Bush a Liberal?

[Napalm]

Saw this write-up on Bush. Interesting read...

 

[ProfJohn]

That explains why so many Republicans are disappointed in him and his Presidency.

Too much spending and to many big government programs.

 

[bamacre]

If by "liberal," they mean "horrible," then I agree.

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
That explains why so many Republicans are disappointed in him and his Presidency.

Too much spending and to many big government programs.

Yeah, that, and about a dozen other things.

 

[UberNeuman]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
That explains why so many Republicans are disappointed in him and his Presidency.

Too much spending and to many big government programs.

...and if they voted for Kerry back in '04, then with the Rep. control over the house and senate they could have had some deadlock

/oh wait, now some repubs are crying for deadlock now that a democrat steamroller is coming along..

 

[mAdMaLuDaWg]

You know that "liberal" used to mean the opposite of what it means now. "Classic liberalism" used to revolve around keeping government small and out of people's lives. Today, liberalism is defined by the nanny-state and government handouts. Some of my favorite economists (namely FA Hayek and Milton Friedman) called themselves liberals at some point or the other. But soon enough people began to associate "conservativism" with "liberalism". Its rather ironic because the literal meaning of conservative goes against what it actually means today.

The fact of the matter is we probably haven't had a conservative in office for quite sometime. Ronald Reagan would come as a close second but his deficit-spending really knocks that claim off the ground. Barry Goldwater, one of my political idols, was probably the closest we ever had of putting a conservative in office in recent times but we all know how that went. Its sad that he had to pass his senate seat on to McCain... if Goldwater were alive today, he would've "kicked McCain in the ass" after seeing what McCain transformed into. Believe it or not, a lot of McCain's policies were Goldwater-like until he gave into the religous right and pandered to every single populace out there. If we had the McCain of 2000 running for Prez, I would've considered voting for him.

Bush royally screwed us over. The only benefit I see from these 8 years would be for the Republicans to purge themselves of the current crop of politicians and hopefully allow the real conservative wing to come back again.

It sad, this is going to be the first election that I probably won't be casting a ballot for any of the two major parties.

 

[Farang]

Originally posted by: mAdMaLuDaWg
You know that "liberal" used to mean the opposite of what it means now. "Classic liberalism" used to revolve around keeping government small and out of people's lives. Today, liberalism is defined by the nanny-state and government handouts. Some of my favorite economists (namely FA Hayek and Milton Friedman) called themselves liberals at some point or the other. But soon enough people began to associate "conservative" with "liberalism". Its rather ironic because the literal meaning of conservative goes against what it actually means today.

Did you know that the peanut is not actually a nut? No, it is a legume.

 

[GrGr]

Hahahaha, the right is trying to wash their 'God' off their hands.

Remember when Bush could do no wrong and I ridiculed the fanboi's for supporting BushGod no matter what?

 

[miketheidiot]

yes, a bush did a few liberalesque things, and coincidentally those are his greatest achievements.

*except for nclb

 

[winnar111]

His legacy will likely depend on what happens in the next 2 years in Iraq and how many of his domestic programs endure.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
yes, a bush did a few liberalesque things, and coincidentally those are his greatest achievements.

*except for nclb

And what things would those be?

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
yes, a bush did a few liberalesque things, and coincidentally those are his greatest achievements.

*except for nclb

And what things would those be?

pretty much aid to africa, thats really about it. Also did a reasonably job in regards to the tsunami a few years back. NCLB was sorta liberal, and a complete disaster. I think kosovo independence is theoretically very liberal, and remains the right thing to do.

really the crowning heights (as low as they are) of bushes time in office were the 'liberal' things he did. His conservative plans were all epic failures.

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: winnar111
His legacy will likely depend on what happens in the next 2 years in Iraq and how many of his domestic programs endure.

At the *earliest*, a 2011 withdrawal? Yeah, he's fucked in his legacy just like he should be, the fucking asshole.

 

[Mean MrMustard]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
That explains why so many Republicans are disappointed in him and his Presidency.

Too much spending and to many big government programs.

Yep, and YOU cheered him on along the way.

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: winnar111
His legacy will likely depend on what happens in the next 2 years in Iraq and how many of his domestic programs endure.

At the *earliest*, a 2011 withdrawal? Yeah, he's fucked in his legacy just like he should be, the fucking asshole.

It took even longer than that to get out of Vietnam, for worse results. And more importantly, we have programs in place to strengthen our intelligence agencies.

 

[ericlp]

no... Bush wasn't a liberal he was and still is a frigen idiot!

No denying he's gonna go out as being the WORST president in US history.


Nice Spin tho!

Originally posted by: Donny Baker

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
That explains why so many Republicans are disappointed in him and his Presidency.

Too much spending and to many big government programs.

Yep, and YOU cheered him on along the way.

Him and McCain X 2 (twice). How anyone could have thought bush was good the second time was beyond me.

