Yep. The "conservatives" need to look at the numbers on the budget, total national debt, and the value of the dollar, and weep. Bush is no fiscal conservative, he's as liberal as they come. Look at Clinton's numbers, very conservative. Even Greenspan has called Clinton "the best Republican president is quite some time". The facts don't support the rhetoric about "socialist" govt. Bush II has turned in by far the worst performance in the fiscal realm of any pres. in my lifetime. That $3.30 per gallon gas, you can thank Bush for much of it, by destroying the value of the dollar and requiring us to pay many more cheap dollars for a barrel of oil.
Well, Red. For about the fortieth time, I didn't call the US Socialist, nor have I said we were heading that way. I've said over and again that the Liberal candidates (particularly Obama) are using Socialist rhetoric. In fact, Obama (IMO) is pretty much an admitted Socialist, judging by his voting record in Congress, his rhetoric, and his associations. Clinton governed in the middle, no doubt. But to group him with Reagan is overlooking some things - like his inaction against UBL and Al Queda, his inaction wrt N.Korean and Iranian nuclear programs, his inaction in Rwanda (800,000 dead there), the fact that he inherited a booming economy and handed back a sputtering one, his impeachment, and his embarrassing pardoning spree in his final days. I wouldn't say he was amazingly effective. I don't blame Liberals for anything, Red. I just don't agree with them, and I don't like it when they try to hide what they really are. And many of them really are Socialists in a country that won't elect a Socialist. Bush isn't a radical Conservative. The fact that he hasn't been Conservative ENOUGH is one of his chief flaws, and interestingly, Liberals keep calling him out on that... I'm going to hold my breath on less ideological parties. Tell them to hurry, though. I'm not a swimmer...
so much for not speaking in absoluts, when did Obama announce this? Oh yea, he didnt, this is your twisted view of his voting record and your obvious disagreement(hate) with people you view as being liberal.
"Liberals build governments so big that they become Socialist - which is where much of Europe is and America cannot afford to go" - Bandit88 Give me an example, please. Translation: Obama has said nothing about being a socialist. Ha! :lol: Clinton tried to kill bin Ladin twice with cruise missile strikes, Bush did nothing about Al Qaida before 9/11 forced his hand . . . he didn't even retaliate for the strike on the USS Cole. Clinton retaliated militarily for Al Qaida bombings of the Embassies in Africa. He maintained a no-fly zone over Iraq for 8 years, bombing them twice when they got out of line and allowed the inspector to completely destroy Saddam's WMD's. He won the war with Serbia without a single American casualty. Reagan out foxed the Soviets without a shot but he also backed out of Lebanon after the Marines were attacked. He forced North Korea into a deal to shut down their reactors and nuke programs, which they later broke when Bush was too pre-ocupied in Iraq to do anything about it. Iran had no viable nuclear program under Clinton and they still don't. We are not the world's policeman. Let the European colonial powers deal with African problems that are their own creation. Look what Bush #1 got us into trying to help in Somalia. The Somalis crapped all over us. Clinton was wise to stay out of Rwanda. Complete and utter nonsense. I challenge you to show numbers to support this preposterous claim. Clinton defeated Bush #1 for the Presidency over one issue--the stagnant economy. That economy went into overdrive for the entire 8 years of the Clinton Presidency--everybody made a lot of money. And then it tanked in 2001 under Bush #2. Did you forget that he was acquitted in his impeachment? Bush has already commuted the convicted Scooter Libby's sentence in a scandalous matter that involved himself. Let's just see who he pardon's on his way out. Libby will get a full pardon for sure. I bet Ken Lay walks and any other CEO in prison for bilking investors and employees. Then you weren't paying close attention, amigo. The economy was strong, our military was strong, we were respected internationally, we posted budget surpluses, we respected the environment, and reduced the rate of government spending. Quality of life has never been higher. I understand, Bandit. You just paint them with as ugly a name for a liberal as you can. All's fair in a debate, of course, so I will have to start referring to conservatives as Fascists. Seig Heil. :hihi:
You've got to be kidding me. What is he? A liberal? No, the problem is he is a radical conservative, or neo-conservative. Giving tax cuts to the richest among us, running with Cheney, appointing Rumsfeld, trying to privitize social security, courting the bible thumpers and vetoing stem cell research over both democrats and republicans. etc. You can't paint him as something other than a radical, irresponsible conservative, just because he's a miserable failure.
