F Bush, I am done with him!

[Moonbeam]

Yeah, pretty sad, especially since howie has compared President Bush to the Taliban and calls him "the enemy" and "despicable." Bush is an American and I thought the Taliban was the enemy....guess dean thinks differently.
-------------
In reference to Bush it was only necessary to say that Dean thinks, not that he thinks differently. The fact he can think is why he is different.

 

[LunarRay]

We're pretty certain which states will be blue and which red. The only votes that are going to decide things are Tenn, Fla, Arkansas and maybe New Mexico.. I think the polling in those areas will be an interesting read.. (I don't agree with the folks who include other states as 'swing') But, there are good arguments that there are others. Not Michigan though..

 

[Drift3r]

Originally posted by: Jadow
top line on drudge:
BUSH TO SEEK BIG BUDGET INCREASE FOR NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR THE ARTS... Laura Bush plans to announce the request -- for the largest increase in two decades -- on Thursday... Developing...

OK, so, he's run up non-defense spending like nobody's business, the stupid prescription drugs entitlement, the amnesty for law breaking illegals, and now the NEA!

The guy is a friggen selling his party out to try and win over some whiney libs. To hell with the sell-out Bush, and to hell with our whole political system. I was gonna vote for Bush over Kerry (if he becomes the nom) but now I'll vote for Kerry, just because of his vietnam service, even though I don't agree with him on anything, just so I can spite that sell out POS Bush.

You are a traitor ! Bush to the death !!!!!!
.
.
.
I could of told you this a long time ago. I and others who dis-like and have been clued in on how big goverment loving neo-con's really are have been preaching this for a while. Funny part of all this is that Clinton a lib ! This freaking lib presided over the biggest decrease in goverment since Reagan I believe. Bush has managed to increase goverment to the point that it even makes lib's look a better choice and raise our deficit levels to the point that it will take another 10 years to fix the damage !

http://www.amconmag.com/

 

[Genesys]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Genesys

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
It's pretty sad when one considers members of the other party to be the "enemy". I thought al Qaida was the enemy. Those Americans on the other side of the aisle are the "opposition" or the "other party".

lol. what else do you call someone who opposes you? they're you political or ideological enemy, not your mortal enemy.

Hmmm. Good question. What else might one call them? Think, think, think. Oh dear, if only I'd given you a clue.

(i.e., read my post

)

boy, way to take a sentance out of context, you do that often?

I did not take your sentence out of context. It is sad that you consider other Americans your enemy. It does explain a lot about you demeanor.

taken from dictionary.com
One who feels hatred toward, intends injury to, or opposes the interests of another; a foe.

please tell me how this definition does not describe
(a) Howard Dean and his views towords the President
(b) Deans supporters that have been sucked into his angry rage filled campaign
(c) Wes Clark
(d) the generic Bush hater

from what I can tell, the Bush haters are using hostile language [comparing him to a Nazi, saing he should hang for his crimes, wanting to assassinate the President (or at the very least wishing it would happen)] Not only that, but look how vehemently some Democrats oppose every single action the President makes [hello Ted Kennedy]

while I do realize that this sentiment does not fill the entirety of the Democratic party, there are quite a number of people out there that do share this sentiment.

 

[nutxo]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
One doesn't change from Conservative to Liberal just because they don't agree with what a Republican as president is doing(unless they are doing drugs).

So I gather Rush will be switching sides at some point soon?

Bush has been screaming this for months now. Believe it or not even Savage hates Bush.

 

[naddicott]

What true conservatives need, at least those angry at neo-con betrayals, is their own Ralph Nader type candidate. Someone who supports their ideology better than the main Republican candidate, but who has no chance of winning any states. That lets them send a message to the neo-cons without having to resort to voting for someone with a platform even more divergent from their views. The end result is the same, the "worse" candidate is elected, but by casting a vote for someone with sympathetic views, the unenthused party members send a clearer message to party leaders about why the main candidate lost.

It is hard to say whether the Democratic party has made any attempt to bring the 2000 Nader voters back into the fold. There certainly has been some strong liberal rhetoric thrown around in the early stages of the campaign, but I don't think we'll know for sure if the Democratic party is willing to do what it takes to keep the Nader liberals voting Democratic until after the primaries are over and the elections become a two man showdown.

 

[sMiLeYz]

I've been saying for months Bush is not a true conservative, and there needs to be some REAL alternatives to these Republicrats in Washington.

 

[Mill]

Bush has done a lot of things I disagree with. Right now I'm undecided but leaning toward Bush. I think the size of the Federal Government could be increased, but that budget should not be. We've got too much pork spending and too many insignificant programs out there. If we cut the pork and stupid projects and streamlined out areas we could focus more on important things such as defense, education, and looking for alternative energy sources.

 

[Dissipate]

I consider myself a pretty hardcore conservative and I don't agree with what Bush has done with the budget. A half a TRILLION dollar deficit is ridiculous. Tax cuts good, exorbitant spending, BAD. Bush is just doing what every other politician does, pandering to everyone. By cutting taxes and keeping spending high he is trying to keep everyone happy.

