What if liberals spent more time thinking up good ideas instead of hating on Bush?

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

dirtboy

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
6,745
1
81
Originally posted by: NeonAura
You want solutions from a "Liberal?" Our economy's in shambles. It's time to fix it. How's this for you:

1. Withdraw from Iraq. Large scale, in less than one year. It's time to cut our losses, it's a lose-lose situation. If we're there, we lose $5 billion per month and 1,800+ soldiers so far. This is unacceptable.

What will we gain by this?

2. Take away Bush's tax cuts to mainly the wealthiest 1% of Americans. It's time to forget about stupid Reaganomics and use real economics that really work. We could take the money from the taxes that the wealthy would be paying and put it towards education. In the next ten years, we could see the future leaders of America better prepared and the general public more informed to make the decisions of the country.

We already dump mass amounts of money into education. Care to explain how that really works? I thought the poor needed money now. :confused:

3. Cut government spending. Iraq- $5 billion per month, $500 billion so far. Enough is enough. NASA needs to go. Money is very much so wasted by our space endeavors. Nothing important has been yielded from space in the past thirty years. We need to take care of our own world before looking to other worlds. Also, we can get rid of the "goodies" that senators and politicians get. Tax write-offs, free money for vacations, etc.

You're clearly uneducated about the benefits of space travel. And I'm sure all those people will be happy to be out of work.

4. Increase relations with foreign countries. Many superpowers of the world are beginning to doubt the United States greatly. It's time to lift trade restrictions with China and get on their good side. By 2020, China will have the second most powerful economy in the world, barring that the United States screws up more. Russia also doubts us, France really doesn't like us, and many other countries feel pretty strongly against us.

And just how are you going to do that? Call them up and invite them out for pizza? :confused: This is a perfect example of what a liberal will say. I'll do this and that, but there's no method to how.

I'm going to end poverty. That's what I'm going to do. You should believe me because I'm a democrat.

5. Increase trades with foreign countries. China predominantly needs to be traded with more. However, our neighbors, Mexico and Canada, could do with better trading with the US. If we help to improve Mexico's economy and standard of living, we wouldn't have to have such high restrictions on border control. Mexicans would want to stay in Mexico. It's also time to lift the embargo on Cuba. Enough is enough, Fidel even helped us with Katrina relief. Let's do them a favor and lift the embargo and give their people a better standard of living.

So you want to increase the trade deficit with China?! :confused: Wow. You just lost all of the liberal vote. And in case you didn't know, there's something called NAFTA. Look it up.

6. Finally, we need to get rid of the fallacies in our government. Man, are we getting corrupted. This whole "Liberal-Conservative" bs is getting out of hand. It's time to vote people into office that are qualified, not those who are labeled by a party. We need to get rid of corruption in the form of cash under the table and payoffs to political icons. President Bush, like it or not, is buddies with the oil companies. They're in his pocket. This isn't right. They have more power than the average American citizen, and that's not the basis of our country. It's out of hand, buying off politicians is unethical and must be done away with.

Nice attack on Bush. Your liberal colors show. I got news for you, your pal Clinton wasn't a shiney penny either. Every politician has his or her price. It's sad that you have to go after Bush to try to justify yourself, but it only makes you look like a fool.

Today, we have some major problems that have to be fixed. I don't see Democrats nor Republicans aiming to get rid of them, they're not really that different. They only care for themselves and their image, greed and status. This has to end.

Every day we have major problems that need to be fixed. I don't think anyone can come up with a solution to end all the wrongs in the world overnight. Every day the forum liberals criticize Bush because they claim more people are in poverty now, but Clinton didn't wipe out poverty. The appologists get quiet quick. Again, the reality is none of these problems have an instant fix, yet everyone thinks their party can fix it tomorrow if they are elected.

