Seriously folks, how may independents were...

[Rudy the Mad]

In my opinion, shortly after the supreme injustice that made him president elect, and before he took the oath of office.

Still haven't moved past Florida 2000 yet, huh?

That 'splains a lot.

Indeed it does. I voted for Bush twice. Why? Gore was a pussy. Kerry was a fucking traitor...he threw his medals back over the fence of the WH. That's conduct unbecoming an officer and Commander in Chief.

My father-in-law, a Vietnam vet and retired fire captain, recently told his wife to throw his medals away when she found them while doing some cleaning in the garage. You calling him a traitor, too? Medals are for the people who cannot or will not put themselves in the same danger. You should watch your fucking mouth, boy.

 

[Wry Catcher]

I haven't seen a post supporting the "R" team, mostly the posts on this thread and others criticize Carter, Clinton and Obama. Of course when I or others criticized Bush, Jr. we're characterized as whinners and told to get over "it". Unfortunately, it's damn near impossible to get over the legacy of George W. Bush.
43 was elected by conservatives - twice. In 2000 he ran on the promise to restore honor to the White House, promised to be a compassionate conservative, and promised to cut taxes to 'fix' the economy.
On his watch America suffered its worst attack in history, killing thousands of Americans and citizens from 58 other nations.
On Sept. 12, 2001 our nation enjoyed the support of the world community. What George W. Bush did over the next seven years was a travesty of leadership; the result, a war on terror that has lasted longer than our partisipation in WW II, a collapsed economy and a nation divided into ideological camps.
The G.W. Bush Administration failed America; that is a fact today, and will remain a fact in the future.
Today, those same people (some of whom will read this today, and be angry) who voted for Bush II twice actually believe his actions deserve credit.
I find that unbelievable, fanstasy and, frankly, a rejecton of reality itself. Eight years of incompetent leadership, partisan rancor and rhetoric loaded with hate and fear cannot be repaired in 9 months, or possible in four years. The task before President Obama is enormous, and yet, he is attacked by 'conservatives' every step of the way.
There is ample room for debate on policy, but the right wing - and that is many who probably won't read this (those who choose to remain ignorant and never question their beliefs) rarely debate policy. They choose to blame Obama for what may happen in the future, and Clinton and Carter for the past as if the presidency of Nixon / Ford and Reagan / Bush were benign.
Most annoying to me personally is the rights failure to take responsibilty for what has gone so wrong, and their complicity in extremist ideology which besmirched our constitution and the rule of law during the first decade of this century.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

Still haven't moved past Florida 2000 yet, huh?

That 'splains a lot.

Indeed it does. I voted for Bush twice. Why? Gore was a pussy. Kerry was a fucking traitor...he threw his medals back over the fence of the WH. That's conduct unbecoming an officer and Commander in Chief.

My father-in-law, a Vietnam vet and retired fire captain, recently told his wife to throw his medals away when she found them while doing some cleaning in the garage. You calling him a traitor, too? Medals are for the people who cannot or will not put themselves in the same danger. You should watch your fucking mouth, boy.

Yep. Medals are earned for action done in the line of duty in the service to your country.... if your father in law told his wife to throw them away then he must have NOT earned them....perhaps he was cut from the same cloth as Kerry.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Or maybe, Patek, he visited the Vietnam Memorial Wall on the Mall in the District and had an ephiphany. Seeing the names of 58,000 war dead, many he likely knew, has an effect. Or possibly he visited Vietnam, as many Americans do today, and asked himself "why?".