Well screw that. I don't want a damn president that just keeps everyone happy, I want a president that sticks to principles, not just does what the pollsters say. I don't want to vote for a Democrat though, looks like its Bush in '04 for me.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Dissipate
I consider myself a pretty hardcore conservative and I don't agree with what Bush has done with the budget. A half a TRILLION dollar deficit is ridiculous. Tax cuts good, exorbitant spending, BAD. Bush is just doing what every other politician does, pandering to everyone. By cutting taxes and keeping spending high he is trying to keep everyone happy.

Well screw that. I don't want a damn president that just keeps everyone happy, I want a president that sticks to principles, not just does what the pollsters say. I don't want to vote for a Democrat though, looks like its Bush in '04 for me.

Republicans screwed the Pooch in 2000 when they let the leaders of their party annoint the Dub as their candidate instead of a much more qualified and I dare say a better man all around, John McCain

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Dissipate
I consider myself a pretty hardcore conservative and I don't agree with what Bush has done with the budget. A half a TRILLION dollar deficit is ridiculous. Tax cuts good, exorbitant spending, BAD. Bush is just doing what every other politician does, pandering to everyone. By cutting taxes and keeping spending high he is trying to keep everyone happy.

Well screw that. I don't want a damn president that just keeps everyone happy, I want a president that sticks to principles, not just does what the pollsters say. I don't want to vote for a Democrat though, looks like its Bush in '04 for me.

Republicans screwed the Pooch in 2000 when they let the leaders of their party annoint the Dub as their candidate instead of a much more qualified and I dare say a better man all around, John McCain

Amen to that. McCain was who I was rooting for in 2000. Damn Republican party wouldn't give him a shot though. Oh well, that's history. I'm already thinking about 2008. Bush is going to be re-elected anyways.

 

[DT4K]

I understand what you are saying, but what's the alternative?
You are saying that because Bush has pushed a few liberal policies, you are now going to vote for somebody who will push every possible liberal policy.

That would be like california republicans voting to keep Davis because Arnold isn't conservative enough.
It really makes no sense.

It's like saying you are going to vote for somebody you never agree with instead of someone you agree with half the time just because there isn't anyone running that you agree with 100% of the time.

 

[Phokus]

The republican party has single handedly increased the size of government more than any democrat i've ever seen, so the obvious solution is to send a clear message to the party and conservatives with *PRINCIPLES* (which, unfortunately, don't seem to be many here) vote for someone else (i.e. the libertarian party).

Unfortunately, all the imbecile republicans here (except jadow) seem to care more about having a candidate with an "R" next to his name be president than having a president with principles.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Phokus
The republican party has single handedly increased the size of government more than any democrat i've ever seen, so the obvious solution is to send a clear message to the party and conservatives with *PRINCIPLES* (which, unfortunately, don't seem to be many here) vote for someone else (i.e. the libertarian party).

Unfortunately, all the imbecile republicans here (except jadow) seem to care more about having a candidate with an "R" next to his name be president than having a president with principles.

And that wonderful Libertarian is?
Is he/she going to hold some view that I detest more than gov't overspending?
Hmmm...yes - principles indeed.

CkG

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Phokus
The republican party has single handedly increased the size of government more than any democrat i've ever seen, so the obvious solution is to send a clear message to the party and conservatives with *PRINCIPLES* (which, unfortunately, don't seem to be many here) vote for someone else (i.e. the libertarian party).

Unfortunately, all the imbecile republicans here (except jadow) seem to care more about having a candidate with an "R" next to his name be president than having a president with principles.

And that wonderful Libertarian is?
Is he/she going to hold some view that I detest more than gov't overspending?
Hmmm...yes - principles indeed.

CkG

Oh, so you voted bush for bigger government? I didn't know that! Principles indeed!

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Phokus
The republican party has single handedly increased the size of government more than any democrat i've ever seen, so the obvious solution is to send a clear message to the party and conservatives with *PRINCIPLES* (which, unfortunately, don't seem to be many here) vote for someone else (i.e. the libertarian party).

Unfortunately, all the imbecile republicans here (except jadow) seem to care more about having a candidate with an "R" next to his name be president than having a president with principles.

And that wonderful Libertarian is?
Is he/she going to hold some view that I detest more than gov't overspending?
Hmmm...yes - principles indeed.

CkG

Oh, so you voted bush for bigger government? I didn't know that! Principles indeed!

You're mildly illiterate.

 

[ITJunkie]

Originally posted by: Genesys

All you're going to do is help your enemy.

There in a nutshell is the problem today...when the hell did other Americans become the enemy because they don't agree with you! What an @$$ munch statement!

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: Shanti
I understand what you are saying, but what's the alternative?
You are saying that because Bush has pushed a few liberal policies, you are now going to vote for somebody who will push every possible liberal policy.

That would be like california republicans voting to keep Davis because Arnold isn't conservative enough.
It really makes no sense.