Sad part? These people will be voting for the same policy the third - fourth time if mcsame wins. I cringe when I hear McSame pushed and "DID EVERYTHING" he could to get bush in the first AND second time. It's very disturbing to say the least.

 

[Vic]

Bush is not a liberal. He is, and I say this seriously, a fascist. Not like Hitler, but like Mussolini, who defined fascism as when "Profit is private and loss is public." He took our government, paid for with our tax dollars, and gave it to his cronies for fat profit under the phony guise of capitalism and free markets. Whenever profit was to be had, it was pocketed, but the slightest loss resulted in a public bail-out. Pretending to call that liberalism (the political ideology of Jefferson et al) just goes to show what sick and twisted lying slimeballs these Republicans are. Apparently they're still not satisfied with their raping of middle America...

 

[First]

He's "liberal" on immigration and formerly on spending. That's about it, though those are two huge issues for Dems so it's a somewhat compelling case. The biggest difference though still lies in his being hawkish on war and foreign policy, which has been un-liberal for about 40-50 years. And everything else, from gay marriage/rights, to stem cell research, to separation of church and state, to campaign finance, he's 100% conservative.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
That explains why so many Republicans are disappointed in him and his Presidency.

Too much spending and to many big government programs.

You Republicans who think that Bush's behavior is not the 'real policy' of the party, and who keep believing in the propaganda about the party, are a lot like guys who keep believing that prostitution is a great way to meet girls, but they just keep running into bad apples who only want their money.

Maybe if you ever read a little bit that wasn't from the right-wing propaganda industry, you wouldn't miss the agenda of the party. I've recommended many books; read any?

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
yes, a bush did a few liberalesque things, and coincidentally those are his greatest achievements.

*except for nclb

nclb was a hijacking of the liberal policy and a big change to it, not a liberal policy.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Vic
Bush is not a liberal. He is, and I say this seriously, a fascist. Not like Hitler, but like Mussolini, who defined fascism as when "Profit is private and loss is public." He took our government, paid for with our tax dollars, and gave it to his cronies for fat profit under the phony guise of capitalism and free markets. Whenever profit was to be had, it was pocketed, but the slightest loss resulted in a public bail-out. Pretending to call that liberalism (the political ideology of Jefferson et al) just goes to show what sick and twisted lying slimeballs these Republicans are. Apparently they're still not satisfied with their raping of middle America...

I've tried to point this out for years and was rabidly attacked for it by blind partisans and those who obviously don't understand what fascism means. It appears some of them don't understand what "liberal" means either, or as you suggest, are lying slime balls who will say and do anything to avoid accountability for their own actions and to smear their opposition.

 

[Xavier434]

Making a few liberal-like decisions within an disastrous 8 year career as president does not make someone a liberal by any means. Hell, the kind of strategic logic that this argument makes could be applied to nearly every politician. No one in power strictly makes decisions that reflect the ideals of their party of choice.

 

[Genx87]

I think we have entered an age where the size of govt and the scope of those programs cant be viewed in the simplistic and traditional liberal vs conservative debate.

Bush is a big govt conservative. He is socially conservative and loves to consolidate power via expansion of the fed govt. The author is falling into the trap of labeling all big govt programs and expansion of govt as "liberal" policies. When the simple fact is we have people on the right side of the political debate just as ready to expand govt as on the left side.

The traditional small govt minded classical liberals are hard to find now sadly.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: Genx87
I think we have entered an age where the size of govt and the scope of those programs cant be viewed in the simplistic and traditional liberal vs conservative debate.

Bush is a big govt conservative. He is socially conservative and loves to consolidate power via expansion of the fed govt. The author is falling into the trap of labeling all big govt programs and expansion of govt as "liberal" policies. When the simple fact is we have people on the right side of the political debate just as ready to expand govt as on the left side.

The traditional small govt minded classical liberals are hard to find now sadly.

Who are you and what did you do with our Genx87?

 

[jman19]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
That explains why so many Republicans are disappointed in him and his Presidency.

Too much spending and to many big government programs.

He's not a liberal, he's just an economic moron. A big gov't conservative if you will.

Republicans aren't disappointed in him (hell, you have been his biggest cheerleader on this board), TRUE economic conservatives are disappointed in him. Don't pretend like you are suddenly disappointed when you have been spinning his garbage for the last few years.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: UberNeuman

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
That explains why so many Republicans are disappointed in him and his Presidency.

Too much spending and to many big government programs.

...and if they voted for Kerry back in '04, then with the Rep. control over the house and senate they could have had some deadlock

/oh wait, now some repubs are crying for deadlock now that a democrat steamroller is coming along..

Ain't it the truth?! The (R)'s were a disaster when they had full control under GWB so now they want deadlock. IMO they had their chance and they blew it. It's time for 'change'. I 'hope' we have 'change' on Jan 20, 2008! :laugh: