Even conservatives hate Dubbyuh and his administration...

Bullypulpit

Senior Member
Jan 7, 2004
5,849
384
48
Columbus, OH
<center><h1><a href=http://wanniski.com/showarticle.asp?articleid=3348>No End to War: The Frum-Perle prescription would ensnare America in endless conflict.</a></h1></center>

<blockquote>By Patrick J. Buchanan

On the dust jacket of his book, Richard Perle appends a Washington Post depiction of himself as the “intellectual guru of the hard-line neoconservative movement in foreign policy.”

The guru’s reputation, however, does not survive a reading. Indeed, on putting down Perle’s new book the thought recurs: the neoconservative moment may be over. For they are not only losing their hold on power, they are losing their grip on reality...

The Perle-Frum book is marinated in conceit, which may prove the neocons’ fatal flaw. In the run-up to the invasion, when critics were exposing their plotting for war long before 9/11, the neocons did not bother to deny it. They reveled in it. They boasted about who they were, where they came from, what they believed, how they were different, and how they had become the new elite. With Rumsfeld, Cheney and Bush marching to their war drums, one of them bellowed, “We are all neoconservatives now!”

But it is always unwise of courtiers to boast of their influence with the prince. And now the neocons have outed themselves. We all know who they are. We all have the coordinates. We all have them bracketed.

With the heady days of the fall of Baghdad behind us and our country ensnared in a Lebanon of our own, neocons seem fearful that it is they who will be made to take the fall if it all turns out badly in Iraq, as McNamara and his Whiz Kids had to take the fall for Vietnam.

And this one they’ve got right.</blockquote>

Imagine, arch-conservative Patrick Buchanan disses Dubbyuh.

Unless he plans to steal this election too, Dubbyuh should start getting his resume together. If there were any justice to be had at all though, the only job he'll be able to get is pumping gas in some dusty little Texas hell-hole.
 
Originally posted by Bullypulpit
[BUnless he plans to steal this election too, Dubbyuh should start getting his resume together. [/B]

Bully, do you proofread your posts before hitting the submit button?
 
Gee, the words hate don't appear anywhere in anything that I've read from conservatives. Perhaps we don't always agree with our president, but I've yet to see the word hate anywhere.
 
I'm sure there are some who aren't too thrilled with Bush at times, but I would bet that even most of them would rather see him in office than Kerry.

I also don't care that much about what Buchanon has to say. He's pretty "out there".
 
Didn't he want a WALL between Canada (Canuckistan) and the U.S.?
 
Buchanan is not representative of most conservative views. He's an economic protectionist. That's bad mojo. Liberals have more in common with buchanan than most of us on this board. He's basically a flesh and blood straw man.
 
Yeah, what Buchanan is for protecting is a lil' thing called American jobs. That's called patriotism. He's also speaks for real Americans, and real patriots. It's like they used to say...

Buchanan didn't leave the conservatives. They left him!
 
Im a conservative and i can tell you I dont hate the President. I dont agree with everything he has done but i think some of the stuff he has done has and will turn out fairly good in the long run.

As for Job protection. Thats the problem with the economy. We are protecting too many industries. We need to let capitalism do its job. Yeah we may have some tough times adjusting but we will be alot better for it then we would be trying to protect certain industries.

Free trade drops the prices for the consumer, raises the standards of living in other natiosn thereby increasing their wealth and ability to buy products from us. Our job shouldnt be protecting inefficient companies. Our job should be educating Americans to help them adapt to the changes that will inevitably come to the market. Refusing to adapt to the changes from the economy is what will weaken us economicly not allowing free change.
 
I agree that Bush shouldn't be reelected, but I don't hate him.

I decided from the day I heard that Bush was attacking Iraq that if there were not Weapons of Mass Distruction, as he said was the premise of his need to go to war, that I was definitely not voting for him in 2004. They're not there. It appears that he gambled and lost. I think Bush made a really bad judgement call. A critical judgement call that could cost us in the International community.

Why didn't he fire the head of the CIA if he was the man at fault? It's very fishy. I know that a CEO in a company would be fired for this mistake. Why not hold the president to the same standard? This is critical to our safety. This isn't making a mistake about healthcare benefits reform. This is a matter that directly affects massive amounts of people getting bombed for doing nothing. I'm scared of his decisions, not his patriotism. I think he's a good man making bad decisions.
 
Originally posted by thesolution
I agree that Bush shouldn't be reelected, but I don't hate him.