1. If you read my quote, I said we cannot afford to go there, so my point stands. 2. "And I'll finally make sure every American has affordable health care that stays with you no matter what happens.." Jul 18, 2007, Washington DC. 3. I said IMO. His admission is through is associations, which he won't back away from, and his view that governmental intervention is the answer to individual problems. 4. To use your MO, Translation: Clinton did as little as possible. 5. You accuse me of not knowing history yet you think Clinton was tough on N. Korea. Puh-lease. Bush stopped paying attention because the game was over before he took office. 6. Wow. I guess one can convince oneself of pretty much anything. 7. Economies don't turn on a dime. Early Bush 1 and almost all of Clinton were the result of Reagan policies. Small bump during post Bush 1 (and Ross Perot) threw the election to Clinton (what, 45% or so?). If you think Clinton created a boom economy in two years, then you better hope the Nigerian email guys don't have your address... 8. Impeachment is a process. Acquittal is a verdict. He was impeached - which is a big deal, no? 9. You marginalize your position by equating Libby (a non-issue to everyone but Bush haters) to the Clinton pardon-orgy. 10. Oh, I was (and am) paying attention. I give Clinton credit for reforming welfare and (with the Congress leading him) giving us budget surplusses. But the economy was booming regardless of him, the military suffered (and continues to suffer) MIGHTILY from the "acquisition holiday" that was the Clinton administration. 11. You can throw fascist around all you want. It won't bother me. Because it doesn't even remotely smell of anything but boilerplate hippie hyperbole.
Anyone with a working knowledge of the Conservative political philosophy will understand that, although President Bush has Conservative foundations, he has governed well left of the "radical conservative" label. Invading Iraq, the drug benefit, federal funding for faith-based initiatives - these are not Conservative programs. Hate the man if you want, but it doesn't make the label "radical conservative" make any more sense. Wrong is wrong, no matter how much emotion you put behind it.
And I say that courting the religous right, cutting taxes for the wealthiest americans, not vetoing the bankruptcy bill (which can cause hardworking, middle class americans undue financial ruin, with one catastophic illness or injury) and trying to spread democracy to middle eastern countries who have no desire to be democratic are all boondoggles to the neo-cons. The prescription drug bill you mention was written to benefit the drug companies more so than the liberals. Even that's a boon for corporations. I don't hate the man, I think he really believes what he's doing is right. But I feel pretty sure that history will judge him as one of the worst presidents in history, I think you do too, that's why you want to say he's not a conservative.
Neo cons aren't radical Conservatives - they're Liberal imports. I said he's certainly a Conservative, but hasn't governed like one wrt spending. He's my President. But I didn't vote for him. Either way, I'll be interested to see what the historians write about him in about fifteen years.
Right on top of your head. :wink: If this is your idea of socialism, then it just confirms that you don't really understand what socialism is. If you think that affordable life insurance is socialism, then what do you call charity hospitals? That old system reeks of socialized medicine. Affordable health insurance for everyone would replace that system completely and get everyone paying something and taking responisbility for themselves, you know . . . democracy. Three points: 1--An admission (see dictionary) is a statement by him saying that he is a socialist and that just hasn't happened. Your interpratation of his actions does not constitute an admission by Obama. 2--We have the freedom to associate in this country, its part of the constitution. It constitutes socialism IN NO WAY. You know this. 3--Where does it say that socialism is "governmental intervention is the answer to individual problems". Isn't that what you advocate? As little government as possible? :grin: What I said was that your statement that Clinton did nothing is wrong. On this we can agree. Bush did not pay attention. "Reagan is responsible for Clinton's success" is the same logic as "Nick Saban is responsible for Les Miles success." It just don't wash. Its a very big deal he is convicted and removed from office. It's just a failed political attack if he acquitted and he remains in office. It's far from a non-issue. He covered his own ass by releasing one of his own people from prison to keep him from spilling the beans Explain. What are you referring to? The post-Cold War downsizing of the huge US military started under Bush 1 continued under Clinton, and continues under Bush 2. It was entirely approved of by the Republican Congress. But there has been no "aquisition holiday". There is a long list of new planes, submarines, carriers, and other high-tech military equipment, especially cyber-warfare and intelligence collection added during the Clinton administration. Man, are you stuck in the 60's. :lol:
