Conservatives Still Wildly Support Bush

[DiamondDave]

You agreed with taking Iraq away from Saddam and making it an ally to Iran?

You supported spending all that money and in the end its going to be Mook Tada El Sadr running Iraq?

You are a fool.

Key word you used about defense/military spending. "military spending that WAS NEEDED"?? He spent a lot more than was needed. So the the GOP is not the party for you, because they will spend enough to warrent keeping your taxes high. So you don't mind big government spending. I see. As long as it isn't spent on poor people. But if they spend it on bombs and fleece us thru defense, you don't mind. So stop begging for tax cuts, because your military spending doesn't justify a tax cut.

And Bush did cut social programs for poor people. But what you don't know is that even though he did, still:

When you strip away defense, homeland security and entitlements and adjust for inflation, leaving only discretionary domestic spending, George W. Bush has grown the federal government at a faster pace than even Lyndon Baines Johnson," Viguerie writes from conservativeshq.com.

When Bush's second term is over, there's every reason to expect that Bush will hold the record as the president who's grown the federal government at its fastest pace in modern times.

Trying to feed more words in moron? No... I supported taking out Saddam's regime in a time where there was much more security issues.. I support and supported his efforts in helping Iraq form a free constitution based government... Is it gonna be Jeffersonian? Nope... But it is a good start and a good thing...

I do not mind defense spending, as it is the central charge of the federal government.... do I think we "overspent"? Nope... proper military funding costs, and so do military operations...

Bush did not cut enough entitlements and did not cut more useless crap from the budget... This IS where I have disagreed with him over the entire 7+ years

And I am not asking for "tax cuts"... I am asking for equal percentage taxation.... and huge spending cuts in areas where the government has no business having a presence

 

[Gunny]

Got a point there Gunny, you forgot though, she also has a misguided superiority complex.

In all honesty though, despite her rantings, a basically nice person.

Yes, she is a nice person. I'll give you that. I just don't know how some people can process information the way they do.

 

[Annie]

Yes, she is a nice person. I'll give you that. I just don't know how some people can process information the way they do.

But if you understood that, you'd be like them. I'm happy to remain ignorant of that process. I've grown a bit more tolerant in the past few years too, that helps.

 

[editec]

you forgot that he promised to lower taxes for 95% of us.

No, I didn't, Willow.

He can always do the Republican game of lower taxes while increasing the national debt.

At this stage of the game I am opposed to him raising the taxes even on the super-duper wealthy, too.

Things changed considerable in the last few months, so his policies must change to reflect that reality.

Agreed?

 

[mash107]

Well, putting aside all the partisan bickering that now dominates this thread, now we all get to see how a DEMOCRATIC POTUS will do with a democratically dominated congress.

From perspective anything less than FDR on sterioids is going to fail to deal with the problems that are foremost on my mind.

Hands off guns issues, completely ignore all the devisive NON-issues that the so called conservatives care so damned much about, and focus full attention on the economy, and energy policy that gets the USA off this carbon train to disaster we're riding, and do it ASAP.


All I expect from Obama is a radical rethink of TRADE policy, ENERGY POLICY, LABOR POLICY, THE FED and BANKING LAWS, PLUS about finding about five trillion dollars devoted to ENTIRELY to putting AMERICANS back to work.

Piece of cake, eh?

We've had an FDR on steroids, and his name was Bush. The most socialist President we've ever had in America. He's nationalized the banking industry. He's working to nationalize the car industry. These policies have simply failed. He's gone to war, unwittingly, and that's the most socialistic action one can take. I'd love to see what this change Obama is talking about, because I doubt he'll support liberty in our markets instead of all this government control that we got from Bush.

We need free markets in everything from health care (look at what government did when they tried to intervene the first time-- they created HMOs), to cars, to energy. We need free trade, because the more choices a consumer has, the healthier the economy is. It's really astonishing protectionists say, "It's better for our economy when consumers have no choices." We need to abolish the Fed, so government doesn't have control over our money. We need to leave those $5 trillion dollars in the hands of people, not Paulsen and his rich buddies, to create jobs down the line. If Obama backs any of those notions, than he'll be the change candidate that he calls himself. Until then, it's complete bullshit.

 

[QUENTIN]

I do not mind defense spending, as it is the central charge of the federal government

Where does it say this?

 

[DiamondDave]

Where does it say this?

In the very beginning of the constitution itself, it is the one thing that the federal government is charged to provide for... the defense and the inherent spending on the military and national defense is essential in all other charges of the federal government... for without the national or common defense, there is no ensuring domestic tranquility, promotion of the general welfare, etc

Defense of the country is always the main focus of the government of that country... we have this defense to be able to exercise our individual rights and freedoms to succeed or fail on our own within this country... that defense and defense spending ensures that we can have our system of laws and law enforcement... ensures we protect our freedoms and rights

If you put entitlement, or other things first.. the setup of the system is inherently flawed

 

[mash107]

In the very beginning of the constitution itself, it is the one thing that the federal government is charged to provide for... the defense and the inherent spending on the military and national defense is essential in all other charges of the federal government... for without the national or common defense, there is no ensuring domestic tranquility, promotion of the general welfare, etc

Defense of the country is always the main focus of the government of that country... we have this defense to be able to exercise our individual rights and freedoms to succeed or fail on our own within this country... that defense and defense spending ensures that we can have our system of laws and law enforcement... ensures we protect our freedoms and rights

If you put entitlement, or other things first.. the setup of the system is inherently flawed

Wait, first you're saying that our defense spending is high to ensure domestic tranquility? Since when can troops be used to ensure that? See Posse Comitatus.

Posse Comitatus Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Secondly, our freedoms and rights come despite the government, not because of it. Remember Great Britain and all their warmongering that our Founders protested? That's a large reason why they rebelled. They taxed us to go to war, and we didn't have any say in the matter. No taxation without representation, they said.

Welfare is the same type of socialism as Warfare. They both destroy freedom and prosperity.

 

[Annie]

Wait, first you're saying that our defense spending is high to ensure domestic tranquility? Since when can troops be used to ensure that? See Posse Comitatus.

Posse Comitatus Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Secondly, our freedoms and rights come despite the government, not because of it. Remember Great Britain and all their warmongering that our Founders protested? That's a large reason why they rebelled. They taxed us to go to war, and we didn't have any say in the matter. No taxation without representation, they said.

Welfare is the same type of socialism as Warfare. They both destroy freedom and prosperity.

Actually the colonists were not upset about all the wars and such, only that victory for Britain did not translate to victory for colonists, aka Ohio Valley. That the Brits 'sold out' to the Indians to avoid further war, THEN tried to tax them, well there was the rub.

 

[DiamondDave]

Wait, first you're saying that our defense spending is high to ensure domestic tranquility? Since when can troops be used to ensure that? See Posse Comitatus.

Posse Comitatus Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Secondly, our freedoms and rights come despite the government, not because of it. Remember Great Britain and all their warmongering that our Founders protested? That's a large reason why they rebelled. They taxed us to go to war, and we didn't have any say in the matter. No taxation without representation, they said.

Welfare is the same type of socialism as Warfare. They both destroy freedom and prosperity.

The government exists to PRESERVE those rights and freedoms... and the first charge in preserving them is defending the citizenry, country, land, interests, and government itself.... those rights or freedoms are considered to be 'endowed' upon us, but also must be protected or they will inherently disappear under the oppression and force of others

 

[QUENTIN]

In the very beginning of the constitution itself, it is the one thing that the federal government is charged to provide for... the defense and the inherent spending on the military and national defense is essential in all other charges of the federal government... for without the national or common defense, there is no ensuring domestic tranquility, promotion of the general welfare, etc

Defense of the country is always the main focus of the government of that country... we have this defense to be able to exercise our individual rights and freedoms to succeed or fail on our own within this country... that defense and defense spending ensures that we can have our system of laws and law enforcement... ensures we protect our freedoms and rights

If you put entitlement, or other things first.. the setup of the system is inherently flawed

Well, it's by no means "the one thing" the federal government is charged to provide for. They must also establish justice, promote the general welfare, insure domestic tranquality, and secure the blessings of liberty to the people and their posterity. They're all mentioned in the same breath and are intended to be performed necessarily and equally.

I get what you mean that you can't insure someone's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness if he is on fire or being bayoneted, so the idea that you must "provide for the common defense" as a prerequisite for the rest is fair enough and sensible. But that simply tasks the government with having a strong border patrol and police force. This would insure the defense of the nation and protect its people, to allow them to exercise their rights. A standing Army would only be necessary to protect the border and repel invasion.

The wars in Iraq (both times), Vietnam, Korea, the European theater of WWII, and WWI (to keep it to this century) were not defense. They were offensive foreign wars. You can argue that they were in our national interest, and they may well have been, but they were not defense and that's where the majority of military spending is going.

The war in the Pacific theater of WWII and in Afghanistan are defensive wars in that they respond to an attack, but they both also go considerably beyond what is necessary to ensure the national defense and protect the lives and rights of the people of the US, as the government is tasked to in the Constitution.

Promoting the general welfare is on equal Constitutional footing with providing for the common defense, so "entitlement" (the assurance that basic life needs are met by the government if they cannot be met by the individual) is not meant to to first or second, they both have to happen simultaneously.

 

[sealybobo]

Trying to feed more words in moron? No... I supported taking out Saddam's regime in a time where there was much more security issues.. I support and supported his efforts in helping Iraq form a free constitution based government... Is it gonna be Jeffersonian? Nope... But it is a good start and a good thing...

I do not mind defense spending, as it is the central charge of the federal government.... do I think we "overspent"? Nope... proper military funding costs, and so do military operations...

Bush did not cut enough entitlements and did not cut more useless crap from the budget... This IS where I have disagreed with him over the entire 7+ years

And I am not asking for "tax cuts"... I am asking for equal percentage taxation.... and huge spending cuts in areas where the government has no business having a presence

Saddam was not an imminent threat. You bought that story hook line and sinker. He was our dictator who got too cocky and we wanted his oil. Hell, we wanted the war as an excuse why gas went up to $4. You are a sucker!!!!

Nice mission statement on Iraq. Sorry, but that's a fairytale.

Start of a good thing? How when they are now best buddied with Iran and Mook Tada El Sadr is going to be the next dictator is that a start of a good thing? They hate us more now. How is that good? We fucked their country up and killed/displaced millions. You're still trying to sell us on bullshit? You still swallowing that horse shit?

You still don't get it. I love it!

Point number two, if you don't think they squandered money in the name of defense, then you are a jackass and that's why politicians continue to be shady. Why not when the voters are as dumb as you? Seriously.

Bush didn't cut enough entitlements. Keep saying that. Maybe it'll be believable in 4 years, you dumb mother fucker.

So basically bush didn't cut enough social services that went to the poor. So what you are saying is he wasn't a big enough cock sucker.

Or you are saying you are an even bigger cock sucker than Bush. Nice.

That'll win you elections.

 

[Toro]

I believe the way they run the poll is that they ask people "Are you a conservative, a liberal or an independent?" then ask then their opinions.

 

[garyd]

Compared to McCain and Obama yeah I'll hold my nose and take Bush. Are there people I'd rather see as Potus Damn straight. Unfortunately none of them were in at the end.

 

[Annie]

Compared to McCain and Obama yeah I'll hold my nose and take Bush. Are there people I'd rather see as Potus Damn straight. Unfortunately none of them were in at the end.

Well be that as it may, not a choice.

 

[Red Dawn]

It's more complicated than that. The Republicans lost Congress in 2006. That was primarily due to conservatives losing all respect for the neoconservatives in Congress and instead voting for - in some cases - the more conservative Democrat. 2004 was a little different since John Kerry was running for President and nobody wanted him. By 2008, conservatives were completely disgusted which explains why Obama won by millions of votes (in the popular election). I shouldn't have said conservatives would never support Bush because prior to 2004 he seemed to act somewhat like a conservative. They gave him the benefit of the doubt and I'm sure still regret that decision.

that's a nice fairytale, but I ain't buying it.

I doubt more than a few percent of self-identified partisan republicans voted for a democrat in 2006 or 2008. Why did it take you six years to realize bush was a moron anyway? You were told as far back as 2000 he was out of his league.