I decided from the day I heard that Bush was attacking Iraq that if there were not Weapons of Mass Distruction, as he said was the premise of his need to go to war, that I was definitely not voting for him in 2004. They're not there. It appears that he gambled and lost. I think Bush made a really bad judgement call. A critical judgement call that could cost us in the International community.

Why didn't he fire the head of the CIA if he was the man at fault? It's very fishy. I know that a CEO in a company would be fired for this mistake. Why not hold the president to the same standard? This is critical to our safety. This isn't making a mistake about healthcare benefits reform. This is a matter that directly affects massive amounts of people getting bombed for doing nothing. I'm scared of his decisions, not his patriotism. I think he's a good man making bad decisions.

The enforcement of years of U.N. resolutions alone justified the invasion in the mind of any fair minded, rational person.

Why do you think Saddam should have been allowed to openly violate conditions of a cease fire agreement? Do you think French, German, Russian objection had anything to do with the huge amounts of corruption they were involved in with Saddam and the Oil for food program? No blood for oil! Remeber that? Live it, why don't you.

And, contrary to spin, this was one of the best executed military operations in history.
 
Originally posted by Avatar4321
Im a conservative and i can tell you I dont hate the President. I dont agree with everything he has done but i think some of the stuff he has done has and will turn out fairly good in the long run.

As for Job protection. Thats the problem with the economy. We are protecting too many industries. We need to let capitalism do its job. Yeah we may have some tough times adjusting but we will be alot better for it then we would be trying to protect certain industries.

Free trade drops the prices for the consumer, raises the standards of living in other natiosn thereby increasing their wealth and ability to buy products from us. Our job shouldnt be protecting inefficient companies. Our job should be educating Americans to help them adapt to the changes that will inevitably come to the market. Refusing to adapt to the changes from the economy is what will weaken us economicly not allowing free change.

Maybe I'm just spitballing here, but isn't 'global economy' really nothing more than an experiment in world socialism?

Lets look at this rationally for a minute.

People say that with a 'free market' and the ability for global corps to gather labor from around the world we reduce costs for the company, reduce prices for the consumer, and raise the economic development of other countries who can then buy more consumer products. I say this is world socialism because in the end all we are doing is redistributing wealth that was concentrated in the US and we're shipping it around the globe which eventually ends up in the coffers of shareholders and executives.

Wheres the wealth creation that capitalism and free markets are supposed to bring?
 
Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
The enforcement of years of U.N. resolutions alone justified the invasion in the mind of any fair minded, rational person.

I see nothing fair minded or rational about classifying those who didn't believe UN resolutions alone justified the invasion as NOT being fair minded or rational.
 
Originally posted by DKSuddeth
Maybe I'm just spitballing here, but isn't 'global economy' really nothing more than an experiment in world socialism?

Lets look at this rationally for a minute.

People say that with a 'free market' and the ability for global corps to gather labor from around the world we reduce costs for the company, reduce prices for the consumer, and raise the economic development of other countries who can then buy more consumer products. I say this is world socialism because in the end all we are doing is redistributing wealth that was concentrated in the US and we're shipping it around the globe which eventually ends up in the coffers of shareholders and executives.

Wheres the wealth creation that capitalism and free markets are supposed to bring?



the average mexicans life has not improved greatly and alot of mexicans are also upset with nafta not living up to its promises.
mexicans can't afford american made products that is why there is a trade deficit which means we are buying from them and they are not buying from us.mexicans are buying mexican and chinese and anything but american made goods because they cost more because we pay our workers more,we give our workers benefits and insurance,companies comply to environmental standards and safety standards while foreign countries like china just use slave labor and dump pollution into rivers and streams.25% of tech jobs will be gone by 2010 and no one cares because we think our job is safe and we pay more attention to who wins on american idol than what our government is doing to us through this disasterous trade policy.
 
2 things
1.our trade policy effects collective bargaining between unions and employers giving employers a bargaining chip in negotiations(i know your union members make $20.35 an hour but they have to take a 10 dollar an hour pay cut or we will be forced to relocate to mexico)
2.now imagine this happens to hundreds of thousands of american workers-who is going to go to the movies,buy new cars,go out to eat,have improvements made on their homes,buy season tickets to the local sports teams,or invest in the stock market?

free trade is not fair trade and effects everyone not just the automotive,aircraft,steel, and other high-tech industry.
 

Forum List

Back
Top