Who Seriously Still Thinks Bush A Conservative?

[OCA]

I saw the painting, did you? There was nothing wrong with it. In any case I was stating that any fool who would try to shut down an art museum because he doesn't understand art doesn't qualify as far left on the political spectrum, as was claimed. What didn't you comprehend?

You think that crap was art? You're off your rocker.

 

[OCA]

Bullshit. With Kerry in the White House, the Republican controlled Congress would have cock blocked his every move. And he would've done the same to them.
Partisan politics at its best.
The result would've been a significant decrease in government spending

... Unless that's not what you want...

This is true, hadn't thought about that. Shut down the government and make him look like crap.

 

[OCA]

He didn't---he ran almost totally on the terrorist issue because that's where his strength was (accordingto the polls)

In respect to Iraq has he succeded on this issue? I think most people in Iraq, Afghanistan and Bali would say no.

 

[insein]

Yeah, he really hosed the people who voted for him. That's what happens when you pound on a bunch of irrelevant issues (gay marriage, abortion, the Ten Commandments) to get votes but you really are apathetic about it. For those of you who think they are important issues, OK, but Bush and his bunch never had any intention of doing anything about it. They just wanted your votes. OCA's right, you've been hosed!

We've been hosed on the spending. He still has the right answers in the war. KErry had all the wrong answers. So we got screwed on the spending (which if you were genuine enough about your beliefs youd be happy that he's spending like a drunken sailor) and we got what we wanted on the WOT. He's not backing down from the enemy.

The fact that conservatives are calling him on it is refreshing to see. Unlike the democrats who will try to placate to the fringe group with the loudest voice and ignore the mainstream America, the republicans will HAVE TO respond to the conservative movement or run the risk of not being reelected. Conservatives are the VAST majority in this country over liberals and moderates. Thats how you win elections, by appealing to the mainstream America.

 

[OCA]

We've been hosed on the spending. He still has the right answers in the war. KErry had all the wrong answers. So we got screwed on the spending (which if you were genuine enough about your beliefs youd be happy that he's spending like a drunken sailor) and we got what we wanted on the WOT. He's not backing down from the enemy.

The fact that conservatives are calling him on it is refreshing to see. Unlike the democrats who will try to placate to the fringe group with the loudest voice and ignore the mainstream America, the republicans will HAVE TO respond to the conservative movement or run the risk of not being reelected. Conservatives are the VAST majority in this country over liberals and moderates. Thats how you win elections, by appealing to the mainstream America.

Yes Insein he's not backing down, i'll give you that, but why the unwillingness to let the dogs hunt so to speak? Why this bullshit small scale battle here and there? Why not mass a massive force and sweep the whole friggin country and not take any weapon or form of battle off the table short of nukes? Seems to me like we are sitting ducks right now under current strategy.

 

[insein]

Yes Insein he's not backing down, i'll give you that, but why the unwillingness to let the dogs hunt so to speak? Why this bullshit small scale battle here and there? Why not mass a massive force and sweep the whole friggin country and not take any weapon or form of battle off the table short of nukes? Seems to me like we are sitting ducks right now under current strategy.

I sure don't know OCA. All i can offer is this analogy. Compare it to professional sports.

We are all fans and spectators. We can see what happens on the field and we offer our opinions of howthings should be done. The coaches ultimately are closer to their players and have a better understanding of their strategy then the spectators do though. So they know the changes they want to make and need to make. When our team plays badly, we say the coach is a moron and needs to coach better. The coach obviously knows something is wrong and is already working on the solution but puts on an appearence that everything is ok in order to save face for the fans.

I just hope that Bush realizes something is wrong and is working on the problem talking to his "coaches" (generals and chief's of staff) on how to fix the problems. While to the public he gives us the everything's ok signal. Doesn't make it right. Just the way it is. One thing is for sure, we need to finish these so-called insurgents off soon or our media will continue to sound our defeat daily.

 

[Bonnie]

Off topic. Is OCA correct or not? Has Bush lived up to his promises to his base? With no Democrat controls in place he should have been able to. Has he?

Im disappointed in the fact that Bush has both houses and acts as if he still needs to take into consideration what the left side of the aisle is saying. Im disappointed that he seems to have lost some of his spunk or fight and is more on the defense than the offense.
Would Kerry have been better? Ill let you know that when my nightmares of Kerry in the Whitehouse have subsided, or maybe a better answer would be to ask the question why did terrorists want to see Kerry elected??