It's like saying you are going to vote for somebody you never agree with instead of someone you agree with half the time just because there isn't anyone running that you agree with 100% of the time.

That would be true if we had Democrat Congress. But we don't and won't with all this redistricting. So by voting Democrat for President, you are voting for gridlocked, split government. I pick gridlock over this out of control spending and deficit growth any day. That is why a Republican governor makes sense in Sacramento, to oppose the out of control spending and deficit running liberal state legislature. And why a Democrat president makes sense in Washington DC to offset the out of control spending and deficit running "conservative" Congress. Voting for Bush means that every GOP big borrow and spend idea passes unopposed. Since GOP is in pander mode, they'll keep spending and borrowing out of control.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: ITJunkie

Originally posted by: Genesys

All you're going to do is help your enemy.

There in a nutshell is the problem today...when the hell did other Americans become the enemy because they don't agree with you! What an @$$ munch statement!

Not so much an enemy, but a worse solution. The other party for the past several has complained about Bush not spending enough....on top of that they are willing to hand our foreign policy over to the UN.

:|

 

[chess9]

Some conservatives WILL deliver Bush a message. If the Republicans lose you know they will realize they didn't take care of their conservative wing. Probably the best way to get a conservative Republican nominee next time is to kick out Bush. The Republicans need a social liberal and fiscal conservative running. Like me. I'd probably vote for Arnold if he actually learns anything in California and doesn't blow the state up or drive it off a cliff.

I long supported NEA funding, but we can't afford it now so it must go. I'll just continue to donate to the classical radio station here in town. Which is probably the way it should be....

-Rober

 

[chess9]

Hero:

You shouldn't call anyone "mildly illiterate" after your posts in the education thread.

-Robert

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: chess9
Some conservatives WILL deliver Bush a message. If the Republicans lose you know they will realize they didn't take care of their conservative wing. Probably the best way to get a conservative Republican nominee next time is to kick out Bush. The Republicans need a social liberal and fiscal conservative running. Like me. I'd probably vote for Arnold if he actually learns anything in California and doesn't blow the state up or drive it off a cliff.

I long supported NEA funding, but we can't afford it now so it must go. I'll just continue to donate to the classical radio station here in town. Which is probably the way it should be....

-Rober

That is the way it should be. The goverment is involved in so many things it should be involved in.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Phokus
The republican party has single handedly increased the size of government more than any democrat i've ever seen, so the obvious solution is to send a clear message to the party and conservatives with *PRINCIPLES* (which, unfortunately, don't seem to be many here) vote for someone else (i.e. the libertarian party).

Unfortunately, all the imbecile republicans here (except jadow) seem to care more about having a candidate with an "R" next to his name be president than having a president with principles.

And that wonderful Libertarian is?
Is he/she going to hold some view that I detest more than gov't overspending?
Hmmm...yes - principles indeed.

CkG

Oh, so you voted bush for bigger government? I didn't know that! Principles indeed!

You're mildly illiterate.

I think "mildly" is too kind. "severely" would be a more accurate response to that post.

Anyway - back to the issue - where is/are these magical "Libertarian" candidates? If so many people claim to think that the idea of Libertarianism is soooooo good - then lets see a candidate. If "principles" really are what some of you want to vote for then find a candidate that isn't a whack job. The idea of Libertarianism is quite appealing but unfortunately they seem to hold some quite extreme views.

CkG

 

[DT4K]

Originally posted by: Phokus
The republican party has single handedly increased the size of government more than any democrat i've ever seen, so the obvious solution is to send a clear message to the party and conservatives with *PRINCIPLES* (which, unfortunately, don't seem to be many here) vote for someone else (i.e. the libertarian party).

Unfortunately, all the imbecile republicans here (except jadow) seem to care more about having a candidate with an "R" next to his name be president than having a president with principles.

Well, since very few people will ever be frustrated enough to vote for a libertarian, the only message you send by electing a liberal democrat is that you want liberal policies. If that is the message you want to send, go ahead. Personally, I'm voting for Bush because I'd rather have a liberal republican than a liberal democrat.

 

[heartsurgeon]

I'm voting for Bush because he's the real war criminal, not like that POS Kerry

Well, actually, Kerry has essentially admitted he is a war criminal. So from your prespective Moonie, you'll have to come up with a different way to choose between them.

John Kerry, speaking to the Senate Committee of Foreign Relations, April 23, 1971:

We who have come here to Washington have come here because we feel we have to be winter soldiers now. We could come back to this country, we could be quiet, we could hold our silence, we could not tell what went on in Vietnam, but we feel because of what threatens this country, not the reds, but the crimes which we are committing that threaten it, that we have to speak out..."we are more guilty than any other body of violations of those Geneva Conventions; in the use of free fire zones, harassment interdiction fire, search and destroy missions, the bombings, the torture of prisoners...

yep, he pretty much admits to war crimes.....now don't argue with me that he doesn't actually mean himself...read the link...he is speaking about himself and his fellow veterans, and what they did in Vietnam...

linky