Question for Conservatives (1 Viewer)

[Hoot]

Since all the Republicans are ignoring my question, I've decided to post my query in a new thread.

I want all you conservatives to be honest with yourselves...take a good long look in the mirror before you answer this question.

Why?

Because I believe many conservatives, and yes Dems, vote not by facts, but by feelings.

Here's the question...

Suppose Clinton were in office and through arrogance, assumptions and contradictions, he led us into a war that has cost us over 1300 of our best, with over 10,000 wounded, who signed every spending bill into law that crossed his desk and led our nation into unheard of deficits and unpayable debt, and made much of the world doubt our intentions and our honesty?

You'd be screaming for Bill's bloody head on a stick!

I know it's difficult, if not impossible, to be honest with yourselves, but you conservatives would not be supporting Clinton the way you're blindly supporting Bush.

I'm a liberal, but even I would not be a strong supporter of Clinton had he done this to our nation.

 

[Jufarius87]

you are partially correct the deficit is terrible and bush hasnt helped but it isnt completely his fault either both parties in congress (and the executive level) have been passing the pork around at the expense of joe american so that they can get special interest at their side an example of this would be tom daschle's 180 billion in farm subsidies to the wealthiest of farmers, and he is a democrat! also we have been paying for africa aid bills the tsunami we have been paying for the war (hey 4 countries told bush he had wmd's and saddam didnt comply so it aint his fault)

also the tax break took a third of the clinton surplus but hey it spurred economic growth

basically what you saw was bush building back up clintons mess of an army (how do you think he freed up that surplus money? the military payed early...)
but in addition to this he himself and congress have passed tons of pork barrel legislation which is making the deficit bigger

bush is a neo conservative he is not nessicarily big govt although he is like the democrats a big spender i would like to go back to semi libertarian reagenomics and cut the pork barrel projects

hey in conclusion though bush>kerry imo

 

[Schweddy]

Because I believe many conservatives, and yes Dems, vote not by facts, but by feelings.

Here's the question...

Suppose Clinton were in office and through arrogance, assumptions and contradictions, he led us into a war that has cost us over 1300 of our best, with over 10,000 wounded, who signed every spending bill into law that crossed his desk and led our nation into unheard of deficits and unpayable debt, and made much of the world doubt our intentions and our honesty?

- The economy was going downhill before Bush came into office. He hasn't "led" into unheard of deficits - last I checked CONGRESS has to pass his plan.

- Clinton is more arrogant than Bush. His honesty was questioned as well.

- When has Bush contradicted himself?

- I agree with the spending bills. Personally I think it is all politics and he was giving the dems what they wanted so the republicans can get what they wanted.

- I personally wanted Clintons head when I thought that he lied to the grand jury.

- I will not loose sleep if Germany or France doesn't like us. Thier history has shown that they have not made the smartest choices.

 

[Schweddy]

Thread moved from polls to dicsussion Forum.

 

[pwo]

The answer to your question would be yes. But, that's a loaded question.

 

[Mr.America]

What? This is asinine! Weather you think a president lead us into a war with or without reason should not be accepted as a factual statement, but as an opinion. But to answer your question, if "I" thought the war was unnessicary I would be angry at Clinton.

 

[pwo]

"What? This is asinine! Weather you think a president lead us into a war with or without reason should not be accepted as a factual statement, but as an opinion. But to answer your question, if "I" thought the war was unnessicary I would be angry at Clinton."
Mr. America

Exactly, a loaded question.

 

[heyjoeo]

They are just afraid to say yes.

 

[Jack Dawson]

When you lose 3,000 fellow Americans you support WHOMEVER

is President. That may be the difference between liberals and conservatives. I personally believe the conservatives would support Clinton and also believe the LIBERALS would have turned on him. The economy was tubing in September BEFORE the elections.

To my liberal friends. You lost the election not only for President, but for the House and Senate as well. I heard Harry Reid say there is nothing WRONG with your message. The votes don't back him up.

When you come to grips with the fact you are OUT OF TOUCH with MOST of America you will begin to rebound. Until that time you will continue to lose. I personally hope you get Howard Dean as your leader, that will INCREASE the lead in both the house and Senate and only help the Republicans

The Democrats TALK about being what America looks like when in fact it is the Republican Party that LOOKS LIKE AMERICA. African-American, Puerto Rican, Hispanics all comprise the TOP leadership of the Bush administration. You liberals talk the talk but can't name an African-American of any stature in your party, a union leader of any stature in your party, a gay of any stature in your party and for that matter when the likes of Barbara Boxer represent the female side of your party she does a pitiful job. Let me say this LIBS - Keep up the good work - you are great, keep doing what you are doing, I personally love your politics of whining, scare tactics and hate because it has completely backfired on you.
.