I see more ideas and solutions coming from the right. All I see from the left is criticisms, and an occasional idea. If someone ran on the points you mentioned, I wouldn't vote for them either. You have provided no reasons for how you're going to accomplish what you want and why they are for the best. Even your post provided no direction for the future.
 

dirtboy

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
6,745
1
81
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
I bet if he was able to run he'd beat any challenger put forth by either the Democrats or Republicans for the White House in 2008.

As much as I hate agreeing with you ... you're probably right. :D

What's the rule on Bill Clinton being picked for the Vice President spot???

Wow. The left is so deperate now they are trying to resurect Clinton. :D:D:D
 

totalcommand

Platinum Member
Apr 21, 2004
2,487
0
0
Originally posted by: dirtboy
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
I bet if he was able to run he'd beat any challenger put forth by either the Democrats or Republicans for the White House in 2008.

As much as I hate agreeing with you ... you're probably right. :D

What's the rule on Bill Clinton being picked for the Vice President spot???

Wow. The left is so deperate now they are trying to resurect Clinton. :D:D:D

Hahaha desperate? Just look at the title of this thread - if the Bush and Repubs were actually doing well and not being so desperate, this thread wouldn't exist. :D.
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,529
3
0
Originally posted by: dirtboy
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
I bet if he was able to run he'd beat any challenger put forth by either the Democrats or Republicans for the White House in 2008.

As much as I hate agreeing with you ... you're probably right. :D

What's the rule on Bill Clinton being picked for the Vice President spot???

Wow. The left is so deperate now they are trying to resurect Clinton. :D:D:D
First of neither Pabster or I are the "Left". Secondly I seriously doubt that McGowen speaks for the mainstream left and thirdly nobody really said anything about wanting Clinton to run, Pabster and I just commented the Clinton probably would beat anybody either party ran for President in 2008 and McGowen just asked what the law/rule was about an ex 2 term president holding the VP office.


Now if you wanted to contribute to this thread instead of just being a partisan troll you could offer up an opinion why Clinton wouldn't win if he were allowed to run again or explain to Dave why a 2 term ex President couldn't hold the office of VP.
 

CaptnKirk

Lifer
Jul 25, 2002
10,053
0
71
Clinton cannot run as a Vice President because the law states that anyone who would be excluded for any reason
for running for the Presidency
is inelligible for running as the VP.

That reason is term limit of 2 elected terms in office as president.

Since he was elected to the office twice, he cannot be the VP since the cycle of secession could return him to the Executive position,
which he has been excluded from.

The only exception is for a VP that becomes the president upon the death or removal from office of the original elected person -
that would have been Lyndon Johnson after Kennedy, and Spiro Agnew after Nixon.
Either of them would have been allowed to run for 2 elected terms.
LBJ did run for his first re-election, but chose not to run for the allowable 2nd term -
little thing about Viet Nam and lying advisors.
In this administration Cheney has that insider position, and Daddy George H.W. Bush still is allowed, since he did not acheive re-election.

Clear as mud !
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
35,059
73
91
Originally posted by: Frackal
What if liberals spent more time thinking up good ideas instead of hating on Bush?
What if Bush spent more time doing a good job, instead of lying about a war based on lies, screwing the economy environment to the benefit of his big money supporters, dropping the ball on real national emergencies, kissing ass to ultra-religious cretins and generally lying about everything he does? :p

I know it's not likely, but then, liberals might not have as much reason to dislike him. :cool:
 

Starbuck1975

Lifer
Jan 6, 2005
14,698
1,909
126
So I'm a sheep because I don't blindly follow Bush? Wow. I think you need to rethink your definition of sheep.

No you are a sheep if you voted for Kerry simply because he was not Bush...similarly, those who voted for Bush because they couldn't stand the thought of a Democrat taking back the White House are sheep as well.

I know it's hard for many liberals to accept, but there are people out there who consider Bush a strong leader...easy to dismiss them as sheep, but not understanding how those people think is what cost Kerry the election...something to consider.

