President Bush Is Not the Enemy

[Annie]

neither a DNC or GOP kinda guy...just a ultra conservative registered American Independent I find fault with both parties...having said that there is a difference between bashing and corrective criticism...I use the latter...!
Are you telling us that the Border policy is good for either party....and shipping our production jobs overseas...or bringing in cheap labor is good for middle America...I for one think not!

It isn't often that you, OCA, and I agree on something, but this is one of those times. I don't even view myself as particulary 'conservative' though I know I've become moreso since 9/11. I tend to go more the libertarian stand, but the interests of national security have certainly moved me away from that to a large degree.

GW was the right man on 9/11, I have no doubt of that. The whole 'deer in the headlights thing' pissed me off then and still does. That he recognized that scaring a classroom full of kids and unaware adults was pointless, I thought correct. That he listened to advice not to rush to a possible site under attack, was also correct. Afterwards, his dealings with Afghanistan and later Iraq, were masterful. He gave the UN time, but no credible way out. They failed, and many of us will never forget that. Same with France, Germany, and Russia, they backstabbed, and he made that clear. Many that had thought them allies, suddenly realized that they weren't friends, but enemies.

On the domestic front, even on some of the Supreme Court nominees I think he's done a mediocre-poor job. Border security, abyssmal. Social Security drug plan, a boondoggle. He has gotten tax relief, but is way too loose on spending. He has failed to tighten up waste in defense contracting. Yet, he could have done a great enlightening of the public and the difficulties faced in Washington, if he had chosen to. He chose not to, thus will have to live with that legacy also.

Earlier someone said that people should pay more attention to who we are sending to Washington or even our state capitols. Yes, they are correct. The most influence of the individual is local, the more local the better.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

neither a DNC or GOP kinda guy...just a ultra conservative registered American Independent I find fault with both parties...having said that there is a difference between bashing and corrective criticism...I use the latter...!
Are you telling us that the Border policy is good for either party....and shipping our production jobs overseas...or bringing in cheap labor is good for middle America...I for one think not!

Are you aware of the details of his border policy?
Do you know that we have a NET gain of jobs due to outsourcing?

besides, thats not the point I addressed. You tell me how he can appease the middle (necessary to win) and please the base. PLEASE TELL ME.

Or else your choice is please the base, lose the election and we have SKerry as president. Now thats skerry.

 

[Annie]

Are you aware of the details of his border policy?
Do you know that we have a NET gain of jobs due to outsourcing?

besides, thats not the point I addressed. You tell me how he can appease the middle (necessary to win) and please the base. PLEASE TELL ME.

Or else your choice is please the base, lose the election and we have SKerry as president. Now thats skerry.

Arch is more than able to answer for himself. I haven't a problem with outsourcing, I think it just part of the next paradigm change.

On the middle, stay true to protecting the US from harm, which includes the borders and protecting the military by wise spending of the $$$ that Americans are very willing to spend.

 

[Adam's Apple]

We can do better, as a party and a nation we must strive for better. Look at the Repub frontrunners for '08: McCain...he's a Demo, Giuliani....he's pro abortion and pro special queer rights...............LMFAO! But hey they are better than Demos.....right?

Well, good luck in finding that "perfect" candidate. You have already identified shortcomings of those who will be the leaders of the pack. All we can do is vote for the person who most nearly reflects our own values and thinking on the issues and hope for the best. Between Bush, Gore and Kerry, Bush was that person, in my opinion. I am positive things would have been a lot worse in this country if either Gore or Kerry had been elected, so I am not sorry or apologetic that I voted for Bush. Bush is not perfect, but I didn't think so at the time I voted for him.

There have been good things about the Bush Administration: no more attacks by the terrorists on the homeland, good economy, less of our money going to Washington as taxes, good Supreme Court nominees, good appointments to the lower courts, improvement in public education resulting in higher test scores (at least that has been the situation in my state since "No Child Left Behind" was implemented), defense of the Christian principles upon which this country was founded, etc.

I believe that President Bush is a person who listens and responds to his base when enough people take the time to make their views known, directly to him and to their elected representatives. That part of making things better is entirely up to us.

 

[Abbey Normal]

...Which ever of those two groups grabs ENOUGH of the middle will win. Without it, you can sit and pat yourself on the back how you stood to your principles and support only true conservatives, while the moderate Democrats run the nation.

Boy, did you nail that, LuvRP. That is the bottom line, and that is the reason the Dems support spineless jackasses like Kerry. They will back whomever they think will help them gain power, while we stand on our "true conservatives" platform and spotlight our President's failings for them to use against us.

I can guarantee you if Kerry were in the White House right now, Dems wouldn't be publicly complaining about him, regardless of how let down they feel by him. They would be thinking of the upcoming Congressional elections, and the '08 Presidential elections, and trying to maintain party solidarity to gain even more power. Crappy, but that's politics today.

If you need an example, remember, they defended Clinton to the end, even when he was exposed as a sexual harasser and seller of pardons to criminals for his own gain.

God forbid we had a Dem in the White House right now, appointing two Supreme Court justices. Another Ruth Bader Ginsberg, anyone?

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Boy, did you nail that, LuvRP. That is the bottom line, and that is the reason the Dems support spineless jackasses like Kerry. They will back whomever they think will help them gain power, while we stand on our "true conservatives" platform and spotlight our President's failings for them to use against us.

I can guarantee you if Kerry were in the White House right now, Dems wouldn't be publicly complaining about him, regardless of how let down they feel by him. They would be thinking of the upcoming Congressional elections, and the '08 Presidential elections, and trying to maintain party solidarity to gain even more power. Crappy, but that's politics today.

If you need an example, remember, they defended Clinton to the end, even when he was exposed as a sexual harasser and seller of pardons to criminals for his own gain.

God forbid we had a Dem in the White House right now, appointing two Supreme Court justices. Another Ruth Bader Ginsberg, anyone?

One of the biggest problems for the Repubs that the Dems dont face,is, we have a very LARGE base. Its mostly conservative, so when a Repub does something they "VIEW" as anti conservative, he gets alot of criticism. Pat Buchanan gets alot more air time in his criticisms than Lieberman gets of the Dems.

Now, the Dems no longer have a large base. They are the big tent, filled with many little tents. They are bound together not by common values or ideas, but by a common enemy. This is why they are so negative all the time.
Groups such as NAMBLA, NOW, homosexual lobbies, PETA, enviormentalists, all "tolerate" each other because of the common enemy. Take away the commn enemy and they would disband. In fact, their posistions often conflict. For example, when a PRO LIFE woman is nominated for a judicial posistion, or a black man, then they have to be opposed to these nominations even though they are suppose to be for minorities and womens rights.

Teachers unions are in conflict on school choice with inner city black families.

enviormentalists are in conflict with unions when a situation involves losing jobs with protecting the enviorment.

Such a situation doesnt exist in the Repub sector to the extent it does with the left.

What they do is choose the more powerful of the two groups in conflict, to create the least furor.

What this creates is a SMALL furor when the Dem politicians do something against one of their splinter groups. They have no LARGE BASE group to offend.

When Clinton supported "dont ask, dont tell" the only complaints came from the homosexual lobby.

When he didnt campaign to support the ACLU which was fighting in court for NAMBLA's right to publish pediophilia material on the web, the only complaints came from NAMBLA, yet another very small splinter group.

They have no large base to make large complaints. The right does.

I really loved it when in one debate, Skerry tried to appease two groups. One group, who wanted BIG CORP's to pay more taxes, and the group that is opposed to outsourcing of jobs.

Skerry proposed higher corp taxes and ending of loopholes.
WIthin the same debate, his answer to end outsourcing, or reduce it, was to give tax breaks to corp's that dont oursource, creating another loophole and reducing corp taxes,, hahhahahhahahahha

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I gotta agree with OCA, W has let us, his base, down.
That base is not the Christian right, nor the social program promoters, or big business.
Those "groups", seem to be who he has catered to. Not his true republican base.

With the exception of the war on terror, he’s a failure as President, IMO.

Yeah. But you're really a lib underneath it all, aren't you p.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

So let me think...reality is we have to keep getting buttfucked by both parties and then in the next election say "thank you sirs, may I have another?"

Thats pretty spineless.

Again, you're out of touch with reality. Revolution ain't the solution. But you gotta feel special. Dontcha.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Let's not destroy a winning coalition. MMMMM kay?

 

[Mr. P]

Yeah. But you're really a lib underneath it all, aren't you p.

