The Conservative Case Against George W. Bush

[tpahl]

An excellent story in the NY Press that sums up what alot of conservatives I know feel about George Bush. unfortunately not all of them come up with the conclusion that the author in this article does.

http://www.nypress.com/17/31/news&columns/WilliamBryk.cfm

To sum up: Anything beyond the limited powers expressly delegated by the people under the Constitution to their government for certain limited purposes creates the danger of tyranny. We stand there now. For an American conservative, better one lost election than the continued empowerment of cynical men who abuse conservatism through an exercise of power unrestrained by principle through the compromise of conservative beliefs. George W. Bush claims to be conservative. But based upon the unwholesome intrusion into domestic life and personal liberty of his administration and the local governments who imitate it, George W. Bush is no conservative, no friend of limited, constitutional government—and no friend of freedom. The Republic would be better served by his defeat in November.

You can help him be defeated but still not vote for Kerry. Badnarik is a perfect choice for disgruntled republicans upset with their parties support of Bush. It sends a strong message to the nation and the GOP that you will not stand by while they act like liberals.

Travis

 

[Annie]

Interesting that the author of that piece does not include the disclaimer that he too is running for President as a write in candidate for The Federalist Party. http://www.dcpoliticalreport.com/prespage.htm

It seems to be a good idea if you are trying to make a point or throw all sorts of accusations about, you be more upfront than those that release their tax returns?

 

[tpahl]

Interesting that the author of that piece does not include the disclaimer that he too is running for President as a write in candidate for The Federalist Party. http://www.dcpoliticalreport.com/prespage.htm

It seems to be a good idea if you are trying to make a point or throw all sorts of accusations about, you be more upfront than those that release their tax returns?

Probably because he is not running according to http://www.vote-smart.org/election_president_party.php?party_name=All which is a much better website to find the current candidates. And even when he was considered a write in candidate, it may not have been with his blessing.

Do you have any comments about the actual article?

Travis

 

[Annie]

Probably because he is not running according to http://www.vote-smart.org/election_president_party.php?party_name=All which is a much better website to find the current candidates. And even when he was considered a write in candidate, it may not have been with his blessing.

Do you have any comments about the actual article or were you more concerned with the author?

Travis

I have a problem with taking any source seriously, when I have no idea of what is being preached. See it's different with YOU, I know where you are coming from or myself or Insein or any regular posters. I have no problem arguing or agreeing with your opinions. We all know are slants/biases/etc. But, when you throw out a link and say-here, agree with me or argue with me. Dang, I want to know where THAT person is coming from.

In the other thread you posted on, regarding the Kerry boring us to death, I stated there that I thought reading the candidates speeches was something that should be practiced more widely. It's related to what I'm saying above.

 

[5stringJeff]

So we should abandon Bush and vote for Badnarik and throw the election to Kerry, who is an ultra-liberal and will be worse for the country than Bush, and this is supposed to advance liberty?

 

[dilloduck]

A lot of Bush supporters are not all that conservative. He has a broad base. I can accept his occasional drifts.

 

[tpahl]

So we should abandon Bush and vote for Badnarik and throw the election to Kerry, who is an ultra-liberal and will be worse for the country than Bush, and this is supposed to advance liberty?

Kerry may be ultra liberal, but Bush is close to it as well. Looking at Bushs record, he is not a conservative. The choice between Bush and Kerry is a choice between liberal and liberal.

Voting for Badnarik may swing it to Kerrys favor and you may find that slightly worse, but in 4 years from now the republicans will not put up a liberal as their candidate again. In the long run we would be better off.

Travis

 

[tpahl]

A lot of Bush supporters are not all that conservative. He has a broad base. I can accept his occasional drifts.

Occasional? EVERY year his spending has grown. I would say if anything he has an occasional drift to conservatism.

Travis

 

[Annie]

Kerry may be ultra liberal, but Bush is close to it as well. Looking at Bushs record, he is not a conservative. The choice between Bush and Kerry is a choice between liberal and liberal.

Voting for Badnarik may swing it to Kerrys favor and you may find that slightly worse, but in 4 years from now the republicans will not put up a liberal as their candidate again. In the long run we would be better off.

Travis

And some of us want to do all that is possible that we're all HERE in 4 years to argue again. That is the point. Many of us, that may have shared more of your ideas prior to 9/11, now have different priorities. Isolationism is NOT going to solve the problem, neither will attempts at appeasement, however they are presented.

 

[dilloduck]

Occasional? EVERY year his spending has grown. I would say if anything he has an occasional drift to conservatism.

Travis

I don't care about spending that bailed us out of a finacial and security crisis. Has the full econimic damage of 9/11 on the entire country ever been assessed?

 

[tpahl]

And some of us want to do all that is possible that we're all HERE in 4 years to argue again. That is the point. Many of us, that may have shared more of your ideas prior to 9/11, now have different priorities. Isolationism is NOT going to solve the problem, neither will attempts at appeasement, however they are presented.

This thread is not about isolationism or appeasement. Badnarik is not going to win, so voting for him does not mean we will see him as president for the next four years. It would instead throw the election to Kerry who will keep the PATRIOT act, keep the war in Iraq and in fact send more troops, keep the war in afghanistan, etc... I would not be surprised if he did not continue the whole thing and invade another country in the next four years. His policy is not much different from Bush now and once he is in power it will be nearly identical, so you do not need to worry about not being here in 4 years, if you are not worried if Bush is elected.