 

[nodoginnafight]

I haven't seen a post supporting the "R" team, mostly the posts on this thread and others criticize Carter, Clinton and Obama. Of course when I or others criticized Bush, Jr. we're characterized as whinners and told to get over "it". Unfortunately, it's damn near impossible to get over the legacy of George W. Bush.
43 was elected by conservatives - twice. In 2000 he ran on the promise to restore honor to the White House, promised to be a compassionate conservative, and promised to cut taxes to 'fix' the economy.
On his watch America suffered its worst attack in history, killing thousands of Americans and citizens from 58 other nations.
On Sept. 12, 2001 our nation enjoyed the support of the world community. What George W. Bush did over the next seven years was a travesty of leadership; the result, a war on terror that has lasted longer than our partisipation in WW II, a collapsed economy and a nation divided into ideological camps.
The G.W. Bush Administration failed America; that is a fact today, and will remain a fact in the future.
Today, those same people (some of whom will read this today, and be angry) who voted for Bush II twice actually believe his actions deserve credit.
I find that unbelievable, fanstasy and, frankly, a rejecton of reality itself. Eight years of incompetent leadership, partisan rancor and rhetoric loaded with hate and fear cannot be repaired in 9 months, or possible in four years. The task before President Obama is enormous, and yet, he is attacked by 'conservatives' every step of the way.
There is ample room for debate on policy, but the right wing - and that is many who probably won't read this (those who choose to remain ignorant and never question their beliefs) rarely debate policy. They choose to blame Obama for what may happen in the future, and Clinton and Carter for the past as if the presidency of Nixon / Ford and Reagan / Bush were benign.
Most annoying to me personally is the rights failure to take responsibilty for what has gone so wrong, and their complicity in extremist ideology which besmirched our constitution and the rule of law during the first decade of this century.

Excellent post

 

[Ringel05]

I haven't seen a post supporting the "R" team, mostly the posts on this thread and others criticize Carter, Clinton and Obama. Of course when I or others criticized Bush, Jr. we're characterized as whinners and told to get over "it". Unfortunately, it's damn near impossible to get over the legacy of George W. Bush.
43 was elected by conservatives - twice. In 2000 he ran on the promise to restore honor to the White House, promised to be a compassionate conservative, and promised to cut taxes to 'fix' the economy.
On his watch America suffered its worst attack in history, killing thousands of Americans and citizens from 58 other nations.
On Sept. 12, 2001 our nation enjoyed the support of the world community. What George W. Bush did over the next seven years was a travesty of leadership; the result, a war on terror that has lasted longer than our partisipation in WW II, a collapsed economy and a nation divided into ideological camps.
The G.W. Bush Administration failed America; that is a fact today, and will remain a fact in the future.
Today, those same people (some of whom will read this today, and be angry) who voted for Bush II twice actually believe his actions deserve credit.
I find that unbelievable, fanstasy and, frankly, a rejecton of reality itself. Eight years of incompetent leadership, partisan rancor and rhetoric loaded with hate and fear cannot be repaired in 9 months, or possible in four years. The task before President Obama is enormous, and yet, he is attacked by 'conservatives' every step of the way.
There is ample room for debate on policy, but the right wing - and that is many who probably won't read this (those who choose to remain ignorant and never question their beliefs) rarely debate policy. They choose to blame Obama for what may happen in the future, and Clinton and Carter for the past as if the presidency of Nixon / Ford and Reagan / Bush were benign.
Most annoying to me personally is the rights failure to take responsibilty for what has gone so wrong, and their complicity in extremist ideology which besmirched our constitution and the rule of law during the first decade of this century.

I lean right but overall not extremely so, so I'll try to answer some of your points. I did vote for him both times but more so because of who he was running against. All of our presidents have made mistakes, some worse then others and as I have said in the past, many of those mistakes based on the viewers perception, not always based on reality. The biggest challenge with this lies in the fact the general public has little knowledge of the "big picture" or what is happening behind the scenes, especially on a global scale.
Blaming Bush for the ideological division within this country is disingenuous at best, the divisions had been building over the last couple of decades and really only came to fruition while W was president. It has less to do with who's in office and more to do with each and every one of us allowing the extremes on both sides to polerize us.
The lead up to 9/11 was a failure that actually spanned multiple presidencies, from providing arms to the Muhjadin to the cuts in Intel to the inability to piece together the bits of info we were receiving and not understanding the mind set and determination of our enimies.
Iraq as a mistake or not, yes to one degree, no to another. No because from a military stand point when attacked or facing random attacks from a dispersed enemy the best plan of action is to get that enimy to concentrate their efforts in one area as much as possible to isolate, destroy and/or damage them and their abilities to continue fighting. This will also bring many out of the wood work, so to speak, once again making them easier targets.
Unfortunately it diverted our attention from Afgahnistan allowing the Taliban to rebuild. The terrible truth of the war on terror is it will last much longer than any other war in the history of mankind has ever lasted. Some will be done by diplomacy but, understanding the cultural and ideologic mind set of some of our enemies, diplomacy is not only impossible but seen by them as a weakness on our part to be exploited and used against us. This can also be said of some of our "friends". Example: Qadafi, saw Bush as a stong leader, willing to use force after Afgahnistan and Iraq, and essentially capitulated to us. Now that Obama is president look at what Qadafi and the Libians are doing now. Draw your own conclusions.
Bush was able to force N Korea, S Korea, China, Japan, etc. to the table by refusing to directly talk with N Korea alone. This was a good thing for us and all involved. While there were no "official" talks with Iran only a complete idiot will believe back room talks weren't taking place and any agreement to be had with Iran can only be done with Russias' participation and approval. A good knowledge of actual international relations and interaction will help understand much of what is going on, even today.
Continuing in that vein many people seem to have some wierd pollyannish idea that all differences between nations can be eliminated by verbal diplomacy. They refuse to acknowledge the fact there are nations and peoples who for differing reasons have every desire to destroy who and what we are, and will go to any lengths to do so, this has been proven. Mainly in the Asian and Muslim cultures diplomacy is used not so much as a way to accord but more as a way to better their stategic position. Through out history these cultures have used this tactic to rebuild their military strength in preperation for renewed hostilities therfore if you opponent does so to work towards some other goal they are considered weak, again look what is happening today. Many countries now believe we can be taken advantage of. Is any wonder they like the new administration?
On the economy any economist who doesn't have a political agenda will tell you presidents have little effect on market fluctuations. Blaming Bush or even now, Obama for what happened, well.........
So there are aspects of the Bush presedency I will defend to the death just as there are aspects I would and do rail against. Just like there are aspects of the Obama administration I support and others I hate. I know there will be those who will violently disagree with my assessment, I can't help that and I won't try. I know what I know and I'll let it go at that.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Finally someone posted a thoughful response to my criticism of Bush&Co. Though I disagree with many of Ringel05's assumption, my faith is restored. Not everyone on the right - and I suspect Ringel might bristle as being characterized as from the right - posts in cliches and the daily talkiing point (sadly too many do).
Time will tell if Obama's faith in diplomacy, the new greener technology, and a proactive response to the recession will be effective. The fear mongering which so many on this message board use to discredit what he is doing is not a sign of partriotism; it is a rejecton of our very system of representative government and IMO verbal insurrection. Of course it's their right, but those who hope his policies fail are not patriots and far from anything close to an honorable opposition.

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

I have been registered republican for over 25 years. I voted for Reagan and Daddy Bush four times. When the party veered to the extreme right in the early 90's, I no longer supported any republican candidates at the national level.

Extreme right is no government at all. The GOP has never ever advocated such. Learn your political left from your political right.

 

[Si modo]

Finally someone posted a thoughful response to my criticism of Bush&Co. Though I disagree with many of Ringel05's assumption, my faith is restored. Not everyone on the right - and I suspect Ringel might bristle as being characterized as from the right - posts in cliches and the daily talkiing point (sadly too many do).
Time will tell if Obama's faith in diplomacy, the new greener technology, and a proactive response to the recession will be effective. The fear mongering which so many on this message board use to discredit what he is doing is not a sign of partriotism; it is a rejecton of our very system of representative government and IMO verbal insurrection. Of course it's their right, but those who hope his policies fail are not patriots and far from anything close to an honorable opposition.

Criticism of a sitting president is far from a rejection of our system, and not even close to an insurrection, verbal or not. That's simply crazy thinking.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I did not vote for President Bush either time. What I said was true and you know it. Freedom and Liberty is not about political parties or allegiance thereto.

You want to play some stupid gotcha game, so you can try and score a political party touchdown. And if you do, you can yell "my teams crap doesn't stink as bad as your teams crap" song.

Actually I'm playing the game of the conservative chic, the dumb sob's who have been attacking Obama since before he took the oath of office.

Is Freedom and Liberty a joke to you?

You want to debate this issue? What do you know about Habeas Corpus, the Magna Carta, or The Rights of Man? Don't google, answser.

You didn't answer my question. Given your replies in this thread, it is clear you want to play your stupid football game.

Another thread that is a waste of time.

Why are you in the thread then?

 

[Wry Catcher]

I have been registered republican for over 25 years. I voted for Reagan and Daddy Bush four times. When the party veered to the extreme right in the early 90's, I no longer supported any republican candidates at the national level.

Extreme right is no government at all. The GOP has never ever advocated such. Learn your political left from your political right.

One way to look at the political spectrum is as a clock face, the time from 12 to 3 can be characterized as "Conservative"; the time from 3 to 6, as "Reactionary"; the time from 6 to 9, as "Revolutionary"; and the time from 9 to 12, as "Liberal".
The far right are the reactionaries, those who want a return to the past. The far left are the revolutionaries, those who want change now. Liberals seek change through evolutionary change and legal means, conservatives support the status quo.

Another way is to view the political spectrum as a graph, with Communism in the far left corner, fascisim in the far right corner and the entire top two quadrants labeled as Authoritarianism. The bottom two quadrants labeled as Individualism with Anarchy on the far right and classical liberalism (Libertarianism) on the far left.

Neoconservative ideology dominates the GOP today, and is reactionary. The ideas of Grover Norquist border on anarchy when he suggests the federal government (the beast) must be starved so that its power over the individual is taken; it is a repudiation of the liberal paradigm thinkers of the 17th and 18th centuries.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Finally someone posted a thoughful response to my criticism of Bush&Co. Though I disagree with many of Ringel05's assumption, my faith is restored. Not everyone on the right - and I suspect Ringel might bristle as being characterized as from the right - posts in cliches and the daily talkiing point (sadly too many do).
Time will tell if Obama's faith in diplomacy, the new greener technology, and a proactive response to the recession will be effective. The fear mongering which so many on this message board use to discredit what he is doing is not a sign of partriotism; it is a rejecton of our very system of representative government and IMO verbal insurrection. Of course it's their right, but those who hope his policies fail are not patriots and far from anything close to an honorable opposition.

Criticism of a sitting president is far from a rejection of our system, and not even close to an insurrection, verbal or not. That's simply crazy thinking.

Thank you for sharing with me.

 

[garyd]

Wry I don't hope Obama's policies will fail. I know they will. They've never worked before are not working anywhere else now and are most unlikely to ever work anywhere at any time for any period of more than perhaps 5 decades. Europe is slowly moving away from socialism. Why? They can't afford it. No one can. You can't have a fully functioning economy and still have 40% plus of the population directly working for the government.

 

[Immanuel]

Finally someone posted a thoughful response to my criticism of Bush&Co. Though I disagree with many of Ringel05's assumption, my faith is restored. Not everyone on the right - and I suspect Ringel might bristle as being characterized as from the right - posts in cliches and the daily talkiing point (sadly too many do).
Time will tell if Obama's faith in diplomacy, the new greener technology, and a proactive response to the recession will be effective. The fear mongering which so many on this message board use to discredit what he is doing is not a sign of partriotism; it is a rejecton of our very system of representative government and IMO verbal insurrection. Of course it's their right, but those who hope his policies fail are not patriots and far from anything close to an honorable opposition.

I didn't know you wanted a dissertation as to why I voted for Bush twice. You simply asked who had been a Republican and left the party because of Bush and I answered your question.

