Bush's conservative support

[AEnigmaWI]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn

Military expenditures are necessary to fighting the war on terrorist creating brands of fundamentalist Islam.

Amazing lack of analysis. We had the world's most potent military on 9/11, and it did us not one bit of good. No amount of military might will "stop terrorism", other than the imposition of a totalitarian state. Even that has limited effectiveness- ask the Israelis.

Do you think that F22's will have some effect on urban terrorist cells? That a new class of nuclear attack subs will somehow deter Osama? That NMD or bunker-busting nukes will dissuade fundie zealots willing to die for their cause?

The Bush Military budget is the modern equivalent of the Maginot line, and the war in Iraq the rough equivalent of the medical practice of bleeding the sufferer to let the bad humors escape...

Too bad that the modern version of Conservatism is mostly knee-jerk response to well crafted propaganda, based on fundamental deception and misinformation. The leadership is not conservative at all, but rather reactionary, yearning for the political realities of the McKinley era, the Gilded Age, when immigrants were plentiful, labor almost free, taxes on the wealthy nonexistent, natural resources free for the taking, unions illegal, and minorities and women knew their place...

can we just say that one more time?? ^^ = A+

Both of my parents, who have been fanatical Republicans ever since the dawn of their voting time, are precinct people, and one of whom was asked to run for state legislature as a republican, are wavering in their support of Bush. One of them is resigning as precinct person, and neither of them knows what to do voting wise come November.

The Fundie nutjobs are ruining the Republican party, and Bush is their rather dumb puppet. Get him the he11 out. Foragainst or not, Kerry isn't a fundie puppet, which is perty much my main concern. Bush doesn't know which way is up, and he panders to his support base of fundies in hopes of keeping them underneath him, since that's about the only shot he has at getting reelected. This war is a mess, we aren't accomplishing what we set out to do in a timely fashion, and this administration has over-simplified the situation to the public and the world to the detriment of the legitimacy of our foreign policy efforts. Bush doesn't see anything but black and white because he is severely intellectually limited and can't separate his personal feelings from the situation.

 

[nutxo]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Dang it, what was that party that was dominant in Germany in the 30's?
Seems they had a lot of support too.

the national socialist party.

basically democrats.

 

[SuperTool]

Who cares about People's Republic of China

 

[rchiu]

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

Originally posted by: rchiu

Mr. Bush listed his priorities as tax cuts, spending discipline (good news, because the lack of such discipline has, in fact, disturbed many conservatives)......In short, the president showed why conservatives will support him in November: Because he is one of them

Bwaaahhhhaaa.....spending discipline? This president? Maybe you haven't heard, we have now the largest deficits in history, by far. You are fooling yourself if you think Bush is a conservative.

Under bush with the republican congress non-military spending is up ~ 3% per year, as opposed to when Clinton was in office and it was 20+%.

Military expenditures are necessary to fighting the war on terrorist creating brands of fundamentalist Islam. A deficit isn't a bad thing if it's avoiding deflation.

Hehe, wonder if your +3% include those dividend tax cut handout to the rich while spending hundreds of billions invading and building a nation which has no link to 911 nor was a threat to US.

Bottom line, Clinton balanced his book and this presidant does not.

Quoting Greenspan on deficit: The deficit poses "a significant obstacle to long-term stability" (May 6,2004)

Maybe you can share with us why we should give a $hit on your belief on deficit over Greenspan?

 

[Bowmaster]

No, bush is not a conservative; but he is anti-abortion, strong on defense, a tax-cutter, and for less government discretionary spending.

He's a tax-cutter who just LOVES to spend money. Hence our historic debt. Strong on defense but weak on actual support for the soldier. Less government discretionary spending on the important things - like the environment or prosecution of rogue corporations.

 

[leeboy]

Originally posted by: Infohawk
It's a good thing Bush can't win with just his base of religious nuts and morons.

Amen

 

[Zephyr106]

Originally posted by: nutxo

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Dang it, what was that party that was dominant in Germany in the 30's?
Seems they had a lot of support too.

the national socialist party.

basically democrats.

Are you insinuating that President Bush's grandfather helped fund Democrats?

Zephyr

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Those opposed to Mr. Bush see and report troubles ahead for the president everywhere they look. They ignore polls that show that Mr. Bush's support is stronger in many so-called red states than it was when he carried them four years ago. "The conservative movement has become the dominant intellectual force in American politics," the president said. "On the fundamental issues of our times, conservatives have been right."