Similarly, given Bush's dropping approval in the polls, it would be foolish of the Republicans to dismiss all criticisms against this administration as part of the vast left wing conspiracy to undermine the war on terror.
 

homercles337

Diamond Member
Dec 29, 2004
6,340
3
71
Why cant conservatives see that criticism of an administration is not "HATE?" Here's your ignornace card, thanks for playing.
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
Clinton cannot run as a Vice President because the law states that anyone who would be excluded for any reason
for running for the Presidency
is inelligible for running as the VP.

That reason is term limit of 2 elected terms in office as president.

Since he was elected to the office twice, he cannot be the VP since the cycle of secession could return him to the Executive position,
which he has been excluded from.

The only exception is for a VP that becomes the president upon the death or removal from office of the original elected person -
that would have been Lyndon Johnson after Kennedy, and Spiro Agnew after Nixon.
Either of them would have been allowed to run for 2 elected terms.
LBJ did run for his first re-election, but chose not to run for the allowable 2nd term -
little thing about Viet Nam and lying advisors.
In this administration Cheney has that insider position, and Daddy George H.W. Bush still is allowed, since he did not acheive re-election.

Clear as mud !

Wow, snap, that's what I thought about Clinton but forgot about Daddy Bush, that would suck.

I wouldn't be surprised if they try to do that because the Bush's have religion firmly on their side. Can't say that about the other candidates.
 

homercles337

Diamond Member
Dec 29, 2004
6,340
3
71
Originally posted by: zendari
Originally posted by: umbrella39

And how many on your side voted for Bush because he wasn't Kerry? Pathetic as well.

Comparatively much fewer.

Proof?

Everytime i see you post im going to ask for proof. Your blind ignorance combined with your youth intrigues me. I am going to bump, and persist in this endeavour until you put-up.
 

SagaLore

Elite Member
Dec 18, 2001
24,036
21
81
Originally posted by: EatSpam
This was my biggest problem with the Kerry campaign. Kerry never really offered any compelling reason to vote for him, besides that he wasn't George W. Bush. This was fine for 49% of the country, but not the other 2% he needed to win.

And don't forget his purple hearts!
 

dirtboy

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
6,745
1
81
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: dirtboy
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
I bet if he was able to run he'd beat any challenger put forth by either the Democrats or Republicans for the White House in 2008.

As much as I hate agreeing with you ... you're probably right. :D

What's the rule on Bill Clinton being picked for the Vice President spot???

Wow. The left is so deperate now they are trying to resurect Clinton. :D:D:D
First of neither Pabster or I are the "Left". Secondly I seriously doubt that McGowen speaks for the mainstream left and thirdly nobody really said anything about wanting Clinton to run, Pabster and I just commented the Clinton probably would beat anybody either party ran for President in 2008 and McGowen just asked what the law/rule was about an ex 2 term president holding the VP office.


Now if you wanted to contribute to this thread instead of just being a partisan troll you could offer up an opinion why Clinton wouldn't win if he were allowed to run again or explain to Dave why a 2 term ex President couldn't hold the office of VP.

This thread is about liberals having ideas. Maybe you should keep it on topic instead of trolling. :roll:

And if you've been around long enough, you'd know you can't explain anything to Dave.
 

SagaLore

Elite Member
Dec 18, 2001
24,036
21
81
Originally posted by: Harvey
What if Bush spent more time doing a good job, instead of lying about a war based on lies,

Haha, good one. ;)

screwing the economy environment to the benefit of his big money supporters,

So these big money supporters.. want the economy to fail? :confused:

dropping the ball on real national emergencies,

Name one.

kissing ass to ultra-religious cretins

Doesn't every President?

and generally lying about everything he does? :p

Is it still a lie, if he's convinced it is the truth?...
 

Pabster

Lifer
Apr 15, 2001
16,986
1
0
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Wow, snap, that's what I thought about Clinton but forgot about Daddy Bush, that would suck.

