Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
If you people believe with all your heart and all your might that government is the problem, then why should the American people elect people with such beliefs to serve in government offices?
Wouldn't that be like a self-fulfilling prophecy or something?
The mother of all self-conflicting interests if you will.
Excuse me, good sir--conservatives believe that Government is the problem only during two points in their political life!!
1)When Conservatives are bout to lose power
2)When non-conservatives have power!!
See,to a conservative, government is the problem whenever a Leftist gains or about to gain power. Understand now??
___If you people believe with all your heart and all your might that government is the problem, then why should the American people elect people with such beliefs to serve in government offices?
Wouldn't that be like a self-fulfilling prophecy or something?
The mother of all self-conflicting interests if you will.
Excuse me, good sir--conservatives believe that Government is the problem only during two points in their political life!!
1)When Conservatives are bout to lose power
2)When non-conservatives have power!!
See,to a conservative, government is the problem whenever a Leftist gains or about to gain power. Understand now??
Damn, you seriously don't know much do you?
There are some Conservatives, *not Neo-Cons* that think the last Admin had too much power.. as in, they weren't really for Small Government, on the other hand it was an Expansion of Government, which I'm against..
You should look up the difference between Conservatives and Neo Cons.
Next time, don't label us Conservatives Neo-Cons.
All of you self-proclaimed "conservatives" and RWers are neo-cons.
If you supported Bush twice, that means you.
If you sat silently by during his regime, this means you.
If you get upset everytime someone brings up Bush's litany of failures, this means you.
As long as you defend Bush, you're a neo-con.
Most to all the self-proclaimed "conservatives" on this site fit this description.
Wear your Neo-Con tag with pride....you've earned it.
All of you self-proclaimed "conservatives" and RWers are neo-cons.
If you supported Bush twice, that means you.
If you sat silently by during his regime, this means you.
If you get upset everytime someone brings up Bush's litany of failures, this means you.
As long as you defend Bush, you're a neo-con.
Most to all the self-proclaimed "conservatives" on this site fit this description.
Wear your Neo-Con tag with pride....you've earned it.
I couldn't Vote for Bush neither in '00 or '04.
Sat Silently? No, I despised his Expansion of Government.
Nope not really, there are alot of failures in every Admin, and of course there are Accomplishments. But i can turn the table here and point out Accomplishments of Bush you guys cry and cry and go into Denial.
I defend Bush on his Accomplishment of keeping America safe for 7 years, and his involvement against Malaria and Poverty in Africa.
You're just another Self-Righteous Liberal, that's all.
All of you self-proclaimed "conservatives" and RWers are neo-cons.
If you supported Bush twice, that means you.
If you sat silently by during his regime, this means you.
If you get upset everytime someone brings up Bush's litany of failures, this means you.
As long as you defend Bush, you're a neo-con.
Most to all the self-proclaimed "conservatives" on this site fit this description.
Wear your Neo-Con tag with pride....you've earned it.
I couldn't Vote for Bush neither in '00 or '04.
Sat Silently? No, I despised his Expansion of Government.
Nope not really, there are alot of failures in every Admin, and of course there are Accomplishments. But i can turn the table here and point out Accomplishments of Bush you guys cry and cry and go into Denial.
I defend Bush on his Accomplishment of keeping America safe for 7 years, and his involvement against Malaria and Poverty in Africa.
You're just another Self-Righteous Liberal, that's all.
Well said!
And neither of those two have yet to come up with an applicable definition of "neocon". They initiate a thread they actually know nothing about.
Bush had his positives - helping to keep us safe after 9-11 being one of them - though the Patriot Act had its faults. The tax cuts were good - the massive increases in spending were not.
What Obama appears intent on doing is taking the faults of Bush and doubling down on them - particularly in the areas of the debt and expansion of the federal government.
Conservatives began backing off from Bush around 2004. If the Democrats had nominated a more moderate candidate than neocon John Kerry, Bush would likely have lost re-election. When the Bush White House released figures showing the Medicare Drug Benefit package was going to cost nearly double the estimates - over 1 trillion dollar for 10 years, I myself was immersed at the state level in creating opposition to the Bush administration's domestic programs. The state Republicans were split at that point, which mirrored what was going on country wide and ultimately represented in the 2006 midterm elections that saw Democrats running as the party of "not them".
Now these roles have been reversed yet again heading into 2010. Many who voted for Democrats in 2006 and 2008 are returning to conservatism - to the benefit of the GOP which is trying to send a more cohesive message that while having lost their way for a decade, they are willing to return to the conservative principles that they once stood for. Again at my own state level I see much more unity than just one year ago when the party remained split and many would-be voters sitting out the 2008 elections in protest of not having a candidate they felt represented true American conservatism. That dissatisfaction is lessening - though we still await a unifying national figure. (that figure is emerging soon I believe)
As for the "neocons", they, being the opportunists they have always been, are immersed in the Democrat Party (see: DLC) - and an ideological battle is now being waged by the far-left "progressives" and the big government - military interventionist neocons. At present, it appears the neocons are running the show within the White House. (It is speculated White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel is himself a neocon adherent)
your a Conservative Jake?.....if so how come i never see you defending any right leaning thoughts on this forum?.....you defend every leftist policy being debated,you seem to argue with every "RIGHTY" .....what gives?...
Not at all, Harry. I believe in a smaller government, smaller civil service, less taxes, no privitazation when government can provide the service better, etc. I would do oppose are the neo-cons, preventive intervention a la Iraq, privitazation a al Halliburton, non interventionism.
your a Conservative Jake?.....if so how come i never see you defending any right leaning thoughts on this forum?.....you defend every leftist policy being debated,you seem to argue with every "RIGHTY" .....what gives?...
Not at all, Harry. I believe in a smaller government, smaller civil service, less taxes, no privitazation when government can provide the service better, etc. I would do oppose are the neo-cons, preventive intervention a la Iraq, privitazation a al Halliburton, non interventionism.
ok....but i never see you siding on a point that even Moderate Republicans bring up around here....you are allways siding with guys like Rdean and Zona....and those 2 are as far left as you can get...
your a Conservative Jake?.....if so how come i never see you defending any right leaning thoughts on this forum?.....you defend every leftist policy being debated,you seem to argue with every "RIGHTY" .....what gives?...
Not at all, Harry. I believe in a smaller government, smaller civil service, less taxes, no privitazation when government can provide the service better, etc. I would do oppose are the neo-cons, preventive intervention a la Iraq, privitazation a al Halliburton, non interventionism.
ok....but i never see you siding on a point that even Moderate Republicans bring up around here....you are allways siding with guys like Rdean and Zona....and those 2 are as far left as you can get...
You see guys...Jake is NOT a neo-con, so he's not busy defending Bush's litany of failures like the rest of you neo-cons. That's why you perceive, with your neo-con eyes and mind, that Jake must be a lefty, since he's not busy defending the neo-con Bush's litany of failures over the past 8 years.
Snap out of it!!!
You see guys...Jake is NOT a neo-con, so he's not busy defending Bush's litany of failures like the rest of you neo-cons. That's why you perceive, with your neo-con eyes and mind, that Jake must be a lefty, since he's not busy defending the neo-con Bush's litany of failures over the past 8 years.
Snap out of it!!!
Who is defending Bush's littany of failures?
And you have yet to give your own working definition of "neocon".
Once you have done so, apply it to the Obama administration and see how it has become infected with the same philosophy...
No, Sinatra, answered and done. Your definition is wrong and skewed. That has been pointed out to you, you are wrong, and now you are engaged in immoral stubborness (a neo-con fault to a T ~ side pun that!).
"Bush kept America safe for 7 years...?"
BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!
That rich!
That's so vague and generic that it could be said about every single previous president before him.