This is what I've been saying. Bush is not in trouble with his "base" no matter which way you try to spin it. Keep trying though

CkG

1.) That's a nice opinion.
2.) I'd hardly cross-mix the terms "conservative movement" and "intellectual force" in the same sentence, but hey spout your crazy elitism if you'd like.
3.) My opinion, is that Bush, the administration and his supporters have been fundamentally wrong on just about every issue of our times.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Those opposed to Mr. Bush see and report troubles ahead for the president everywhere they look. They ignore polls that show that Mr. Bush's support is stronger in many so-called red states than it was when he carried them four years ago. "The conservative movement has become the dominant intellectual force in American politics," the president said. "On the fundamental issues of our times, conservatives have been right."

This is what I've been saying. Bush is not in trouble with his "base" no matter which way you try to spin it. Keep trying though

CkG

Obviously, bush is going to continue to get support from the inbred redneck states and retarded kool-aid drinkers such as yourself, cad. Anyone who is a true conservative would reject his global/domestic welfare/warfare policies.

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn

Military expenditures are necessary to fighting the war on terrorist creating brands of fundamentalist Islam.

Amazing lack of analysis. We had the world's most potent military on 9/11, and it did us not one bit of good. No amount of military might will "stop terrorism", other than the imposition of a totalitarian state. Even that has limited effectiveness- ask the Israelis.

Do you think that F22's will have some effect on urban terrorist cells? That a new class of nuclear attack subs will somehow deter Osama? That NMD or bunker-busting nukes will dissuade fundie zealots willing to die for their cause?

The Bush Military budget is the modern equivalent of the Maginot line, and the war in Iraq the rough equivalent of the medical practice of bleeding the sufferer to let the bad humors escape...

Too bad that the modern version of Conservatism is mostly knee-jerk response to well crafted propaganda, based on fundamental deception and misinformation. The leadership is not conservative at all, but rather reactionary, yearning for the political realities of the McKinley era, the Gilded Age, when immigrants were plentiful, labor almost free, taxes on the wealthy nonexistent, natural resources free for the taking, unions illegal, and minorities and women knew their place...

CAD care to reply to this??? Didn't think so.

 

[XMan]

Originally posted by: conjur
"On the fundamental issues of our times, conservatives have been right."

:Q :Q


:roll: :roll:

Well, liberals were certainly wrong about the Soviet Union, don't you think? You would have thought Gorbachev was President in the 80's the way Dan Rather used to slobber all over him on the news.

 

[SuperTool]

What was wrong with Gorbachev?
The man put his life at risk and gave up power so that his countrymen could have freedom.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Those opposed to Mr. Bush see and report troubles ahead for the president everywhere they look. They ignore polls that show that Mr. Bush's support is stronger in many so-called red states than it was when he carried them four years ago. "The conservative movement has become the dominant intellectual force in American politics," the president said. "On the fundamental issues of our times, conservatives have been right."

This is what I've been saying. Bush is not in trouble with his "base" no matter which way you try to spin it. Keep trying though

CkG

1.) That's a nice opinion.
2.) I'd hardly cross-mix the terms "conservative movement" and "intellectual force" in the same sentence, but hey spout your crazy elitism if you'd like.
3.) My opinion, is that Bush, the administration and his supporters have been fundamentally wrong on just about every issue of our times.

Yes, it is my opinion. I feel my opinion and the opinion of people who actual make up the base support for Bush hold a tad bit more weight than your typical liberal "reporter" or democrat spinster. The "core" is intact as shown by Pew's poll.

I fail to see how saying those two in the same sentence is "elitsim" since they aren't saying that the other side or those not involved are dumb(as done by "elitists")

You are entitled to that, but it doesn't change how intact his base is.

CkG

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Those opposed to Mr. Bush see and report troubles ahead for the president everywhere they look. They ignore polls that show that Mr. Bush's support is stronger in many so-called red states than it was when he carried them four years ago. "The conservative movement has become the dominant intellectual force in American politics," the president said. "On the fundamental issues of our times, conservatives have been right."

This is what I've been saying. Bush is not in trouble with his "base" no matter which way you try to spin it. Keep trying though

CkG

Obviously, bush is going to continue to get support from the inbred redneck states and retarded kool-aid drinkers such as yourself, cad. Anyone who is a true conservative would reject his global/domestic welfare/warfare policies.

