Question for conservatives

[garyd]

Exactly cecilie.

 

[Baruch Menachem]

I am tempted to take your bait.
1) Part of the reason for the Dem victory in 06 was folks were getting real tired of Iraq. I felt bait and switched upon myself. Kerry would have had us out of there. Not with dignity, but you have to view the reality that empire is unhealthy for a democracy.
2) Kerry would have had a short recession and a slow glide downhill, with Kerry there would have been no huge bubble like the one that blew in the fall of 08. Therefore we wouldn't have had TARP, which was a Bush idea.
3) there seems to be an amazing anger at the republicans for failing to keep up with their promises from the Clinton years. Pelosi had moved congress backwards even faster, but the Republicans just blew off the goodwill they had by making reforms, and then going back on them. No one cares about the bad girl ways of Nancy. Tom DeLay annoyed folks.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I am tempted to take your bait.
1) Part of the reason for the Dem victory in 06 was folks were getting real tired of Iraq. I felt bait and switched upon myself. Kerry would have had us out of there. Not with dignity, but you have to view the reality that empire is unhealthy for a democracy.
2) Kerry would have had a short recession and a slow glide downhill, with Kerry there would have been no huge bubble like the one that blew in the fall of 08. Therefore we wouldn't have had TARP, which was a Bush idea.
3) there seems to be an amazing anger at the republicans for failing to keep up with their promises from the Clinton years. Pelosi had moved congress backwards even faster, but the Republicans just blew off the goodwill they had by making reforms, and then going back on them. No one cares about the bad girl ways of Nancy. Tom DeLay annoyed folks.

Thanks for sharing, Miss Cleo. I always enjoy these little "future prediction" shows. How about giving me my horoscope now?

 

[Baruch Menachem]

I am tempted to take your bait.
1) Part of the reason for the Dem victory in 06 was folks were getting real tired of Iraq. I felt bait and switched upon myself. Kerry would have had us out of there. Not with dignity, but you have to view the reality that empire is unhealthy for a democracy.
2) Kerry would have had a short recession and a slow glide downhill, with Kerry there would have been no huge bubble like the one that blew in the fall of 08. Therefore we wouldn't have had TARP, which was a Bush idea.
3) there seems to be an amazing anger at the republicans for failing to keep up with their promises from the Clinton years. Pelosi had moved congress backwards even faster, but the Republicans just blew off the goodwill they had by making reforms, and then going back on them. No one cares about the bad girl ways of Nancy. Tom DeLay annoyed folks.

Thanks for sharing, Miss Cleo. I always enjoy these little "future prediction" shows. How about giving me my horoscope now?

Taurus rising, contents of Taurus over capacity and descending.
you are as lonely as a nitrogen atom in deepest space and as bitter as a supertanker full of lime juice.

 

[MaggieMae]

Would we be better off if John Kerry had won in 2004? consider this: Barack Obama would NOT be president right now.

A leftist is a leftist is a leftist, so no. Starting down this road four years earlier wouldn't have been better. What would have been better is if the Republicans had run an actual conservative. Consider this: Barack Obama would NOT be President right now.

I notice you didn't suggest anyone who fits your ideal of an "actual conservative." Since it's rather a vague term (do you mean a fiscal, social, and international conservative?), I can think of no one with a winning resume for all three. You people don't even like Newt Gingrich anymore. Unless you pick someone who is more moderate, and is not a hardliner like Boehner, you might as well give up trying.

 

[oreo]

John Kerry--the "I voted for it, before I voted against it guy"? I really don't expect Obama to make it into a second term--therefore, I think it a wash.

 

[MaggieMae]

Indeed no. Things would have just gone south that much sooner.

Conservative in the american sense of the word would be one who favored smaller government. Please tell me how reatarded you have to be to think that Geore W. Bush or his daddy were in favor of smaller government?

It always kills me when Liberals point to the policies of Bush and say that they were a failure so we need to adopt Liberal approaches. Bush was a Liberal in terms of spending and increasing the size and power of the Federal Governmnet.

If this burner of money and expander of Federal government was doing a bad thing, why do we need to provide more money to burn and a bigger Federal government with which to burn it?

It didn't work when we spent way too much, so let's triple our efforts and spend way, way, way too much.

What's wrong with this picture?

That's easy. Domestic priorities were largely underfunded or ignored. Just what DID BushCo. spend to create his deficit numbers? Even the spending in the aftermath of 911 eventually proved profitable for the private sector, and therefore the government by way of more taxes for the coffer, and the two wars were funded separately.

 

[del]

Indeed no. Things would have just gone south that much sooner.

Conservative in the american sense of the word would be one who favored smaller government. Please tell me how reatarded you have to be to think that Geore W. Bush or his daddy were in favor of smaller government?

It always kills me when Liberals point to the policies of Bush and say that they were a failure so we need to adopt Liberal approaches. Bush was a Liberal in terms of spending and increasing the size and power of the Federal Governmnet.

If this burner of money and expander of Federal government was doing a bad thing, why do we need to provide more money to burn and a bigger Federal government with which to burn it?

It didn't work when we spent way too much, so let's triple our efforts and spend way, way, way too much.

What's wrong with this picture?

That's easy. Domestic priorities were largely underfunded or ignored. Just what DID BushCo. spend to create his deficit numbers? Even the spending in the aftermath of 911 eventually proved profitable for the private sector, and therefore the government by way of more taxes for the coffer, and the two wars were funded separately.

BushCo.

people still say that, huh?