Bush did exactly what he promised to do. That's one thing I'll give him. He did exactly what he promised to do in his 2000 campaign: less taxes for rich, less regulations for corporations, more spending on pentagon, medicare, and education.

That's exactly what he campainged on in 2000, and he was the toast of conservatives and republicans at large. Why would cons claim they never backed bush when bush had a 90-95% approval rating among republicans for years. Did it really take cons six years to realized Bush's bullshit wouldn't work, when Al Gore and libs told you it was fuzzy math as far back as 2000?

Cons knew what they were voting for. Bush was explicit about his agenda. And cons were fine with it for years. Obviously, cons want to distance themselves from bush, and I understand they want to pretend they were "duped". Its hard to accept responsibility for failure. And cons don't want to own bush failure, or their support for his moronic agenda.

 

[DiamondDave]

Saddam was not an imminent threat. You bought that story hook line and sinker. He was our dictator who got too cocky and we wanted his oil. Hell, we wanted the war as an excuse why gas went up to $4. You are a sucker!!!!

Nice mission statement on Iraq. Sorry, but that's a fairytale.

Start of a good thing? How when they are now best buddied with Iran and Mook Tada El Sadr is going to be the next dictator is that a start of a good thing? They hate us more now. How is that good? We fucked their country up and killed/displaced millions. You're still trying to sell us on bullshit? You still swallowing that horse shit?

You still don't get it. I love it!

Point number two, if you don't think they squandered money in the name of defense, then you are a jackass and that's why politicians continue to be shady. Why not when the voters are as dumb as you? Seriously.

Bush didn't cut enough entitlements. Keep saying that. Maybe it'll be believable in 4 years, you dumb mother fucker.

So basically bush didn't cut enough social services that went to the poor. So what you are saying is he wasn't a big enough cock sucker.

Or you are saying you are an even bigger cock sucker than Bush. Nice.

That'll win you elections.

Where's the oil, asshole?

The government, other than Israel in the middle east, is the closest thing we have to a represenative and constitutional free government in the middle east besides Turkey...

you're a goddamn moron

Iraq is not in Iran's back pocket, unless we cut and run like you and your ilk wants us to do... freedom is contagious... and if you actually talk to someone who has been over there, you would have NO CLUE as to how things are changing for the better


It is sad that some of my military brethren had the BALLS to sacrifice their lives for the Iraqi people, while you still sit here and spout off your shit

 

[DiamondDave]

Well, it's by no means "the one thing" the federal government is charged to provide for. They must also establish justice, promote the general welfare, insure domestic tranquality, and secure the blessings of liberty to the people and their posterity. They're all mentioned in the same breath and are intended to be performed necessarily and equally.

I get what you mean that you can't insure someone's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness if he is on fire or being bayoneted, so the idea that you must "provide for the common defense" as a prerequisite for the rest is fair enough and sensible. But that simply tasks the government with having a strong border patrol and police force. This would insure the defense of the nation and protect its people, to allow them to exercise their rights. A standing Army would only be necessary to protect the border and repel invasion.

The wars in Iraq (both times), Vietnam, Korea, the European theater of WWII, and WWI (to keep it to this century) were not defense. They were offensive foreign wars. You can argue that they were in our national interest, and they may well have been, but they were not defense and that's where the majority of military spending is going.

The war in the Pacific theater of WWII and in Afghanistan are defensive wars in that they respond to an attack, but they both also go considerably beyond what is necessary to ensure the national defense and protect the lives and rights of the people of the US, as the government is tasked to in the Constitution.

Promoting the general welfare is on equal Constitutional footing with providing for the common defense, so "entitlement" (the assurance that basic life needs are met by the government if they cannot be met by the individual) is not meant to to first or second, they both have to happen simultaneously.

Try looking up the difference in definition between promotion and providing... you biased and partisan ass licker

 

[garyd]

It wasn't that we voted for Obama but that in a lot of Key states a hell of a lot of us just said no to the whole damn deal or voted Bob Barr.

 

[Xenophon]

It will be an interesting 4 years watching all the excuses obama supporters will make.

I'm sure there will be graphs and pie charts too.