Crap yea got me. Besides being a lib, I’m also a DU spy, and a Mod over there too.
I hate it when my cover gets blown, thanks RWA! :funnyface

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Crap yea got me. Besides being a lib, I’m also a DU spy, and a Mod over there too.
I hate it when my cover gets blown, thanks RWA! :funnyface

 

[OCA]

Again, you're out of touch with reality. Revolution ain't the solution. But you gotta feel special. Dontcha.

Well there is another party out there who is willing to hold true to conservative values called the constitution party buttttt................because Americans are largely sheep they will hold onto this two party farce called American politics and keep voting along party lines even though the candidates are doing them without vasoline.

By the way, what is the solution Rush?

 

[OCA]

The conservative PRESIDENT Bush bashers here are not living in the real world.

Fact is, the conservative base, nor the republicans are a majority. We live in a democracy.

Which ever of those two groups grabs ENOUGH of the middle will win. Without it, you can sit and pat yourself on the back how you stood to your principles and support only true conservatives, while the moderate Democrats run the nation.

Straw man arguements just make one look foolish, leave those to the liberal posters here. Try arguing the facts, thats what true conservatives do.

Fact is, Bush BARELY won both elections, had he "pleased his conservative base" we would be staring at Kerry making presidental decisions.

Now, dont go and put words in my mouth and claim "oh, so you think its better to get buttfucked by both parties?" cuz I dont, nobody does.

What I prefer is a President who at least can at times govern the way I would like him to rather than having someone like Kerry not only buttfuck me, but my family too.

Now, as for the polls, Bush's concerns with the polls are ONLY pragmatic. Clintons concern with the polls were both pragmatic and he wants to be liked. THATS THE DIFFERENCE.

I don't know who brainwashed you with this center bullshit but they did you a great disservice. If America is largely conservative in its beliefs has you and many others claim and to which I also believe, wouldn't logic tell you that governing in a more conservative manner garner more support?

So anyway keep believing that moving to the center wins elections, and i'll call you during the H. Clinton inaugural and i'll thank you for getting her elected.

Oh and what strawman arguments might you be speaking of?

 

[LuvRPgrl]

I don't know who brainwashed you with this center bullshit but they did you a great disservice. If America is largely conservative in its beliefs has you and many others claim and to which I also believe, wouldn't logic tell you that governing in a more conservative manner garner more support?

So anyway keep believing that moving to the center wins elections, and i'll call you during the H. Clinton inaugural and i'll thank you for getting her elected.

Oh and what strawman arguments might you be speaking of?

Ahh, so your opinion isnt brainwashing, but mine is (is that flaming? isnt that against the rules, calling a poster slurs?-and now if I respond in kind, you will give me a warning?), even though I have FACTS to support mine, but you just continue to spouse your opinion.

FACT, Bush didnt even get more than half the popular vote. How does that PROVE America is mostly conservative? Is America mostly conservative? I dont know and havent claimed its either way, yet you feel compelled to tell me what I believe. You know, there are alot ALOT of modern "self proclaimed Christians" who are very liberal. See Jimmy Carter. The entire analysis would be quite complicated and involved, but bottom line is how people vote.
FACT: If Bush had pushed even a little more to the right, then he wouldnt have won. He barely won as is.

Straw man arguements. Calling some of us "blind loyalists"
Stating we are getting buttfucked by the administration

The list of clear conservative choices Bush made that Skerry wouldnt have is quite long. He doesnt govern from center left.
There are many issues he wanted to push, but wasnt able to, because he didnt get enough public support, so where are all those conservatives?

Explain logically how governing in a more conservative manner would get him more votes. Who are the swing voters? Are they "strong conservatives"? I think not. Governing even more conservative will not get votes he already has, but will garner him the needed swing votes, He pulled it off PERFECTLY. He governed, and ran down the middle just enough to win, while wanting to be more to the right.

As for his immigration policy, I still havent heard ONE SINGLE Bush basher state some of its details. I doubt you'all know what the details are.

So tell me ol wise unbrainwashed one, who should we have voted for? Cmon man, give me a name, an alternative.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Originally Posted by SpidermanTuba
I've always been amused at the fact that righties are always accusing lefties of not having original thoughts - yet righties are the ones who usually start threads which consist of absolutely nothing but a ver batim copy of another person's ideas.

and YOUR ORIGINAL IDEA was?????????

Yea, just as I thought, NONE.

POT
KETTLE
BLACK

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Well there is another party out there who is willing to hold true to conservative values called the constitution party buttttt................because Americans are largely sheep they will hold onto this two party farce called American politics and keep voting along party lines even though the candidates are doing them without vasoline.