 

[heyjoeo]

Re: When you lose 3,000 fellow Americans you support WHOMEVER

It looks "like America" because the inclusion of minorities into top positions is an appeal to that very group: the minorities. Why? to get votes.

 

[pwo]

I said yes!!!

And we don't have to do anything to get votes. Conservatives just say what they mean. If you agree, then great. If not then oh well. We'll beat the liberals anyway.

 

[anomaly]

I would just like to point out something that even the strongest Bush supporter can agree with. Mr. Jack Dawson rightly pointed out that "When you lose 3000 Americans you support whomever is president." Even I, a strong liberal, supported Bush's war against Afghanistan. But the point I'm making is that 9/11 saved Bush's ass. Just think about it. Before 9/11 really the only thing people were looking at was Bush's handling of the economy, and he was doing a terrible job. His approval rating were dwindling, getting below 50%. But then 9/11! And we all, of course, supported Bush because we were shocked at what these terrorists had done. I'm not spreading any conspiracy here, I don't think Bush had anything to do with 9/11 nor did he know about it beforehand. It's just an interesting observation...9/11 turned out to be politically beneficial to Bush. In fact, I believe that that his handling of 9/11 and Afghanistan are the only good things Bush has done in 4 years.

 

[Schweddy]

Before 9/11 really the only thing people were looking at was Bush's handling of the economy, and he was doing a terrible job.

Bush was given an economy that was in recession. There was nothing he could have done with only 8 months in office. BTW, the economy is doing excellent now - thanks to good ole President Bush.

In a few weeks, I will be recieving 15.5% profit check from my base pay! I'm not complaining.

 

[Jufarius87]

yea bush has done a great job for the economy saying otherwise is a liberal lie clinton basically handed bush a recession and he did exactly what needed to be done to fix the problem, he lowered taxes

as far as outsourcing goes the #1 kerry campaign issue clinton didnt stop outsourcing no dem can stop outsourcing without damageing the stock market and causing the price of consumer goods to skyrocket not to mention the benefits outsourcing has in the areas of research and development and wall street

 

[heyjoeo]

Outsourcing is going to happen. Period.

And you are absolutely wrong. The solution to a recession is more taxes. I forget the economic rule that is applied to that. I read it somewhere, I'll try asking my teacher because we did it in class.

 

[Schweddy]

Outsourcing is going to happen. Period.

And you are absolutely wrong. The solution to a recession is more taxes. I forget the economic rule that is applied to that. I read it somewhere, I'll try asking my teacher because we did it in class.

So, the solution for "The Great Depression" and the 70's oil shortage (aka global depression) were incorrect? Your teacher might want to rethink his position.

 

[Hoot]

yea bush has done a great job for the economy saying otherwise is a liberal lie clinton basically handed bush a recession and he did exactly what needed to be done to fix the problem, he lowered taxes

Just a quick comment, as I've heard this alot from the conservatives on this forum.

A recession is defined as two quarters of negative growth.
This happened under the Bush administration, not Clinton's.
Yes...the economy was slowing down at the end of Clinton's term, but it was still growing, albeit at a slower rate.

I believe a President should take some responsibility for the state of the economy, and Bush's bantering stupid terms like..."The warning light is on the dashboard of the economy" and throwing the word "recession" around constantly during his campaign, did nothing to inspire consumer confidence.

Many noted economists swear that the two quarters of negative growth occurred during Bush's administration.

Of course, that's republican spin working again...blame it on Clinton.

 

[Schweddy]

Of course it's Bush's fault. Look above to see all the details about how everything was flourishing and we were heading to economic bliss with Clinton when he handed the chain of command over.

Senate Joint Economic Committee

 

[Jufarius87]

increased taxes=less consumer spending and more frivalous govt spending
less taxes=more consumer spending and fixing the economy using that great american tool of capitalism

clinton's economy was weakening at the end clinton essentially handed bush an economic hand grenade with the pin pulled out for an inaugral gift

 