I wouldn't be surprised if they try to do that because the Bush's have religion firmly on their side. Can't say that about the other candidates.

Imagine, Dave. Condi Rice and George HW Bush working side by side in 2008. :laugh:

Naw, seriously. HW is about 85 now isn't he? Cheney gets villified enough already and he isn't even close to 85...not gonna happen.
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,529
3
0
Originally posted by: dirtboy
This thread is about liberals having ideas. Maybe you should keep it on topic instead of trolling. :roll:

And if you've been around long enough, you'd know you can't explain anything to Dave.
Obviously your only purpose in this thread is to be antagonistic.
 

dirtboy

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
6,745
1
81
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: dirtboy
This thread is about liberals having ideas. Maybe you should keep it on topic instead of trolling. :roll:

And if you've been around long enough, you'd know you can't explain anything to Dave.
Obviously your only purpose in this thread is to be antagonistic.

And I see you're selective in the posts you read. :roll:
 

SagaLore

Elite Member
Dec 18, 2001
24,036
21
81
Originally posted by: dirtboy
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: dirtboy
This thread is about liberals having ideas. Maybe you should keep it on topic instead of trolling. :roll:

And if you've been around long enough, you'd know you can't explain anything to Dave.
Obviously your only purpose in this thread is to be antagonistic.

And I see you're selective in the posts you reply to. :roll:

Fixed. ;)
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,529
3
0
Originally posted by: dirtboy
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: dirtboy
This thread is about liberals having ideas. Maybe you should keep it on topic instead of trolling. :roll:

And if you've been around long enough, you'd know you can't explain anything to Dave.
Obviously your only purpose in this thread is to be antagonistic.

And I see you're selective in the posts you read. :roll:
In this thread yes because you made post directed at me and two others that was nothing more than a troll.
 

dirtboy

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
6,745
1
81
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: dirtboy
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: dirtboy
This thread is about liberals having ideas. Maybe you should keep it on topic instead of trolling. :roll:

And if you've been around long enough, you'd know you can't explain anything to Dave.
Obviously your only purpose in this thread is to be antagonistic.

And I see you're selective in the posts you read. :roll:
In this thread yes because you made post directed at me and two others that was nothing more than a troll.

I was replying to Dave. Jeez. Did you not see that? Just because I don't take the time to edit out your comments or Pab's comments, doesn't mean I was replying to you. If I was replying to you, I would have made a reply to your post.

Now if you've visited this forum more than once, you would know the comment I made was directed at Dave because that is the exact same comment he spouts off to at other people. Yet for some reason that is acceptable, but when your post gets caught in the middle of it, you can't see that it had nothing to do with you.

You need to take this a lot less seriously.
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,529
3
0
Originally posted by: dirtboy
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: dirtboy
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: dirtboy
This thread is about liberals having ideas. Maybe you should keep it on topic instead of trolling. :roll:

And if you've been around long enough, you'd know you can't explain anything to Dave.
Obviously your only purpose in this thread is to be antagonistic.

And I see you're selective in the posts you read. :roll:
In this thread yes because you made post directed at me and two others that was nothing more than a troll.

I was replying to Dave. Jeez. Did you not see that? Just because I don't take the time to edit out your comments or Pab's comments, doesn't mean I was replying to you. If I was replying to you, I would have made a reply to your post.

Now if you've visited this forum more than once, you would know the comment I made was directed at Dave because that is the exact same comment he spouts off to at other people. Yet for some reason that is acceptable, but when your post gets caught in the middle of it, you can't see that it had nothing to do with you.

You need to take this a lot less seriously.
Yes I have noticed that today you have been following Dave around for the express purpose of antagonizing him. Like zendari, nobody takes Dave seriously, why do you feel the need to give him more attention than he merits? And don't you think by suggesting that Dave speaks for those on the left you are guilty of stereotyping all Liberals as Nut Cases?