DM - here is a classic example of "elitism"

CkG

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Phokus
Obviously, bush is going to continue to get support from the inbred redneck states and retarded kool-aid drinkers such as yourself, cad. Anyone who is a true conservative would reject his global/domestic welfare/warfare policies.

DM - here is a classic example of "elitism"

CkG

Maybe so, if it weren't for the well-known fact that you didn't just drink the kool-aid, you went back for seconds.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne

Originally posted by: Jhhnn

Military expenditures are necessary to fighting the war on terrorist creating brands of fundamentalist Islam.

Amazing lack of analysis. We had the world's most potent military on 9/11, and it did us not one bit of good. No amount of military might will "stop terrorism", other than the imposition of a totalitarian state. Even that has limited effectiveness- ask the Israelis.

Do you think that F22's will have some effect on urban terrorist cells? That a new class of nuclear attack subs will somehow deter Osama? That NMD or bunker-busting nukes will dissuade fundie zealots willing to die for their cause?

The Bush Military budget is the modern equivalent of the Maginot line, and the war in Iraq the rough equivalent of the medical practice of bleeding the sufferer to let the bad humors escape...

Too bad that the modern version of Conservatism is mostly knee-jerk response to well crafted propaganda, based on fundamental deception and misinformation. The leadership is not conservative at all, but rather reactionary, yearning for the political realities of the McKinley era, the Gilded Age, when immigrants were plentiful, labor almost free, taxes on the wealthy nonexistent, natural resources free for the taking, unions illegal, and minorities and women knew their place...

CAD care to reply to this??? Didn't think so.

No -He made no point in regards to the topic. He instead went off on some tangent about the military and nothing but rhetoric and propaganda. What he needs is a tinfoil covered hard hat if you ask me. (Dave might have a few he can spare)

CkG

 

[DealMonkey]

Cad, here you go:

Elitist
The belief that certain persons or members of certain classes or groups deserve favored treatment by virtue of their perceived superiority, as in intellect, social status, or financial resources.

1.) The sense of entitlement enjoyed by such a group or class.
2.) Control, rule, or domination by such a group or class.

Your quote can be construed as "elitist" because (A) It implies that conservatives are the dominant intellectual force in America (perceived superiority), (B) There is a direct assertion in the quote that conservatives have been "right" on all of the issues (and everyone else "wrong" apparently) and therefore conservatives deserve to have control (or rule) the country on that basis.

It's too bad some people throw the word around, yet hardly know what it means or when it applies.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Cad, here you go:

Elitist
The belief that certain persons or members of certain classes or groups deserve favored treatment by virtue of their perceived superiority, as in intellect, social status, or financial resources.

1.) The sense of entitlement enjoyed by such a group or class.
2.) Control, rule, or domination by such a group or class.

Your quote can be construed as "elitist" because (A) It implies that conservatives are the dominant intellectual force in America (perceived superiority), (B) There is a direct assertion in the quote that conservatives have been "right" on all of the issues (and everyone else "wrong" apparently) and therefore conservatives deserve to have control (or rule) the country on that basis.

It's too bad some people throw the word around, yet hardly know what it means or when it applies.

That would be "elitism"

Elitist
n : someone who believes in rule by an elite group

Just so we have the true dictionary definition.

Rereading the original quote I can see where some may perceive it as "elitism". However if I remember right it was meant along the lines of ideology - not "smart" vs "dumb". So, sure - I "give" on this issue - you may think it is elitism and I won't say you are wrong.

Now back to the topic of the supposed "base" issue.

CkG

 

[fjord]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Those opposed to Mr. Bush see and report troubles ahead for the president everywhere they look. They ignore polls that show that Mr. Bush's support is stronger in many so-called red states than it was when he carried them four years ago. "The conservative movement has become the dominant intellectual force in American politics," the president said. "On the fundamental issues of our times, conservatives have been right."

This is what I've been saying. Bush is not in trouble with his "base" no matter which way you try to spin it. Keep trying though

CkG

No spin is needed.

The difference between 2000 and 2004 is quite obvious and totally Un-spinnable.

Mr. Bush has a record of performance as President of the United States now (2004).

You can spin how he has performed all day--but the election will be primarily based on his record--not on pie-in-the-sky promises of integrity.