By the way, what is the solution Rush?

Their foreign policy is wack. While I agree with their stance on the U.N. I believe entangling alliances are what global politics is all about. The fact is we must interfere in the affairs of other nations now that nukes are around. Their views are too simplistic.

 

[OCA]

Ahh, so your opinion isnt brainwashing, but mine is (is that flaming? isnt that against the rules, calling a poster slurs?-and now if I respond in kind, you will give me a warning?), even though I have FACTS to support mine, but you just continue to spouse your opinion.

FACT, Bush didnt even get more than half the popular vote. How does that PROVE America is mostly conservative? Is America mostly conservative? I dont know and havent claimed its either way, yet you feel compelled to tell me what I believe. You know, there are alot ALOT of modern "self proclaimed Christians" who are very liberal. See Jimmy Carter. The entire analysis would be quite complicated and involved, but bottom line is how people vote.
FACT: If Bush had pushed even a little more to the right, then he wouldnt have won. He barely won as is.

Straw man arguements. Calling some of us "blind loyalists"
Stating we are getting buttfucked by the administration

The list of clear conservative choices Bush made that Skerry wouldnt have is quite long. He doesnt govern from center left.
There are many issues he wanted to push, but wasnt able to, because he didnt get enough public support, so where are all those conservatives?

Explain logically how governing in a more conservative manner would get him more votes. Who are the swing voters? Are they "strong conservatives"? I think not. Governing even more conservative will not get votes he already has, but will garner him the needed swing votes, He pulled it off PERFECTLY. He governed, and ran down the middle just enough to win, while wanting to be more to the right.

As for his immigration policy, I still havent heard ONE SINGLE Bush basher state some of its details. I doubt you'all know what the details are.

So tell me ol wise unbrainwashed one, who should we have voted for? Cmon man, give me a name, an alternative.

Facts?????????? You're high. Your the exact twin of ol' Psycho, everything you state or argue is based on facts and nothing else. The fact is on the election that Bush got elected strictly because of conservative positions and then once in started spending and giving away money like a drunken sailor and abandoned all of his social positions i.e. constitutional ban on gay marriage.

No politician will ever get more than half the popular vote in today's polarized America, the fact remains that Bush ran on conervative principles and values then when in office abandoned them like a young black teenage father abandons his children.

Immigration you say? Has many here know Bush's position falls right in line with my VERY sensible position, grant the lawabiding ones already here amnesty or at the very least guest worker status then seal the borders, this is the one position where Bush is shining and deciding not to align with the whacko brown skin haters....errrr excuse me illegal immigration alarmists.

You are exactly what is wrong with American politics today, you believe in tell the people what they want to hear just to get elected, I on the other hand say stick to your guns and let the chips fall where they may, guess its a matter of principles between us, heh?

So you like moderate fence sitters, which is the exact definition of governing from the middle.....hey thats cool....thats what Hillary is running as.....coooooool.

If you think me saying your brainwashed is flaming take it up with Jimmy and then get out more often......I haven't even gotten started.

 

[OCA]

Their foreign policy is wack. While I agree with their stance on the U.N. I believe entangling alliances are what global politics is all about. The fact is we must interfere in the affairs of other nations now that nukes are around. Their views are too simplistic.

Yeah, our alliances did us a hell of alot of good lately, can anyone say Germany and France?

I say fuck it, lets nominate Pat Buchannan.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I on the other hand say stick to your guns and let the chips fall where they may,

Don't you mean "Stick to outmoded isolationist thinking even if it's suicidal"?

 

[archangel]

Are you aware of the details of his border policy?
Do you know that we have a NET gain of jobs due to outsourcing?

besides, thats not the point I addressed. You tell me how he can appease the middle (necessary to win) and please the base. PLEASE TELL ME.

Or else your choice is please the base, lose the election and we have SKerry as president. Now thats skerry.

border policy...having worked the Mexican Border for over twelve years...well I would say yes...GW is way off track..he pleases big business while putting his enforcement officers at risk! not to mention wasting their time...as for the net gain in jobs do to outsourcing...humm please show me these wonderful jobs created...minus the cheap labor jobs imported to please big business!
Quit with the towing the party line already...both parties are for this bundoggle! I am against both of them..and for Scarry Lt.Kerry I have made it very clear as to how I feel about him in numerous posts...!