..to conservative(mostly) principles...the Bushs' showed when you compromise...neither side will give you high honors....you cannot please both sides...moderates will never rate high respect...despite differences..even Democrats have respect for Reagan because he had a solid foundation of beliefs...W will fail because he has tried to be a Republicrat...
Reagan trumps Bush's legacy by being true.
- Thread starter aspen1964
- Start date
So it's better to be uncompromising in your extreme views than a moderate? Wtf...yeah, let's all respect people who are too stubborn to realize their way may not be the only way. Let's eschew the idea of being open minded because certainly they could never have anything wise to say, they could never have good idea, they could never be smarter than us and our extreme viewpoint. But it's ok to be extreme as long as you agree with us, right?
Playboypenguin
Moderator
I must have missed the part where Bush and his cronies ever compromised. The only compromising I even saw them do was compromise their morals when they bowed down to oil companies and other big business at the expense of the average american and the US soldier.
Playboypenguin
Moderator
CALNRA,
Nice tactic. When you can't win an argument (or even add anything relevant) resort to smoke screens, diversions, and calling someone's character into question. That is great neo-con footwork.
Nice tactic. When you can't win an argument (or even add anything relevant) resort to smoke screens, diversions, and calling someone's character into question. That is great neo-con footwork.
Last edited:
DAVID NANCARROW
New member
IMO, GW did not fail because of compromises so much as he misrepresented himself to the people. If you come to the American voter, pledging limited government and responsible spending, and then go the other way, the people will speak at the polls. I see some folks are trying to define and re-define the "neo-con" moniker, but to me, all it means is directionless government.
Bill Clinton was many things to many people, but a lot of what he passed was pretty much middle of the road, with some notable exceptions. That said, I think a lot of GW's popularity was because compared to Clinton, he was more of a moral man, and people were tired of Clinton's affairs.
The Republicans have gotten all of the mileage out of the Iraq war they are likely to get, and to a lot of people, the odometer is beginning to spin backwards. No leadership, and they don't seem to be capable of showing what good has come of it. No real positive stories coming out from the White House over the war-my son did a tour there last year and told me more about the good happening in 30 minutes than our leadership bothered to pass on to the country all year long.
The border thing really gets people mad. It took way too long and too little done too late-the people are not happy with that at all. Of course, the Democrats having a slim majority might just do something about it, but I'm not holding my breath. Their promises are just as hollow, and while they may accuse the Republicans of holding hands with big business, the Democrats are just as guilty, but in a different light. The Republicans allow companies to move operations offshore to beat the tax rap that the Democrats voted into law years ago. Who loses? You and me.
In my mind, the "neo-cons" have handed the Democratic party their campaign strategy simply by not responding to the people. Will they do any better now that they have the majority? You can't tax your way to prosperity any more than you can let business run over the top of the people.
In the end, what both parties have done is lost the faith of the people, and that is something both parties need to be courting heavily. I really do not see the people being a winner over the latest elections. More like cyanide or anti freeze. Either one will kill you, in sufficient quantity.
What is missing on both sides is the essence of the American government. Lots of people on both sides like to think of themselves as uncompromising, but our government is founded on that very basis. I don't care what side of the fence you sit on, or if you are right in the middle-there has to be a return to reasoned discussion. Reagan was a successful President because he took his message directly to the people-that in a time where the democrats controlled the congress. People believed that Reagan believed in them. That is missing and is greatly missed.
I'd like to see an end to the character attacks from politicians on another-it is not a statesmanlike thing to do, and they all would do well to explain to the people the difference in their position compared to the other fella's, and why theirs would be better.
Bill Clinton was many things to many people, but a lot of what he passed was pretty much middle of the road, with some notable exceptions. That said, I think a lot of GW's popularity was because compared to Clinton, he was more of a moral man, and people were tired of Clinton's affairs.