 

[MaggieMae]

[/COLOR]


It always kills me when Liberals point to the policies of Bush and say that they were a failure so we need to adopt Liberal approaches. Bush was a Liberal in terms of spending and increasing the size and power of the Federal Governmnet.

If this burner of money and expander of Federal government was doing a bad thing, why do we need to provide more money to burn and a bigger Federal government with which to burn it?

It didn't work when we spent way too much, so let's triple our efforts and spend way, way, way too much.

What's wrong with this picture?

That's easy. Domestic priorities were largely underfunded or ignored. Just what DID BushCo. spend to create his deficit numbers? Even the spending in the aftermath of 911 eventually proved profitable for the private sector, and therefore the government by way of more taxes for the coffer, and the two wars were funded separately.

BushCo.

people still say that, huh?

Sure. Why not? He and his minions will be table-talk for a loooooooong time to come. Feel free to inject Bill Clinton into the conversation anytime you like.

 

[del]

That's easy. Domestic priorities were largely underfunded or ignored. Just what DID BushCo. spend to create his deficit numbers? Even the spending in the aftermath of 911 eventually proved profitable for the private sector, and therefore the government by way of more taxes for the coffer, and the two wars were funded separately.

BushCo.

people still say that, huh?

Sure. Why not? He and his minions will be table-talk for a loooooooong time to come. Feel free to inject Bill Clinton into the conversation anytime you like.

no thanks. i live in the now.

you should try it.

BushCo, too funny.

 

[Old Rocks]

no.

are you saying that john kerry would make a worse president than Barack Obama?

yes, besides, Iraq wasnt even close to being finished like it is now

Yup. Damn near finished. As soon as we pull out, it is finished for sure. You guys had such a successful eight years

 

[Old Rocks]

John Kerry--the "I voted for it, before I voted against it guy"? I really don't expect Obama to make it into a second term--therefore, I think it a wash.

Really? If President Obama turns arround the economy, he will be a two term President. If he gets in a real health care system that provides for all citizens, he will be remembered as one of the great Presidents. The sum of all your fears.

 

[Old Rocks]

BushCo.

people still say that, huh?

Sure. Why not? He and his minions will be table-talk for a loooooooong time to come. Feel free to inject Bill Clinton into the conversation anytime you like.

no thanks. i live in the now.

you should try it.

BushCo, too funny.

So do I. And I would very much like to see Bush and company standing in the dock in the "now".

 

[del]

Sure. Why not? He and his minions will be table-talk for a loooooooong time to come. Feel free to inject Bill Clinton into the conversation anytime you like.

no thanks. i live in the now.

you should try it.

BushCo, too funny.

So do I. And I would very much like to see Bush and company standing in the dock in the "now".

i've always wanted a pony, myself.

 

[Tech_Esq]

Would we be better off if John Kerry had won in 2004? consider this: Barack Obama would NOT be president right now.

Would we be better off? I would have to think that when Iraq went to shit, Kerry would have hauled ass. This would have a nightmarish spectacle with the US having lost tremendous face and credibility in the world. True, Obama wouldn't be president, but I don't know we'd be better off.

 

[MaggieMae]

BushCo.

people still say that, huh?

Sure. Why not? He and his minions will be table-talk for a loooooooong time to come. Feel free to inject Bill Clinton into the conversation anytime you like.

no thanks. i live in the now.

you should try it.

BushCo, too funny.

BushCo is a lot faster than typing George W. Bush, Dick Cheney (David Addington), Donald Rumsfeld, Douglas Feith, Richard Pearl, Paul Wolfowitz, Alberto Gonzales, Henry Paulson, Christopher Cox...the list is too long, and I'm tired already.

But nevermind. Obama created the world we live in now in a mere 3 months.

 

[code1211]

Indeed no. Things would have just gone south that much sooner.

Conservative in the american sense of the word would be one who favored smaller government. Please tell me how reatarded you have to be to think that Geore W. Bush or his daddy were in favor of smaller government?

It always kills me when Liberals point to the policies of Bush and say that they were a failure so we need to adopt Liberal approaches. Bush was a Liberal in terms of spending and increasing the size and power of the Federal Governmnet.

If this burner of money and expander of Federal government was doing a bad thing, why do we need to provide more money to burn and a bigger Federal government with which to burn it?

It didn't work when we spent way too much, so let's triple our efforts and spend way, way, way too much.

What's wrong with this picture?

That's easy. Domestic priorities were largely underfunded or ignored. Just what DID BushCo. spend to create his deficit numbers? Even the spending in the aftermath of 911 eventually proved profitable for the private sector, and therefore the government by way of more taxes for the coffer, and the two wars were funded separately.

What programs showed a real actual dollar reduction?

 

[DiveCon]

[/COLOR]


It always kills me when Liberals point to the policies of Bush and say that they were a failure so we need to adopt Liberal approaches. Bush was a Liberal in terms of spending and increasing the size and power of the Federal Governmnet.

If this burner of money and expander of Federal government was doing a bad thing, why do we need to provide more money to burn and a bigger Federal government with which to burn it?

It didn't work when we spent way too much, so let's triple our efforts and spend way, way, way too much.

What's wrong with this picture?

That's easy. Domestic priorities were largely underfunded or ignored. Just what DID BushCo. spend to create his deficit numbers? Even the spending in the aftermath of 911 eventually proved profitable for the private sector, and therefore the government by way of more taxes for the coffer, and the two wars were funded separately.

What programs showed a real actual dollar reduction?

none of them