 

[OCA]

To all the people who are defending Bush solely on the basis of the WOT, are you paying attention? Why do many conservatives still blindly back him there? All is not going well and he shows a constant unwillingness to do what it takes to finish it. All I can base my point of view is what has happened up to this point and the obvious pattern that has developed and shows no sign of changing.....we stay, get a few soldiers killed daily and refuse to fight for the most part.

 

[dilloduck]

To all the people who are defending Bush solely on the basis of the WOT, are you paying attention? Why do many conservatives still blindly back him there? All is not going well and he shows a constant unwillingness to do what it takes to finish it. All I can base my point of view is what has happened up to this point and the obvious pattern that has developed and shows no sign of changing.....we stay, get a few soldiers killed daily and refuse to fight for the most part.

If anyone here is defending eveythig Bush does simply because he engaged Islamo-facism militarily and rhetoically, I'm not seeing it. He was the best of the selections we had at the time. I find him to be woefully inadequate in many other areas and express that fact but I don't think tearing him a new asshole right now is going to help any and while we have soldiers on the ground , it may actually do some harm. Best I can think of is to look for an electable conservative candidate for 2008.

 

[OCA]

If anyone here is defending eveythig Bush does simply because he engaged Islamo-facism militarily and rhetoically, I'm not seeing it. He was the best of the selections we had at the time. I find him to be woefully inadequate in many other areas and express that fact but I don't think tearing him a new asshole right now is going to help any and while we have soldiers on the ground , it may actually do some harm. Best I can think of is to look for an electable conservative candidate for 2008.

So you think staying the current course is the right way? And by the way what actually is the current course other than getting smoked in Iraq?

As all know i've been an ardent supporter of the decision to go to Iraq from day 1 but if the team is halfassing it and not giving 100% effort then fuck them, they can go to hell.

And no i'm not blaming soldiers at all, this lies solely with the leadership and their castrated ways.

 

[dilloduck]

So you think staying the current course is the right way? And by the way what actually is the current course other than getting smoked in Iraq?

As all know i've been an ardent supporter of the decision to go to Iraq from day 1 but if the team is halfassing it and not giving 100% effort then fuck them, they can go to hell.

And no i'm not blaming soldiers at all, this lies solely with the leadership and their castrated ways.

I'm not sure there is any other option but to go along for the ride. I've never had much luck getting presidents to do anything.

 

[Nuc]

You think that crap was art? You're off your rocker.

I'll put this as simply as possible. I know more about art than you do. Period.

 

[Bonnie]

To Err is Human – and so is President Bush
October 17th, 2005

In the physical universe every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Apparently the political universe is no different. Suddenly the braying Bush haters on the left are balanced by a cadre of deranged Bush groupies of indeterminate ideology.

The Harriet Miers debacle has been something of a coming out party for the groupies. If you spent any time over the last several weeks reading through the threads on any prominent conservative/Republican public affairs website you will have seen a great deal of evidence that many Republicans are so inured to criticism of President Bush that they are no longer capable of seeing any fault in the man.

At Freerepublic.com, Lucianne.com, Redstate.org and others, a substantial number of posters were prepared to argue that the conservative community should accept any Supreme Court nomination President Bush puts forward. The story line goes something like this: Trust the President, he knows Harriet Miers and he knows what he’s doing. If he tells us she’s a good conservative and that she’s his choice it’s time unite and fight for her confirmation. Anyone who raises concerns about the nomination is just immature, petulant, elitist, sexist, or prejudiced against born-again Americans. If the nomination looks like a blunder it is only because none of us can grasp the complex strategery of the three-dimensional chess game that President Bush and his right-lobe man Karl Rove are playing. Besides, it’s really John McCain’s fault. The Miers nomination was the very best the President could do given political realities in the Senate. Wait for the Judiciary Committee hearings, then the genius of George W. Bush will be revealed unto us in its full glory and all those petulant, elitist pundits will have to eat crow.

Some of you reading this recognize this story line because you’ve been contributing to it. You know who you are. Shame on you. There is no place in American politics for a cult of personality. Arguments predicated on the assumption that the maximum leader can do no wrong smack of North Korea. It is time to take a deep breath and start the long journey back from the land of the barking moonbats.