[craigfarmer]

you are partially correct the deficit is terrible and bush hasnt helped but it isnt completely his fault either both parties in congress (and the executive level) have been passing the pork around at the expense of joe american so that they can get special interest at their side an example of this would be tom daschle's 180 billion in farm subsidies to the wealthiest of farmers, and he is a democrat! also we have been paying for africa aid bills the tsunami we have been paying for the war (hey 4 countries told bush he had wmd's and saddam didnt comply so it aint his fault)

also the tax break took a third of the clinton surplus but hey it spurred economic growth

basically what you saw was bush building back up clintons mess of an army (how do you think he freed up that surplus money? the military payed early...)
but in addition to this he himself and congress have passed tons of pork barrel legislation which is making the deficit bigger

bush is a neo conservative he is not nessicarily big govt although he is like the democrats a big spender i would like to go back to semi libertarian reagenomics and cut the pork barrel projects

hey in conclusion though bush>kerry imo

It's dissappointing the lack of economic knowledge in our great land. The deficit is not "terrible". It is a great mechanism in our free-market system. People who don't wish to consume the benefits of their work, get to save it in a safe vehicle. Meanwhile as a nation we are able to do many long-term projects via long-term planning.

Those worrying about lenders refusing to continue to borrow, or controlling the U.S. via the purse strings. It won't happen. We have this wonderful institution called the millitary.

What we need is informed opinion, seeking to do what's best for the American people.

Craig Farmer
making the word "liberal" safe again!

 

[CSA_TX]

Per heyjoeo

It looks "like America" because the inclusion of minorities into top positions is an appeal to that very group: the minorities. Why? to get votes

This is a very funny reply. I have heard it many times from the left side however it is false. Lets take one of my favorites Condi Rice. Wow have you seen her resume.

Dr. Rice has a portfolio of impeccable credentials. Condi Rice was born in Birmingham Alabama of Jamaican parents November 14, 1954. She entered University at age 15 with the intention of becoming a consort pianist. Condi Rice received her bachelor’s degree in political science cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa form the University of Denver in 1974. She earned a Masters degree from the University of Notre Dame in 1975, She earned a PhD from the Graduate School of International Studies from the University of Denver in 1981. Dr. Rice speaks English, Russian, French and Spanish.

Dr. Rice has an impressive record of achievements in her post graduate career. She’s served on the boards of several international corporations, [this of course will smudge her credentials with liberals.] Dr. Rice served in the first George Bush administration. Dr. Rice is a tenured Professor at Stanford University She served as Provost of Stanford University from 1993 to 1999. She’s on the boards of several philanthropic and cultural originations. Dr. Rice has accumulated six additional PhD degrees awarding her contributions to education and government service,

She looks very qualified to have any position in the govenment to me. Isn't it funny how the left bring up the color of her skin as to why she was hired while the right looks at her qualifications.

 

[heyjoeo]

I'm not discrediting her resume. Why would the GOP pick a stupid person to be in office? Oh wait....I guess GWB....scratch that.

 

[skabanger13]

Every one can say all thay want about good old George w Bush, bottom line the American people spoke thay said GWB 4more years. Dont you love our great country, the majority saw that kerry was a IDIOT and Bush was good for the country im glad to see the system works. I only wish I could vote for Bush agen in 2008, and also i love to see what sore loosers the liberals and democrats are and how much you hate the fact Bush won, and by quit a bit i might add. hears to you :fu
Oh and i would like to add that i was in the Armey under clinton, he dident give a crap about the millatery, pay sucked. As soon as Bush got in offices he started taking care of us and under his leader shipe, he started giving the millatery raises, ther still under paid considering what thay are asked to saceriface and the importance of ther job, but at least Bush reconized the fact that we wher so under paid and did somthing about it, and that is why i will allways stand behind my President. I am proud to be a Texan but above all i am proud to be an American.

 

[alienken]

The WMD subject started with Clinton. He made aspeach that sounded very much like Pres. Bush. Clinton had all the support he needed from the Dems. but when Pres. Bush says the same things that Clinton did, Dems. said thimgs like-"lied to the people", "war was dreamed up in Texas(Sen. Kennedy)","it's about the oil(funds from oil go to the Iraqi people now)". It's true there would have been critizism on Clinton but I truelly think(NOT feel) conservatives would not nit pick and do less to support our enemies than the dems. are now. I am a conservative and I support the pres. and this war on terror. I base my views on logic steered by values. In fact, I am so logical I find it difficult, and sometimes imposible to debate an emotioal liberal.

 

[Schweddy]

In fact, I am so logical I find it difficult, and sometimes imposible to debate an emotional liberal.

Here here! :wcm to both of you.

The reason I created this forum was for everyone to debate freely. I am conservative, but I hope that the board itself does not condone any postition. There are many logical liberals. There are also many mis-informed conservatives as well. Then there are the folks that just do not know. We have both conservative and liberal moderators. Most of the time the moderators are not needed because intelligent discourse has taken the lead.

My personal goal is to try understand what at first I think is an illogical position - hey I may be so far biased that I don't see something for what it is really worth.