Voting for Badnarik will give us Kerry in all likelyhood but will send a strong message to the GOP.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Yep. Isolationism and appeasement. Two bad things, whether it's the left or right esousing it.

 

[tpahl]

I don't care about spending that bailed us out of a finacial and security crisis. Has the full econimic damage of 9/11 on the entire country ever been assessed?

The financial crisis was never that big and was recovering shortly after Bush took office. The security threat is only a small portion of the increase in Bushs spending. Much of it is for things like the department of education that hs increased its budget 60% in 3 years. How is that helping either of these crisises you mention?

Government spending by the way does not help countries get out of finiancial crisises. That is a liberal lie that conservatives USED to question all the time. It is sad to see them accepting it now.

Travis

 

[rtwngAvngr]

This thread is not about isolationism or appeasement. Badnarik is not going to win, so voting for him does not mean we will see him as president for the next four years. It would instead throw the election to Kerry who will keep the PATRIOT act, keep the war in Iraq and in fact send more troops, keep the war in afghanistan, etc... I would not be surprised if he did not continue the whole thing and invade another country in the next four years. His policy is not much different from Bush now and once he is in power it will be nearly identical, so you do not need to worry about not being here in 4 years, if you are not worried if Bush is elected.

Voting for Badnarik will give us Kerry in all likelyhood but will send a strong message to the GOP.

Oh yeah. Send a message and get a MORE HAWKISH president, the best of both worlds. What a joke! Do you know how funny you are?
:rotflmao:

 

[Annie]

I may post what I like on a topic, I see a connection between what you see as a 'conservative case' against George Bush and national security. What are you basing your 'Kerry as a war hawk' upon? His going to the French for permission? YOU would like that, since you appear more than intelligent enough to know that isn't going to happen. Thus the appeasement/isolationism that seems to currently be the bedrock of the Libertarian campaign today. You are right, the winner is going to be Bush or Kerry, but you'd like a fractured GOP and that's not going to happen right now.

 

[tpahl]

Oh yeah. Send a message and get a MORE HAWKISH president, the best of both worlds. What a joke! Do you know how funny you are?
:rotflmao:

I am not saying he is more hawkish, but his kerrys Party as well as kerry himself have a record of being just as hawkish as Bush so you really do not have anything to worry about in terms of foriegn policy.

The message you are sending has more to do with the GOP's leaving conservatism. You basically have two liberal parties in the US right now. if you keep voting for them and supporting them, it will not change. But voting libertarian will get real change even though the candidate will not win.

It will send a message to the GOP that they need to cut spending (not just cut increases in spending), repeal gun laws, and all the other things that people expect the GOP to do.

Travis

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I am not saying he is more hawkish, but his kerrys Party as well as kerry himself have a record of being just as hawkish as Bush so you really do not have anything to worry about in terms of foriegn policy.

The message you are sending has more to do with the GOP's leaving conservatism. You basically have two liberal parties in the US right now. if you keep voting for them and supporting them, it will not change. But voting libertarian will get real change even though the candidate will not win.

It will send a message to the GOP that they need to cut spending (not just cut increases in spending), repeal gun laws, and all the other things that people expect the GOP to do.

Travis

No. He's not "just as".


Kerry is in with the "let's subjugate our soveriegnty to the U.N." crowd and we all know it. His attempt to repackage himself as someone who's strong on defense is a blatant lie. His voting record in the senate indicates the truth; he's a weak on defense lib.

Your faux lip service to some conservative causes fools noone. You're just here to split Bush's vote with whatever intellectual fraudery you can dream up.

 

[tpahl]

No. He's not "just as".


Kerry is in with the "let's subjugate our soveriegnty to the U.N." crowd and we all know it. His attempt to repackage himself as someone who's strong on defense is a blatant lie. His voting record in the senate indicates the truth; he's a weak on defense lib.

his voting record? he voted to give the president carte blanch to do as he pleases with the military. That seems pro military to me.

Your faux lip service to some conservative causes fools noone. You're just here to split Bush's vote with whatever intellectual fraudery you can dream up.

I share many of the same opinions as conservatives. I will admit I am not a conservative, but my goal is not to split Bushs vote, it is to increase badnariks. I have made that clear from the begining and would appreciate it if you did not try to say otherwise.

Travis

 

[DKSuddeth]

Your faux lip service to some conservative causes fools noone. You're just here to split Bush's vote with whatever intellectual fraudery you can dream up.

with all due respect, splitting votes with bush would not be a bad thing in the long run. the more candidates ALLOWED to run, the better off our political system would be. As it stands now, We have far too strict requirements per state to get on a federal ballot. There's something extremely un-american about that.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

his voting record? he voted to give the president carte blanch to do as he pleases with the military. That seems pro military to me.

[Your faux lip service to some conservative causes fools noone. You're just here to split Bush's vote with whatever intellectual fraudery you can dream up.

I share many of the same opinions as conservatives. I will admit I am not a conservative, but my goal is not to split Bushs vote, it is to increase badnariks. I have made that clear from the begining and would appreciate it if you did not try to say otherwise.

Travis

To allow you to erode support for Bush during a time of war is something I simply cannot do. Your irresponsible positions and misprioritizations will not go unrebutted. :funnyface