George W. Bush is a remarkable man. Only fools think he is a fool. I supported him enthusiastically through two national elections. I voted for him, I worked for him, and I contributed to him. He is certainly a better president than anyone else who had a realistic shot at the job in 2000 or 2004 would have been. He is a talented politician and a man of genuine courage. But he has his limitations and it is madness to pretend otherwise. Since one of his limitations is a chronic inability to take constitutional principles seriously, conservatives can’t afford to accept his judgment about candidates for the Supreme Court uncritically.

The president takes an oath to uphold the Constitution. Twice President Bush has been called upon to defend constitutional principles from gross violation and twice he failed utterly to do so. He signed the McCain-Feingold campaign finance “reform” into law, supporting the long-running effort of our political elite comprehensively to regulate political debate. When racial preferences were on trial before the Supreme Court in the infamous Michigan cases, President Bush directed his Department of Justice to argue in favor of discrimination. Both regulating political speech and official racism are blatantly unconstitutional. Neither presents any close or difficult questions. The President’s errors were so egregious as to demonstrate a reckless disregard for the Constitution.

Has the President ever tried to use his “bully pulpit” to guide the national conversation about Roe v. Wade? Has he ever tried to explain to the country that, whatever your views about whether and under what circumstances abortion should be legal, Roe is morally and legally untenable because there can be no right to do wrong? Not that I noticed. On the contrary, the President has gone to great lengths to avoid confronting the errors in the Supreme Court’s abortion doctrine. Once again, constitutional principles ride in the back of W’s bus.

President Bush has been a vigorous guardian of the Constitution in only one area. He is a fierce defender of his own executive prerogatives. It is at least possible that this commitment is about pride as much as abstract principle. We can count on the President to get the Constitution right as long as the issue has to do with the authority of the Secretary of Defense to detain terrorists. In every other area, he wanders.

President Bush knows Harriet Miers, but his own constitutional record strongly suggests that he doesn’t know what he should want from a judge. His recommendation counts for very little and even his most ardent admirers should recognize that.

His record of nominating strong judicial candidates does nothing to make his recommendation more persuasive. Up until last week President Bush and his staff chose judicial nominees from among the select group of people that most informed conservative constitutionalists would recognize as leaders. With Harriet Miers the President broke that pattern. For the first time in connection with a judicial appointment he and his staff didn’t listen to anybody outside the White House with an informed opinion. If you get arrested for reckless driving the first time the chauffer takes a night off, you can’t very well point to your unblemished driving record as a defense.

When George W. Bush said “trust me” many conservatives responded “no way.” Nobody should be puzzled about this. President Bush has worked hard for years to earn the skepticism that greeted the Miers nomination and every conservative with a direct line to reality should understand that.

What about the idea that the Miers nomination was the best option available to the President given the unreliability of the Republican Senate? This is nonsense on stilts. By choosing Harriet Miers the President dodged a meaningful fight he stood an excellent chance of winning with the enthusiastic help of his friends and picked a meaningless fight he was destined to lose alone and unaided. This wasn’t political realism it was political ineptitude.

A strong nominee who understands that the Supreme Court is the central front in a philosophical war, and who has the tools to wage that war, would alienate all the Senate Democrats, but he would galvanize most of the Republicans. The conservative wing of the legal establishment would mobilize to fight for such a nominee. The fight would be over principles worth fighting for. The President would have every prospect of persuading 50 Republicans to go the mat for confirmation. The Democrats would pay a price for their opposition because it would shine a spotlight on their extremism.

Harriet Miers, by contrast, never had a prayer. At last W is truly a uniter, not a divider. He has found a way to forge a bipartisan consensus in the U.S. Senate. Unfortunately that consensus is going to be that his latest Supreme Court nominee is not worthy of confirmation. He will be fighting over Harriet Miers’ qualifications which aren’t very important to anyone but her, and he will have very few allies. Democrats will denounce cronyism and vote against Miers in a block. Under the circumstances they can do so without looking wacky or even unreasonable. The opportunity to humiliate the President they love to hate will be much more than they can resist. They will sniff the Miers nomination, smell fear, and conclude that a disappointed President might react to her rejection by giving them Alberto Gonzalez, a gift that would be quite likely to keep on giving for many years. That Ms. Miers is an evangelical Christian with pro-life views will be too much for the Democrats, but not nearly enough for many Republicans who are haunted by the ghost of Souters past.

