I was 7 when George H was elected. I have studied Reaganomics very heavily. I probably know more about the theories than most, and like all leading economists recognize they are based on bogus and very unlikely assumptions. And for the recored I never realized that blindly following a Republican made you a right winger. Bush is a terrible President, like his father before him, and Reagan before that. The Republican party has not put a good condidate in office since Eisenhower. The only real conservative is Alan Keyes, and how I would love to vote for him. The GOP will never give a black man the nod though. Standing up for Christian values, the pro-life movement, and well fare reform are conservative issues. Bush is more concerned with his own legacy.
Re: As simple as you folk are, I'll let you blather on... No Biggles, I didn't say I was rich. What I said was that I can afford and will be more than happy to pay for a ticket to Iraq for you if you are sincere in your stated beliefs and want to protect the peace loving followers of Saddam Hussein from the warmonger George W Bush. I am only willing to pay for a one way ticket so when you start shitting in your pants and are ready to get the next flight out you will either have to pay for it yourself or hope to hitch a ride on the private jet of one of your liberal comrades. If you are lucky maybe you will be able to sit between Barbara Streisand and Rosie O'Donnell
Silly rich republican... Show me a post where I wrote I supported Saddam....? Look far and wide because there are none.... As for your contributions to this forum, I'd have to say they're piffle at best. OK, you're a psuedo-rich republican that feels the need to lump everyone against this asinine administration into one category and wants to fly me to Iraq....... You lack originality, your points are hackneyed at best and your arguments have the brilliance of a small appliance bulb... As Sean Connery phrazed it so well, "don't bring a knife to a gun fight..." Keep strokin in AA cause the major leagues is far, far away.... Until then.... "Your Delta Tau Chi name is ... Timmahh"
GHWB did not start a war in Iraq. Iraq invaded a sovereign country just because Saddam wanted more coastline. Kuwait begged us (or anyone) to rescue them. We did, and the Kuwaitis are thankful. Of course on the way out, Saddam torched Kuwaits oilfields, creating one of the world's largest natural disasters to the environment. In lieu of death, Saddam agreed to a truce that included disarmament. But that was just the beginning of his lies and games he plays with the rest of the world.
Bush, Sr allowed Saddam to attack Kuwait after reagan, rumsfeld and cheney helped arm Iraq..... Only when Bush, Sr changed his mind (invading Kuwait bad) did American military intervention start.... The problem most moderates and liberals have with the current administration's Iraq policy is Iraq is NOT a legitimate threat to the US. Nations harboring and training terrorists are Syria, Saudi Arabia and Iran. North Korea is a legitimate threat... As I have mentioned before I supported this president after 9/11 and his policy in Afganistan. Like his father he has left the job unfinished and he ignores the American economy. He's got a hell of a legacy (unfinished war, a broken ecomomy and ONE term)....
Say what you want about Reagan, but he was instrumental in bringing about the downfall of the Soviet Union and brought America back from the brink of a second Great Depression by cleaning up the mess Carter left. No he wasn't perfect. Name one President (except George Washington) who didn't pull at least one "creative stunt" in office. I would love to see Alan Keyes in the White House. The problem with Mr. Keyes is that he's just not electable. Liberals get their pannies in a wad every time an evangelical Christian wants to be a leader. If they have a problem with Bush's expressions of faith, they will NEVER accept Keyes. GOP will never give a black man the nod? You may have to eat your words in 2008 if Colin Powell gets in the race. I seriously think he will be THE MAN that year. Problem with him is he's just not aggressive enough on tax cuts and he's in favor of limited legalized abortion (but he's not a NOW/PP "kill-em-all" type, he only favors RU-486 and surgical abortions in the first trimester). But those two things by themselves do not endanger his campaign. I'd vote for him (I'm hoping by the time Powell comes along we'll have made significant progress toward re-criminalizing abortion and he will not want to rock the boat on that issue). I'd also vote for John McCain (although I think his campaign finance reform bill is a bunch of horse-hockey at best and a dangerous encroachment on free speech at worst). I dream of the day a REAL conservative comes into office and our government goes back to strict Constitutional law. Till then, Bush and Powell will do.
try a little economic history.... Carter's inflation was a DIRECT result of Nixon's price & wage controls.... Economics 101.. All Reagan did was spend money we did not have. Now we have an encore performance by W. The policies did not work then and they won't work now...
Jetstorm, are you sure you want the fedreal government to strictly follow the Constitution? Conservatives will lose a lot of their favorite programs. No more war on drugs, no ban on cloning, no ban on partial birth abortion, no standing army, etc. Remember that the Constitution limits federal prosecutorial power to about 3 or 4 specific crimes and leaves the rest to the states. Also, a lot of Ashcroft's antics would be impossible. The 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendments lay out specific procedures that must be followed in the criminal justice system.