I voted for President Bush because in 2000 I thought he would make a better President than Al Gore, who I viewed as a nutcase. In 2004, I could not stand either John Kerry or George Bush, but, in my opinion, John Kerry was much more of an arrogant prick than George Bush.

I'm not at all proud of the job that Bush did and I did little but bitch about his Presidency from the Halliburton gift wrap until the day he left. But, no one can say for sure that either Al Gore or John Kerry would make a better President than George Bush.

By the time the 2008, election came along I was done with both parties. I would not have voted for either candidate from either party, if you had offered me a hundred million dollars... um, well, maybe then But, there was no way I was voting for either party. Given the choice, I would have preferred Obama, because despite the fact that he served his country with honor, John McCain is a prick!

Immie

 

[Wry Catcher]

Finally someone posted a thoughful response to my criticism of Bush&Co. Though I disagree with many of Ringel05's assumption, my faith is restored. Not everyone on the right - and I suspect Ringel might bristle as being characterized as from the right - posts in cliches and the daily talkiing point (sadly too many do).
Time will tell if Obama's faith in diplomacy, the new greener technology, and a proactive response to the recession will be effective. The fear mongering which so many on this message board use to discredit what he is doing is not a sign of partriotism; it is a rejecton of our very system of representative government and IMO verbal insurrection. Of course it's their right, but those who hope his policies fail are not patriots and far from anything close to an honorable opposition.

I didn't know you wanted a dissertation as to why I voted for Bush twice. You simply asked who had been a Republican and left the party because of Bush and I answered your question.



I voted for President Bush because in 2000 I thought he would make a better President than Al Gore, who I viewed as a nutcase. In 2004, I could not stand either John Kerry or George Bush, but, in my opinion, John Kerry was much more of an arrogant prick than George Bush.

I'm not at all proud of the job that Bush did and I did little but bitch about his Presidency from the Halliburton gift wrap until the day he left. But, no one can say for sure that either Al Gore or John Kerry would make a better President than George Bush.

By the time the 2008, election came along I was done with both parties. I would not have voted for either candidate from either party, if you had offered me a hundred million dollars... um, well, maybe then But, there was no way I was voting for either party. Given the choice, I would have preferred Obama, because despite the fact that he served his country with honor, John McCain is a prick!

Immie

Another honest response. Thanks Immie, I'm beginning to believe there really is some intelligent life on this message board.

 

[Immanuel]

Finally someone posted a thoughful response to my criticism of Bush&Co. Though I disagree with many of Ringel05's assumption, my faith is restored. Not everyone on the right - and I suspect Ringel might bristle as being characterized as from the right - posts in cliches and the daily talkiing point (sadly too many do).
Time will tell if Obama's faith in diplomacy, the new greener technology, and a proactive response to the recession will be effective. The fear mongering which so many on this message board use to discredit what he is doing is not a sign of partriotism; it is a rejecton of our very system of representative government and IMO verbal insurrection. Of course it's their right, but those who hope his policies fail are not patriots and far from anything close to an honorable opposition.

I didn't know you wanted a dissertation as to why I voted for Bush twice. You simply asked who had been a Republican and left the party because of Bush and I answered your question.



I voted for President Bush because in 2000 I thought he would make a better President than Al Gore, who I viewed as a nutcase. In 2004, I could not stand either John Kerry or George Bush, but, in my opinion, John Kerry was much more of an arrogant prick than George Bush.

I'm not at all proud of the job that Bush did and I did little but bitch about his Presidency from the Halliburton gift wrap until the day he left. But, no one can say for sure that either Al Gore or John Kerry would make a better President than George Bush.

By the time the 2008, election came along I was done with both parties. I would not have voted for either candidate from either party, if you had offered me a hundred million dollars... um, well, maybe then But, there was no way I was voting for either party. Given the choice, I would have preferred Obama, because despite the fact that he served his country with honor, John McCain is a prick!