The Republicans have gotten all of the mileage out of the Iraq war they are likely to get, and to a lot of people, the odometer is beginning to spin backwards. No leadership, and they don't seem to be capable of showing what good has come of it. No real positive stories coming out from the White House over the war-my son did a tour there last year and told me more about the good happening in 30 minutes than our leadership bothered to pass on to the country all year long.
The border thing really gets people mad. It took way too long and too little done too late-the people are not happy with that at all. Of course, the Democrats having a slim majority might just do something about it, but I'm not holding my breath. Their promises are just as hollow, and while they may accuse the Republicans of holding hands with big business, the Democrats are just as guilty, but in a different light. The Republicans allow companies to move operations offshore to beat the tax rap that the Democrats voted into law years ago. Who loses? You and me.
In my mind, the "neo-cons" have handed the Democratic party their campaign strategy simply by not responding to the people. Will they do any better now that they have the majority? You can't tax your way to prosperity any more than you can let business run over the top of the people.
In the end, what both parties have done is lost the faith of the people, and that is something both parties need to be courting heavily. I really do not see the people being a winner over the latest elections. More like cyanide or anti freeze. Either one will kill you, in sufficient quantity.
What is missing on both sides is the essence of the American government. Lots of people on both sides like to think of themselves as uncompromising, but our government is founded on that very basis. I don't care what side of the fence you sit on, or if you are right in the middle-there has to be a return to reasoned discussion. Reagan was a successful President because he took his message directly to the people-that in a time where the democrats controlled the congress. People believed that Reagan believed in them. That is missing and is greatly missed.
I'd like to see an end to the character attacks from politicians on another-it is not a statesmanlike thing to do, and they all would do well to explain to the people the difference in their position compared to the other fella's, and why theirs would be better.
I actually just heard a bit on the radio talking about how one of the things that made Regan such a good president is that he was fairly moderate and willing to be a true consensus builder. By most accounts Bush's biggest fault is that he doesn't listen to anyone ho disagrees with him and he doesn't compromise. I do think you're right about him not holding true to conservative values, but that's a different issue.
CobrayCommando
Moderator
According to Reagan himself (IIRC), consistency was one of his greatest virtues, and it's what separated him from craptacular presidents like Truman and Carter.
At least he wasn't a socialist like Bush senior and junior.
I say we resurrect Andrew Jackson, have him cane some of those molesty congressman to death and go trail of tears on Iraqistan. We need a man willing to fight 103 duels and "rattle like a bag of marbles" when you shake him from all the musketballs left in him.
At least he wasn't a socialist like Bush senior and junior.
I say we resurrect Andrew Jackson, have him cane some of those molesty congressman to death and go trail of tears on Iraqistan. We need a man willing to fight 103 duels and "rattle like a bag of marbles" when you shake him from all the musketballs left in him.
I believe Bush's biggest problem is his inability to articulate at greater than a third grade level. I mean the man is college educated yet sounds like an idiot. He is smarter than Kerry ( according to military entrance exams taken by both) yet Kerry sounds like a genius compared to Bush. Combine that with his failure to retaliate against the Bush lied, war for oil, illegal war crowd, allowing them to push it as fact and you have his currant situation.
Benonymous
New member
Bush = Imbecile
If you want a smart answer out of Bush, put the question to Karl Rove. Bush is the patsy the triumvirate of Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rove have used to push the agenda. If you take a long hard look, the "War on Terror" is nothing more than a substitute for the Cold War which America accidentally won. The Military-Industrial powerhouse looked to be out of business but, no! Along come the men with the right plan and "Hey Presto" they're back in business! Imagine what could have been achieved if even half the billions poured into the phoney war in Iraq had been put towards R&D into alternative energy? Y'know, stuff that would finally get the US off the oil-addict list. There would have been jobs and money flowing around the country in the name of innovation and advancement. Wouldn't that be an improvement on bombing a foreign country into the stone age? The whole "we'll fight them there so we don't have to fight them here" argument is propaganda. At what point was America in danger of being invaded by Iraq? Would an undetected terrorist plot have killed and injured over 23,000 US citizens? That's the dead and injured tally from the shindig in Iraq.