 

dirtboy

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
6,745
1
81
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Yes I have noticed that today you have been following Dave around for the express purpose of antagonizing him. Like zendari, nobody takes Dave seriously, why do you feel the need to give him more attention than he merits? And don't you think by suggesting that Dave speaks for those on the left you are guilty of stereotyping all Liberals as Nut Cases?

I have made other posts that weren't to Dave. Do your homework.

Maybe you can explain why you're singling me out, but you've completely ignored a recent post by SagaLore in this thread that was nothing more than a trollish response. Not to mention all the other posts in forum today.

What is it you have against me?

And if nobody takes Dave seriously, why are you taking me seriously?
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,529
3
0
Originally posted by: dirtboy
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Yes I have noticed that today you have been following Dave around for the express purpose of antagonizing him. Like zendari, nobody takes Dave seriously, why do you feel the need to give him more attention than he merits? And don't you think by suggesting that Dave speaks for those on the left you are guilty of stereotyping all Liberals as Nut Cases?

I have made other posts that weren't to Dave. Do your homework.

Maybe you can explain why you're singling me out, but you've completely ignored a recent post by SagaLore in this thread that was nothing more than a trollish response. Not to mention all the other posts in forum today.

What is it you have against me?

And if nobody takes Dave seriously, why are you taking me seriously?
Enough of this side tracked discussion between us, let the thread continue.

 

SagaLore

Elite Member
Dec 18, 2001
24,036
21
81
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Enough of this side tracked discussion between us, let the thread continue.

Where were we? Oh that's right, liberals don't have good ideas. /thread
 

cKGunslinger

Lifer
Nov 29, 1999
16,408
57
91
Originally posted by: NeonAura
You want solutions from a "Liberal?" Our economy's in shambles. It's time to fix it. How's this for you:

1. Withdraw from Iraq. Large scale, in less than one year. It's time to cut our losses, it's a lose-lose situation. If we're there, we lose $5 billion per month and 1,800+ soldiers so far. This is unacceptable.
Not a bad idea, potentially. We certainly don't need to stay there indefinitely.
2. Take away Bush's tax cuts to mainly the wealthiest 1% of Americans. It's time to forget about stupid Reaganomics and use real economics that really work. We could take the money from the taxes that the wealthy would be paying and put it towards education. In the next ten years, we could see the future leaders of America better prepared and the general public more informed to make the decisions of the country.
The whole "OMG! The rich don't pay enough taxes" line gets very old. And while education reform should be a large priority, additional funding is not the answer. Throwing money at problems rarely satisfies them (ex-wives excluded.)
3. Cut government spending. Iraq- $5 billion per month, $500 billion so far. Enough is enough. NASA needs to go. Money is very much so wasted by our space endeavors. Nothing important has been yielded from space in the past thirty years. We need to take care of our own world before looking to other worlds. Also, we can get rid of the "goodies" that senators and politicians get. Tax write-offs, free money for vacations, etc.
Yes, we need massive budget cuts where possible. NASA? Please. NASA's miniscule budget is of no importance to the economy. We spend more money in Iraq in 3 days then they get all year, without any of the benefits. Space endeavors are not a "waste," and certainly no more so than 75% of the rest of the budget. We are not ignoring Earth; looking at "other worlds" helps us with our own. And yes, congressmen receive way too many benefits as it stands.
4. Increase relations with foreign countries. Many superpowers of the world are beginning to doubt the United States greatly. It's time to lift trade restrictions with China and get on their good side. By 2020, China will have the second most powerful economy in the world, barring that the United States screws up more. Russia also doubts us, France really doesn't like us, and many other countries feel pretty strongly against us.
What do you mean by "doubts us" and "feel pretty strongly against us?" We have many restrictions with China because China has horrendous human-rights issues and we are signaling our "disapproval" of them with limited trade. We have no need to "get on their good side," if they even have such a thing.