Immie

Another honest response. Thanks Immie, I'm beginning to believe there really is some intelligent life on this message board.

Well, if only I could pick a winner for President! and I don't mean the one that "won" the election.

But, then no one who really is a winner wants the job.

Immie

 

[Wry Catcher]

Wry I don't hope Obama's policies will fail. I know they will. They've never worked before are not working anywhere else now and are most unlikely to ever work anywhere at any time for any period of more than perhaps 5 decades. Europe is slowly moving away from socialism. Why? They can't afford it. No one can. You can't have a fully functioning economy and still have 40% plus of the population directly working for the government.

I don't accept your conclusion; the goal for universal health care is not socialism. A nation which chooses to spend 3% of it's GNP on defense - far and again in dollars more than any other nation - and allow private insurance companies and big pharma to ration health care, deny treatment and earn $ Billion of dollars in profit, can change, establish new priorities and maintain its security.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

Or maybe, Patek, he visited the Vietnam Memorial Wall on the Mall in the District and had an ephiphany. Seeing the names of 58,000 war dead, many he likely knew, has an effect. Or possibly he visited Vietnam, as many Americans do today, and asked himself "why?".

He threw his medals over the fence to the WH back in the early 70's. Being from Massachusetts, a liberal and a person with political ambitions he adopted the "anti-war" candidate guise and won a seat in Congress.

I have absolutely ZERO respect for a Naval Officer who disrespects his honor and the traditions of the Navy by desecrating medals bestowed upon him by his superiors. This is akin to urinating on every soldier's grave in Arlington National Cemetary.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Or maybe, Patek, he visited the Vietnam Memorial Wall on the Mall in the District and had an ephiphany. Seeing the names of 58,000 war dead, many he likely knew, has an effect. Or possibly he visited Vietnam, as many Americans do today, and asked himself "why?".

He threw his medals over the fence to the WH back in the early 70's. Being from Massachusetts, a liberal and a person with political ambitions he adopted the "anti-war" candidate guise and won a seat in Congress.

I have absolutely ZERO respect for a Naval Officer who disrespects his honor and the traditions of the Navy by desecrating medals bestowed upon him by his superiors. This is akin to urinating on every soldier's grave in Arlington National Cemetary.[/Q

Patek, consider for a moment the Nuremburg trials. Of course we were not Nazi Germany in kind or in degree, but the principle - the judgement - remains the same.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

Or maybe, Patek, he visited the Vietnam Memorial Wall on the Mall in the District and had an ephiphany. Seeing the names of 58,000 war dead, many he likely knew, has an effect. Or possibly he visited Vietnam, as many Americans do today, and asked himself "why?".

He threw his medals over the fence to the WH back in the early 70's. Being from Massachusetts, a liberal and a person with political ambitions he adopted the "anti-war" candidate guise and won a seat in Congress.

I have absolutely ZERO respect for a Naval Officer who disrespects his honor and the traditions of the Navy by desecrating medals bestowed upon him by his superiors. This is akin to urinating on every soldier's grave in Arlington National Cemetary.[/Q

Patek, consider for a moment the Nuremburg trials. Of course we were not Nazi Germany in kind or in degree, but the principle - the judgement - remains the same.

I'm not grasping your notion that somehow these 2 events are related Wry...I understand that Germany was the enemy and there was a declared war against them. The Viet Nam conflict was a serious tear in the fabric of America. If one looks at it in hindsight we can see the many mistakes that were made over there. However a Naval officer is to uphold his oath of office, maintain his honor and integrity no matter what he personally thinks of his government and the military service. As a private citizen he can speak out...but when he dragged the Navy into it by throwing those medals into the dirt he soiled the honor of every single American whoever fought for, died for or served this great Nation. That's how I feel about it. A guy like that has no business walking the same path as our Nation's Presidents.

We, as Americans, don't always agree with the politics of our neighbors and we can ague, whine and bitch at each other but one thing is always to be revered no matter what side you are on. The men and women who serve this country and died for this country are IMHO untouchable.