George Bush is a college educated as my Fox Terrier. He's U.S Elite and along with getting no doubt phoney college results he managed to completely avoid fighting in Vietnam. Many ordinary folk didn't have the same level of protection including John Kerry. The only point to the Iraq mess is OIL. Pure and simple, keep them SUV's rollin'!
Here's a little story... It was early in the first term of President Bush and some Journalists had bailed him up at his ranch, you know where he has his holidays, and they were eager to get a comment on some issue or other. This was obviously in the days before the press decided to become his servants. Anyohw, without a script writer or autocue to guide him, he couldn't string a decent sentence together. Nothing coherent was coming out of the mans mouth. I was amazed to say the least. Here was the President of the greatest superpower on earth, unable to comment on a current, national issue. Unable due to the fact he obviously had no understanding of it and couldn't achieve what countless politicians had been able to do before him and "think on his feet". Now the Bush lovers are going to tell me that it's "honest" of him not to pass comment on this issue if he didn't know about it. Garbage! it was a national issue. Why didn't he answer the question with authority and knowledge? Like a President would. I bet even Howdy Doody would have been able to do it. Bush couldn't and never has been able to unless he's fully backed up and breifed, like a mouthpiece needs to be.
If you want a smart answer out of Bush, put the question to Karl Rove. Bush is the patsy the triumvirate of Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rove have used to push the agenda. If you take a long hard look, the "War on Terror" is nothing more than a substitute for the Cold War which America accidentally won. The Military-Industrial powerhouse looked to be out of business but, no! Along come the men with the right plan and "Hey Presto" they're back in business! Imagine what could have been achieved if even half the billions poured into the phoney war in Iraq had been put towards R&D into alternative energy? Y'know, stuff that would finally get the US off the oil-addict list. There would have been jobs and money flowing around the country in the name of innovation and advancement. Wouldn't that be an improvement on bombing a foreign country into the stone age? The whole "we'll fight them there so we don't have to fight them here" argument is propaganda. At what point was America in danger of being invaded by Iraq? Would an undetected terrorist plot have killed and injured over 23,000 US citizens? That's the dead and injured tally from the shindig in Iraq.
George Bush is a college educated as my Fox Terrier. He's U.S Elite and along with getting no doubt phoney college results he managed to completely avoid fighting in Vietnam. Many ordinary folk didn't have the same level of protection including John Kerry. The only point to the Iraq mess is OIL. Pure and simple, keep them SUV's rollin'!
Here's a little story... It was early in the first term of President Bush and some Journalists had bailed him up at his ranch, you know where he has his holidays, and they were eager to get a comment on some issue or other. This was obviously in the days before the press decided to become his servants. Anyohw, without a script writer or autocue to guide him, he couldn't string a decent sentence together. Nothing coherent was coming out of the mans mouth. I was amazed to say the least. Here was the President of the greatest superpower on earth, unable to comment on a current, national issue. Unable due to the fact he obviously had no understanding of it and couldn't achieve what countless politicians had been able to do before him and "think on his feet". Now the Bush lovers are going to tell me that it's "honest" of him not to pass comment on this issue if he didn't know about it. Garbage! it was a national issue. Why didn't he answer the question with authority and knowledge? Like a President would. I bet even Howdy Doody would have been able to do it. Bush couldn't and never has been able to unless he's fully backed up and breifed, like a mouthpiece needs to be.
Benon,
Are you serious? Reagan had nothing to do with winning the cold war right?
Billions are being spent on R&D already.
Clinton, considered by many to be the greatest speaking president ever, never used advisers????? Clinton was never ever coached right LOL. Sure he was. So was Clinton running the show or his advisor's? Your logic is bad. Simply because Bush can't articulate doesn't mean he's a puppet.
