If Bush wins.....

gburner, I appreciate two things you've done: 1) introduced some needed dialogue (first post) and 2) begged forgiveness from those who thought you had taken perpetual leave of your senses and endorsed Herr Kerry.

I for one am incensed by the $$$ spent on the war, poverty, education, etc. with very little seen as evidence of $$ well spent.

BUT! I have to look at one of Bush's predecessors, . . . one who was not afraid to spend the almighty buck. Ronald Reagan: spent this nation into the poor house (almost), . . . but we (together) won the cold war. His "star wars" program won't be paid for in the next 50 years, . . . but at least none of us had to confront the Ruskies in central Europe, exchanging tactical nukes.

Besides that, . . . what is the point in saving all our hard earned money, . . . if there ain't no United States to spend it in???? The war we are engaged in right not is not going to be won easily, or cheaply, . . . if it is won at all. We are losing more each day that we pussy foot around with these people. They have vowed to kill us on sight, . . . nothing short of Washington DC being burned to the ground and all of us dead on the heap is their goal. It is time we took off the gloves, . . . they want to play tough, . . . its a two way street. Being sensitive to their needs will not suffice in this conflict. Force they understand, . . . therefore, . . . send em force.

Yeah, . . . Bush ain't no dyed in the wool conservative, and some of the things he does make me question: but the alternative??? C'mon, . . . guys, we're talking about the possibility of having to salute Herr Kerry for 4 to 8 years with his trash talking wife, his bosom buddy Tedward Kennedy, the darling couple Billary & Hillary, . . . need I say more?

May God bless,
Dwight
 
On the political scene, if Bush wins in November, which I believe he will, I expect to see a further and accellerated meltdown of the Democratic Party. The party has already been largely hijacked by extreme leftists, and I expect this would get worse over another four years. The polarization that we have seen in the past few years, the increasing division between conservatives and liberals will widen. The fact that the voters of the US have rejected their socialist ideals will only make the lefties madder, and their underlying elitist attitude that they are the only "enlightened" people in the country will also get worse, driving them further from the mainstream and leaving them even more out of touch with the American people than they are now. Also look for more politically-driven "entertainment" to come out of leftist Hollywood, both the overtly political, such as Farens**t 9/11, and the more subtle propoganda such as The Manchurian Candidate and Runaway Jury.
 
Not to mention an accelerated meltdown of the Republican party. Four more years of stomping on various parts of the 1st and 4th amendments will further alienate the libertarians who have been seeking refuge in the GOP.
 
My biggest concerns with Bush admin are:

1. The economic concern only for corporate america and the wealthy elite (top 2%-while I know pretty well some folks in this category, I am not sure that this kind of mindset is good for America in general).

I feel that this ideology drives essentially all policy decisions from loosening pollution laws to allowing more ATV trails in the national forests (ATV manufacturers) to tax breaks for the wealthy to the privitization of the military (dangerous, but good for the companies who provide the services) to cutting vets benefits (reversed temporarily due to the upcoming election) to not funding no child left behind.

The only other decisions I can see are made to actually garner votes from many of the people who are I fear in many cases, unknowingly adversely affected by the accompanying economic policies-these are things like gay marriage, abortion stance, etc that appeal to many conservative-minded regular folks. Personally, I could care less about whether or not the lesbo couple down the street are married or not. Don't know, don't care.

2. The IMO inappropriately close personal and financial relationship with the Saudi royals. This causes me the most concern as I can't see that the best interests of the american people are served.

I am also concerned about the deficit spiralling upward again. Not good policy IMO or in the opinion of Greenspan, an opinion I trust. I find it odd that Dems are now the budget conscious party. In the words of Lombardi, "What da he11s goin on out here?!?!"

Question:

Can't we have a socially moderate to conservative party that has the best economic interests of regular Americans as their primary goal? WTF? :mad:

It just seems like the parties are more and more polarized and most americans views are not truly represented by either. They have to pick a poison.

I haven't formed an opinion of Kerry really, except that I prefer his serving in Vietnam, even though he protested the war (there was alot to protest IMO), more than Bush's failure to serve, which is a sore spot with me. Even though in retrospect IMO it would have been a good war to stay out of as a nation and it was sickening to me that rich kids didn't have to go, I have more respect for Kerry for it.

I haven't looked over his record at all yet as a politician.
 
Code: 
Can't we have a socially moderate to conservative party that has the best economic interests of regular Americans as their primary goal? WTF?

I thought that IS the Republican Party. The Bush tax cut benefitted every taxpayer in the country--not just the top 2%, as the Dems would have you believe.

And the intent was to spur the economy, which would benefit all participants in the economy.

Dems see the Reps as the party of the rich. I don't think that's an accurate representation of Republican policy at all. Reps see Dems as the party that wants to tax the rich and re-distribute to the poor. I see that as a much more accurate representation of the Democrats.

But now I'm just contributing to thread drift....

Back to the original scenarios...I don't think the International one is likely.

The domestic one, OTOH, gives me heartburn. But I'm conflicted about one aspect of that scenarion. If RKBA becomes more accepted, how can people accept further erosion of other liberties? I always thought RKBA was kinda the bellweather that indicates how much people care about personal liberty. RKBA supporters seem to be the loudest critics of the Patriot act.
 
Funny...

as a middle class guy/working couple who has had the same job since Clinton was in office, I didn't notice any meaningful drop in my taxes when Bush came in. Accordingly, I doubt if I will notice any real increase if Kerry comes in.

For all the talk of taxes, I think the middle class will get soaked appropriately by dems or reps. They take about 40% and they will continue to do so.
 
It just seems like the parties are more and more polarized and most americans views are not truly represented by either. They have to pick a poison.
Click to expand...

Well, you're right there, though for me it's not a difficult decision. The Republican Party comes a lot closer to reflecting my beliefs in limited government, states' rights, and personal responsibility than the Democrats do or ever will, especially as their platform moves ever closer to outright socialism.

So personally I will continue to vote mostly Republican in federal elections. In state and local elections, I will tend to vote Libertarian in races where they manage to field a viable candidate. I will NOT vote for a Libertarian unknown in a big federal election to make a statement, not when doing so will likely help a liberal Democrat win the position.
The state and local levels are where the Libertarian Party, or any other upstart third party, must concentrate on gaining positions, in order to achieve viability and recognition, before gradually infiltrating the federal government. IMO, the Libertarian unknowns shooting for Senate seats or even the Presidency when most people have no idea who they are or what they stand for is just a waste of time, money, and credibility. The way to do it is to start small and build the party up through the "lower" levels of government.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top