The Miers nomination, in sum, will unify Democrats and divide Republicans. That is what it was destined to do the moment it was announced, and it is breathtaking that the President didn’t foresee the consequences of his choice. There is no clever strategy here, only a colossal blunder that has damaged the President and will damage him more before he starts climbing out of the hole he dug for himself. It is a strange sort of loyalty that leads some conservatives to argue that he should keep digging.

Anyone who tells you that hearings before the Judiciary Committee would clear everything (or anything) up is naive in the extreme. If this drama gets to the point of hearings Harriet Miers will, of course, come across as intelligent and well-spoken. No doubt she is capable of bandying words with Joe Biden. Who isn’t? Intelligent, well-spoken, and smarter than Joe Biden doesn’t add up to a compelling case for a Supreme Court nominee.

Like John Roberts before her, Harriet Miers will carefully avoid uttering anything other than the blandest most meaningless platitudes. Anything else would represent a very high-risk, unconventional strategy which is not something that comes naturally to clan Bush. Platitudes did the trick for Roberts because the stature he brought with him into the hearing room gave his words an aura they didn’t earn for themselves. Harriet Miers isn’t in a position to carry off the same stunt..

The brutal truth is that the President royally screwed up the most important domestic decision of his eight years in the Oval Office and he may never recover. If anyone had any doubt that his decision was indefensible the moment he appeared to announce it, his embarrassing attempts to defend it since should have put those doubts to rest. The White House hasn’t tried to tell us that Harriet Miers will give Chuck Schumer a stinging lesson on the multifarious errors of modern liberal jurisprudence if only we wait to hear her out. Instead we are told that Harriet Miers is a good Christian, with some conservative views and those who oppose her are sexist snobs who should sit down and shut up. This public relations strategy compounds the President’s initial mistake. It is downright clintonian, by which I mean beneath contempt.

Memo to Republicans: There is a time and a place for standing by your man. But if you don’t notice when the Emperor has no clothes, you just might have a problem.

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=4910

Doesn't address the war OCA but it touches a bit on Bush's problems. I do however dissagree with the notion that those loyal to Bush are in lock step agreement with everything he does and further those that are not, have been very vocal about it especially as of late.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

He's grown the government more than Clinton, he selects moderates for SCOTUS, he hands out free money like it were candy, he pulls an LBJ and fights a war from the oval office instead of unleashing the power of the U.S. Military in the process doubling the death toll needlessly, he runs on righting social ills in this country then refuses to address them while in office.....in other words he screws conservatives, his base.

Wake up conservatives! http://www.constitutionparty.com/

Long time no see OCA - seems your opinion of our Great War President has changed since last we met.

 

[sitarro]

I'll put this as simply as possible. I know more about art than you do. Period.

Being a photographer, painter, illustrator, and sculptor I have to ask by what definition do you call that art? The problem with that 3 letter word is that it is totally subjective and art is indeed in the eye of the beholder . . . whether it belongs to a proclaimed art expert or not. I have always corrected anyone trying to saddle that label on me, it doesn't take any talent what so ever to be an "artist", I am an illustrator.
Each of us create something everyday, we just tend to flush it down the toilet rather than let some nimrod display it on a museum wall. I have always been amazed at what experts claim to be great art. Picasso. . . shit, childish, egotist shit! Van Gogh, insane finger painter style that is childlike at best. Wharhol. . .it's not what you do, it's who you hang out with!
I do admire Rembrandt, Michelangelo(his Pieta is the finest work of art ever created in my opinion), Michael Parkes, Carl Brenders, Stan Stokes, Markus Pierson, Richard Schmid, Ray Harris Ching, to name a few. :cof:

 

[Nuc]

Being a photographer, painter, illustrator, and sculptor I have to ask by what definition do you call that art? The problem with that 3 letter word is that it is totally subjective and art is indeed in the eye of the beholder . . . whether it belongs to a proclaimed art expert or not. I have always corrected anyone trying to saddle that label on me, it doesn't take any talent what so ever to be an "artist", I am an illustrator.
Each of us create something everyday, we just tend to flush it down the toilet rather than let some nimrod display it on a museum wall. I have always been amazed at what experts claim to be great art. Picasso. . . shit, childish, egotist shit! Van Gogh, insane finger painter style that is childlike at best. Wharhol. . .it's not what you do, it's who you hang out with!
I do admire Rembrandt, Michelangelo(his Pieta is the finest work of art ever created in my opinion), Michael Parkes, Carl Brenders, Stan Stokes, Markus Pierson, Richard Schmid, Ray Harris Ching, to name a few. :cof:

Personally I like Caravaggio, but I don't need to delve too far into the subject to realize that I'm more knowledgeable than OCA on the subject of art.

If you don't appreciate Picasso or Van Gogh, or know how to spell Warhol, keep it to yourself.

Basically people should enjoy the art they like and let other people enjoy the art they like. It is fascism to try to shut down a museum because a tiny minority of people whine about something on grounds of their superstitions. I don't use the word "fascism" lightly, because that is exactly what Hitler did. Although he had a bigger group of supporters than the whiners who wanted to shut down the Brooklyn Museum.

By the way, which Pieta? The early or late one?

 

[sitarro]

Personally I like Caravaggio, but I don't need to delve too far into the subject to realize that I'm more knowledgeable than OCA on the subject of art.

If you don't appreciate Picasso or Van Gogh, or know how to spell Warhol, keep it to yourself.

Basically people should enjoy the art they like and let other people enjoy the art they like. It is fascism to try to shut down a museum because a tiny minority of people whine about something on grounds of their superstitions. I don't use the word "fascism" lightly, because that is exactly what Hitler did. Although he had a bigger group of supporters than the whiners who wanted to shut down the Brooklyn Museum.

By the way, which Pieta? The early or late one?

Michelangelo's first of 4 that are attributed to him, the one the asshole took a sledge hammer to.

As for whoral, that is how I have always thought of him so I unconsiously spell his name that way, I don't really care about that hack.

Why am I not allowed to state my opinion on Van Gogh or Pocasso's crappy work, if it was done today it would be considered crap by the same know nothings that worship them. I don't "appreciate" rap either.

Why is it always the least talented dildoes that get the grants? Chimpanzees are more capable than these bullshit "artists" that only try to shock others in the name of art. I don't agree with closing museums either, I do think that the curators should be thrown out on their pompous asses when they hang garbage and try to pretend that the public just doesn't "see" what they do. They are as full of shit as the dimwits on Air America that claim everyone in the south are knuckle dragging, toothless, iliterate neo nazis and they are the progressives. Junk is junk, and it doesn't matter who created it.

Please nuc, teach me how to appreciate sophomoric art that I would have been ashamed to sign when I was 5 years old. :happy2:

Sorry nuc, I have opinions about something I have been involved in since I was 3 and really don't care what self proclaimed experts think. I may not be a great painter but I do know my way around a canvas and know what I respect, I respect people that are better at what i do than I am or at least as good, anything less bores me.

 

[Bonnie]

Nuc...It is fascism to try to shut down a museum because a tiny minority of people whine about something on grounds of their superstitions.

Be careful about that term, many people found some of that art very offensive to their religion, one has to wonder with the purposeful way the artist had in denegrating religion that way what was the motivation. I wouldn't suggest shutting down the museum, but those whiners had every right to protest and make their concerns heard afterall to suggest they don't would also be fascist.

 

[Zhukov]

I really don't know where this "getting smoked in Iraq" is coming from. They say we are winning, me, I'm calling it right now, I say we won. There's going to be mopping up for awhile, that's the nature of a war where one side is just random people taking pot shots, but it's over. They can't win. We will begin drawing back forces spring '06. A quarter of a million Iraqi police and military will be more than capable of keeping things relatively under control.

The generals can't say it's going well, but I say it is. Around 2,000 dead, 15,000 wounded? I say, as detached as possible, that is acceptable. They couldn't possibly get away with saying that publically, but I can. Our losses are acceptable.

George Bush diffused a looming global catastrophe, postponed a civilizational war, and he did it losing only about 2,000 soldiers. That's pretty good in my book.

 

[no1tovote4]

If you don't appreciate Picasso or Van Gogh, or know how to spell Warhol, keep it to yourself.

Basically people should enjoy the art they like and let other people enjoy the art they like. It is fascism to try to shut down a museum because a tiny minority of people whine about something on grounds of their superstitions. I don't use the word "fascism" lightly, because that is exactly what Hitler did. Although he had a bigger group of supporters than the whiners who wanted to shut down the Brooklyn Museum.

I don't like Picasso so I should have no opinion that I should share? How fascist! I don't like Georges Braque either, but then I simply don't like cubism. Why would that make my opinion less valuable than yours or myself less knowledgeable than yourself? What an elitist! I can spell Picasso so I am better than you?!