According to the Soviets it would have come pretty quickly. Saddam was planning on exporting terror to the U.S.. Given the bipartisan belief that Saddam had WMD's (everyone including the Clinton administration and foreign government intelligence believed Iraq had WMD's) and a death toll with your figure is possible. A nerve gas mortar attack on a ballgame with almost 100 thousand folks inside for instance.
Bush and bipartisan supporters in the senate did the right thing as much as they now try to deny it.
Are you serious? Reagan had nothing to do with winning the cold war right?
Billions are being spent on R&D already.
Clinton, considered by many to be the greatest speaking president ever, never used advisers????? Clinton was never ever coached right LOL. Sure he was. So was Clinton running the show or his advisor's? Your logic is bad. Simply because Bush can't articulate doesn't mean he's a puppet.
According to the Soviets it would have come pretty quickly. Saddam was planning on exporting terror to the U.S.. Given the bipartisan belief that Saddam had WMD's (everyone including the Clinton administration and foreign government intelligence believed Iraq had WMD's) and a death toll with your figure is possible. A nerve gas mortar attack on a ballgame with almost 100 thousand folks inside for instance.
Bush and bipartisan supporters in the senate did the right thing as much as they now try to deny it.
S
Sgt Snafu
Guest
QUOTE: "If you want a smart answer out of Bush, put the question to Karl Rove."
Truer words were never spoken!!! Karl Rove is the brains behind the whole bush machine! If I were running for office, I'd spend whatever it takes to get Rove on board. GW would be cooling his heels back home in Connecticut right now if it wasn't for Rove.
Truer words were never spoken!!! Karl Rove is the brains behind the whole bush machine! If I were running for office, I'd spend whatever it takes to get Rove on board. GW would be cooling his heels back home in Connecticut right now if it wasn't for Rove.
Bush has perfected his stupid act over a couple of decades. I see people are still falling for it.
Bush never said what he was and he never denied he was a conservative. He was simply on deck when Clinton retired. Voters were sick and tired of Clinton and everything they stood for. Voters voted for Bush hoping for better than Clinton. Little did anyone suspect . . . . .
The story will repeat itself with different name in 08. Eight years is too long for any one president.
Bush never said what he was and he never denied he was a conservative. He was simply on deck when Clinton retired. Voters were sick and tired of Clinton and everything they stood for. Voters voted for Bush hoping for better than Clinton. Little did anyone suspect . . . . .
The story will repeat itself with different name in 08. Eight years is too long for any one president.
Last edited:
Playboypenguin
Moderator
Waitone,
What advantage would there be to a "stupid act"? Why do you believe he would act stupid on purpose and what would be his motivation to make a fool of himself?
As for voters being "sick and tired" of Clinton..why did Gore get more votes than Bush if voters were tired of Clinton? Also remember that after the ballots were actually tallied Gore also won Florida after the fact.
What advantage would there be to a "stupid act"? Why do you believe he would act stupid on purpose and what would be his motivation to make a fool of himself?
As for voters being "sick and tired" of Clinton..why did Gore get more votes than Bush if voters were tired of Clinton? Also remember that after the ballots were actually tallied Gore also won Florida after the fact.
It's time.
Even Wikipedia has this one correct. Gore DID NOT win Florida.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2001-04-03-floridamain.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election,_2000#Media_post-electoral_studies.2Frecounts
The actual recounts by multiple sources are out there. Don't believe everything you read over at the Democratic Underground.
Even Wikipedia has this one correct. Gore DID NOT win Florida.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2001-04-03-floridamain.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election,_2000#Media_post-electoral_studies.2Frecounts
The actual recounts by multiple sources are out there. Don't believe everything you read over at the Democratic Underground.
Derby FALs
Inactive
Gore did get more votes, though. Bush has barely squeezed by both elections.