more of an investment...The US in China or China in the US...then get back to me...:roll:

 

[Simon W. Moon]

What SImon and the rest of the isolationists fail to understand...

What you failed to understand despite my direct statement, is that I'm not an isolationist.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

hahah, I don't think I have ever met someone who talked like that. Sorry man, I don't debate someones opinion, I debate facts. You can go use your big words with someone else.

I'll try to keep my posts monosyllabic when addressing you if that what it'll take.

I mean, I'll use small words.

 

[Thorgasm]

This goes beyond comprehension...

Find out who has more of an investment...The US in China or China in the US...then get back to me...:roll:

Funny how a moderator can't cite a source. Of course China has their flags and clothes made here in the USA. Their furniture is made here also. Of course all of their flatware is made here. They eats tons of American fish. The list goes on and on. Remember when you could buy things "Made in USA"?

 

[Quid Pro Quo]

As you can see, the US accounts for only 14.8% of China's trade. We are tied with Japan (14.8%), but behind Europe (15.5%) and the countries of the Pacific rim excluding Japan (34.9%). the latter include Hong Kong, Singapore, Taiwan, Mayalsia, Indonesia, Australia, New Zealand, Thailand, Phillipines, and the smaller members of ASEAN. The final 20% is "Other", which includes Russia, Canada, Mexico, Venezuela and others.

http://www.rutledgeblog.com/askrutl/archives/cat_global_economy.html

• The rapidly growing U.S. trade deficit with China is directly linked to the growth of multinational firms operating in China. Of China's more than $200 billion in exports in 1998, over 40% had their source in multinational firms operating in China (Ministry of Foreign Trade and Economic Cooperation 2000).

• The activities of U.S. multinational firms, together with China's protectionist trade policies, have had a significant role in increasing the U.S. trade deficit with China. A 10% increase in the level of U.S. direct investment in an industry in China is associated with a 7.3% increase in the volume of U.S. imports from China and a 2.1% decline in U.S. exports to China in that industry.

http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/briefingpapers_fdi_fdi

 

[Hoot]

that is so absurd
due to the strong economy we have, as a result of Bushs Tax Cuts for every one who pays taxes, and the disgusting amount of federal spending, the Income to the Treasury is at a high
the deficit is shrinking, and will be gone shortly after Bush leaves office
that is unless Dems seize control in 08 and ruin the economy with tax increases

It's amazing to me that someone actually believes this?!

Do a bit more research and get back to me...say, on a term like "U.S. Deficit." I'll even allow you to chose the links you want to read. What could be fairer then that?

Have you heard the new proposal? We may not be able to claim our state and local taxes anymore as a federal deduction on our income taxes...if those in charge have their way? ( we all know who's in charge)