[Spin] IMHO that ain't good for Mr. Bush.

 

[Ldir]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Ldir

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Those opposed to Mr. Bush see and report troubles ahead for the president everywhere they look. They ignore polls that show that Mr. Bush's support is stronger in many so-called red states than it was when he carried them four years ago. "The conservative movement has become the dominant intellectual force in American politics," the president said. "On the fundamental issues of our times, conservatives have been right."

This is what I've been saying. Bush is not in trouble with his "base" no matter which way you try to spin it. Keep trying though

CkG

This message authorized by the Bush Apologists of America (BAA): pulling the wool over America's eyes since 1980. Bleat on.

Hey, do you have something to add? Nope - didn't think so - just your normal bleatings. It is funny though, you think people are sheep yet you are the one running around bleating the same Bush apologist line. How cute...

CkG

How clueless. You think your sheep droppings are nuggets of gold. You are wrong. You cannot spin sheep dip into gold. You will be bleating a new tune in November.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Ldir

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Ldir

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Those opposed to Mr. Bush see and report troubles ahead for the president everywhere they look. They ignore polls that show that Mr. Bush's support is stronger in many so-called red states than it was when he carried them four years ago. "The conservative movement has become the dominant intellectual force in American politics," the president said. "On the fundamental issues of our times, conservatives have been right."

This is what I've been saying. Bush is not in trouble with his "base" no matter which way you try to spin it. Keep trying though

CkG

This message authorized by the Bush Apologists of America (BAA): pulling the wool over America's eyes since 1980. Bleat on.

Hey, do you have something to add? Nope - didn't think so - just your normal bleatings. It is funny though, you think people are sheep yet you are the one running around bleating the same Bush apologist line. How cute...

CkG

How clueless. You think your sheep droppings are nuggets of gold. You are wrong. You cannot spin sheep dip into gold. You will be bleating a new tune in November.

"Hey, do you have something to add? Nope - didn't think so - just your normal bleatings. It is funny though, you think people are sheep yet you are the one running around bleating the same Bush apologist line. How cute..."

CkG

 

[Sahrin]

Originally posted by: Infohawk
It's a good thing Bush can't win with just his base of religious nuts and morons.

It's shameful that you can dismiss people as "nuts and morons" simply because they are religious (and probably more to the point: Bush supporters).

 

[Sahrin]

Originally posted by: SuperTool
What was wrong with Gorbachev?
The man put his life at risk and gave up power so that his countrymen could have freedom.

What the...Gorbachev gave up power so that he wouldn't be killed in a revolution. A revolution that never would have happened had R. Reagan not kept the pressure (and ran huge deficits) on the Soviet Union until the end. What was wrong with Gorbachev? He sat atop a restrictive and controlling regime that denied its citizens freedom.

 

[Sahrin]

Originally posted by: nutxo

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Dang it, what was that party that was dominant in Germany in the 30's?
Seems they had a lot of support too.

the national socialist party.

basically democrats.

I think it was Nationalist Socialist Worker's Party.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Cad, here you go:

Elitist
The belief that certain persons or members of certain classes or groups deserve favored treatment by virtue of their perceived superiority, as in intellect, social status, or financial resources.

1.) The sense of entitlement enjoyed by such a group or class.
2.) Control, rule, or domination by such a group or class.

Your quote can be construed as "elitist" because (A) It implies that conservatives are the dominant intellectual force in America (perceived superiority), (B) There is a direct assertion in the quote that conservatives have been "right" on all of the issues (and everyone else "wrong" apparently) and therefore conservatives deserve to have control (or rule) the country on that basis.

It's too bad some people throw the word around, yet hardly know what it means or when it applies.

That would be "elitism"

Elitist
n : someone who believes in rule by an elite group

Just so we have the true dictionary definition.

Rereading the original quote I can see where some may perceive it as "elitism". However if I remember right it was meant along the lines of ideology - not "smart" vs "dumb". So, sure - I "give" on this issue - you may think it is elitism and I won't say you are wrong.

Now back to the topic of the supposed "base" issue.

CkG

Wait, you're right, I should have said "elitisim" in that an elitist practices elitism. My bad. But the definition still stands ...

In any event, I don't even care 'cause Cad "gave" me one! Woot! Woot! Oh man, this is one for the history books. Did you guys even see that? Whew. Wow, that made my day Cad.