Would you vote for George W. Bush again?

[RCN]

Absolutely.

 

[ultimatebob]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: Strk

Originally posted by: DaiShan

Originally posted by: Strk
Bush isn't conservative. He is for massive spending and big government; hardly the recipe for conservitism.

Thank you. He spends my money on a bunch of crap that I don't believe in then has the nerve to say he is conservative. He only plays the conservative card so that he can get away with legislating morality.

Yeah, I can't quite figure out the logic behind some people. They talk about the "evil liberals" while support the guy who outspends everyone and whose motto should be "Go nanny state!" I think some don't really understand the difference between conservative and liberal. They assume that the (R) or (D) means something, but it doesn't.

Quick: Anyone know how many spending bills that Bush has vetoed so far? Anyone? Reagan vetoed 22 at this point that I'll give you a hint: That's 22 more than Bush has.

That's not really fair... Reagan had a Democratic majority in congress that he needed to deal with. Bush hasn't had to veto much of anything, because the congressional Republican majority is pretty much giving him budget bills that he likes to sign.

Personally, I think that's why a mixed party government produces better bills. More debate and compromise usually helps to create better laws.

 

[Kadarin]

Originally posted by: The Godfather
Iono why everyone hates the guy so much. They question the war, but if i was in his place, and some punks killed 4,000 innocent people and dropped 2 of the largest structures in the world (not to mention economic center), i would be going to war too. What else? Some call him a redneck, but i don't see how that makes him a bad leader.

"Iono"? What does that mean? Didn't they teach you English in school?

Secondly, there are two wars: The war in Afghanistan, and the war in Iraq. While I wouldn't trivialize Al Qaida by calling them "some punks", you are correct in that the 9/11 action should have provoked a military response, and I feel the government should be perfectly justified in doing whatever it takes to exterminate Al Qaida. In my opinion, the war in Afghanistan didn't go nearly far enough. The war in Iraq, on the other hand, had NOTHING to do with Al Qaida, and the Bush administration lied to us with regard to the reasons why we are currently there.

Please do not vote. You are a fvcking idiot.

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: ultimatebob

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: Strk

Originally posted by: DaiShan

Originally posted by: Strk
Bush isn't conservative. He is for massive spending and big government; hardly the recipe for conservitism.

Thank you. He spends my money on a bunch of crap that I don't believe in then has the nerve to say he is conservative. He only plays the conservative card so that he can get away with legislating morality.

Yeah, I can't quite figure out the logic behind some people. They talk about the "evil liberals" while support the guy who outspends everyone and whose motto should be "Go nanny state!" I think some don't really understand the difference between conservative and liberal. They assume that the (R) or (D) means something, but it doesn't.

Quick: Anyone know how many spending bills that Bush has vetoed so far? Anyone? Reagan vetoed 22 at this point that I'll give you a hint: That's 22 more than Bush has.

That's not really fair... Reagan had a Democatic majority in congress that he needed to deal with. Bush hasn't had to veto much of anything, because the congressional Republican majority is pretty much giving him budget bills that he likes to sign.

Personally, I think that's why a mixed party government produces better bills. More debate and compromise usually helps to create better laws.

Reagan vetoed the transportation bill because it had 157 earmarks in it. Bush signed it after it came in several billion over with over 6,300 earmarks. Bush signed the prescription drug bill that refused to allow the basic ability to negotiate prices, which has resulted in the bill nearly doubling in cost before it even went into effect (it went from around $390 billion to a bit under $800 billion). Blinded by partisanship? I think so.

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: The Godfather

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: The Godfather
Iono why everyone hates the guy so much. They question the war, but if i was in his place, and some punks killed 4,000 innocent people and dropped 2 of the largest structures in the world (not to mention economic center), i would be going to war too. What else? Some call him a redneck, but i don't see how that makes him a bad leader.

the first thing you said about the war is exactly part of why people say the second thing you said about him being a bad leader.

Ok so you mean that for letting it happen he isn't doing his job right? I agree, but to tell you the truth, i can't think of any other President that could have stopped it. And if they did, something worse would have come their way and the war would have still erupted. So one way or another, it would have still hit us in the ass.

what i meant was the way in which he handled going to war and with whom he went to war and why (meaning the path we took to getting there, fabricated intelligence and all).

he's definitely a bad leader. if you say he isn't, you're dumb. a good/great leader doesn't have a majority of the world against him and wouldn't constantly have low approval ratings with his constituency (bush has always had record low approval ratings... that is, of course, until something happens like a terrorist attack or going to war or something)

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: ultimatebob

Originally posted by: The Godfather
Iono why everyone hates the guy so much. They question the war, but if i was in his place, and some punks killed 4,000 innocent people and dropped 2 of the largest structures in the world (not to mention economic center), i would be going to war too. What else? Some call him a redneck, but i don't see how that makes him a bad leader.

Which war are you talking about? The war against Afghanistan was tied to the war on terror, but almost all of the evidence tying Iraq to Al Quida was fabricated. That's not just my opinion anymore, it's a proven fact. If anything, removing Saddam Hussein increased Al Quida's presence in that country.

exactly. qft.

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: alien42

Originally posted by: alien42

Originally posted by: The Godfather
Iono why everyone hates the guy so much. They question the war, but if i was in his place, and some punks killed 4,000 innocent people and dropped 2 of the largest structures in the world (not to mention economic center), i would be going to war too. What else? Some call him a redneck, but i don't see how that makes him a bad leader.

i know this has been said millions of times but apparently it bears repeating. what did iraq have to do with 9/11?

and i forgot to mention that bin laden still hasnt been caught.

qft again. great leader, that bush guy.

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: Trikat
Depends on which candidate Bush is running against...

no it doesn't.

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: Strk

Originally posted by: The Godfather

Originally posted by: alien42

Originally posted by: alien42

Originally posted by: The Godfather
Iono why everyone hates the guy so much. They question the war, but if i was in his place, and some punks killed 4,000 innocent people and dropped 2 of the largest structures in the world (not to mention economic center), i would be going to war too. What else? Some call him a redneck, but i don't see how that makes him a bad leader.

i know this has been said millions of times but apparently it bears repeating. what did iraq have to do with 9/11?

and i forgot to mention that bin laden still hasnt been caught.

Ok you think that the US military system is uber technologically advanced nano age sh1t. You try finding a bearded dude that could be on every single abandoned spot of the WORLD. He might be hiding in a hole in Siberia, how the hell do you expect us to track that down that fast? At least Saddam was in the area of the troops, but Bin Ladin could be any fking where. We can't go through all of Japan's small ass islands, or all of Russia's mountains.

He's a 6'5" Arab on dialysis in a non-Arabian country.

haha qft. i wonder if godfather realizes what dialysis is, exactly.

we can find saddam hussein in a hole in the ground, but we can't find bin laden? please.

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: Astaroth33

Originally posted by: The Godfather
Iono why everyone hates the guy so much. They question the war, but if i was in his place, and some punks killed 4,000 innocent people and dropped 2 of the largest structures in the world (not to mention economic center), i would be going to war too. What else? Some call him a redneck, but i don't see how that makes him a bad leader.

"Iono"? What does that mean? Didn't they teach you English in school?

Secondly, there are two wars: The war in Afghanistan, and the war in Iraq. While I wouldn't trivialize Al Qaida by calling them "some punks", you are correct in that the 9/11 action should have provoked a military response, and I feel the government should be perfectly justified in doing whatever it takes to exterminate Al Qaida. In my opinion, the war in Afghanistan didn't go nearly far enough. The war in Iraq, on the other hand, had NOTHING to do with Al Qaida, and the Bush administration lied to us with regard to the reasons why we are currently there.

Please do not vote. You are a fvcking idiot.

haha

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: ultimatebob

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: Strk

Originally posted by: DaiShan

Originally posted by: Strk
Bush isn't conservative. He is for massive spending and big government; hardly the recipe for conservitism.

Thank you. He spends my money on a bunch of crap that I don't believe in then has the nerve to say he is conservative. He only plays the conservative card so that he can get away with legislating morality.

Yeah, I can't quite figure out the logic behind some people. They talk about the "evil liberals" while support the guy who outspends everyone and whose motto should be "Go nanny state!" I think some don't really understand the difference between conservative and liberal. They assume that the (R) or (D) means something, but it doesn't.

Quick: Anyone know how many spending bills that Bush has vetoed so far? Anyone? Reagan vetoed 22 at this point that I'll give you a hint: That's 22 more than Bush has.

That's not really fair... Reagan had a Democratic majority in congress that he needed to deal with. Bush hasn't had to veto much of anything, because the congressional Republican majority is pretty much giving him budget bills that he likes to sign.

Personally, I think that's why a mixed party government produces better bills. More debate and compromise usually helps to create better laws.

Hence why the smaller spending Republicans are spending like no other administration since WWII. Highway pork bill, military spending gone wild, medicare prescription drug bill, 15 billion in NEW tax breaks to big oil, deficits outpacing GDP growth (by far) 5 out of 6 years and looks like again this year, on and on and on. Sure its fair....there is no fiscal conservatism in the current DC leadership. Even the Democratic Clinton did a better job of spending and cuts than the chimp does.

 

[xxxInfidelxxx]

Originally posted by: Engineer
Quick: Anyone know how many spending bills that Bush has vetoed so far? Anyone? Reagan vetoed 22 at this point that I'll give you a hint: That's 22 more than Bush has.

Hey, cut the guy some slack. Though he didn't veto the astronomical Farm Bill or the Highway Bill or all the other big spending plans, at least he's going to dust that veto pen off and veto any bill that stops terrorists from owning a part of America. :disgust:

 

[Polish3d]

Originally posted by: Killerme33
Everyone conservative is gonna hit vote yes, everyone liberal is gonna vote no. Whats the point of this thread?

I voted for him in 2004 and I would not vote for him again. I think I'd vote Libertarian since I was not favorable to Kerry at all either

 

[xxxInfidelxxx]

and even though he's a big government, big spending clown, I would vote for him just because the Democrats and all their ilk are idiots. Have the proposed a single piece of legislation or offered a single idea in the last 2 years years since they got their @$$ handed to them, yet again?

I wasn't going to vote the last time around, but I didn't want to not vote and die (Vote of Die...what a joke). I dislike both parties and will wait for Goldwater to be cloned before I pull a lever for either again. Unless, however, the retards on the left get out of hand again with their rhetoric, which seems to be the case.

 

[xxxInfidelxxx]

Originally posted by: Frackal

Originally posted by: Killerme33
Everyone conservative is gonna hit vote yes, everyone liberal is gonna vote no. Whats the point of this thread?

I voted for him in 2004 and I would not vote for him again. I think I'd vote Libertarian since I was not favorable to Kerry at all either

Judging from the results, not too many were Fonda Kerry, either.

If Hilary or Kerry or Edwards is the best they can do, we are screwed.

 

[Polish3d]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: ultimatebob

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: Strk

Originally posted by: DaiShan

Originally posted by: Strk
Bush isn't conservative. He is for massive spending and big government; hardly the recipe for conservitism.

Thank you. He spends my money on a bunch of crap that I don't believe in then has the nerve to say he is conservative. He only plays the conservative card so that he can get away with legislating morality.

Yeah, I can't quite figure out the logic behind some people. They talk about the "evil liberals" while support the guy who outspends everyone and whose motto should be "Go nanny state!" I think some don't really understand the difference between conservative and liberal. They assume that the (R) or (D) means something, but it doesn't.

Quick: Anyone know how many spending bills that Bush has vetoed so far? Anyone? Reagan vetoed 22 at this point that I'll give you a hint: That's 22 more than Bush has.

That's not really fair... Reagan had a Democratic majority in congress that he needed to deal with. Bush hasn't had to veto much of anything, because the congressional Republican majority is pretty much giving him budget bills that he likes to sign.

Personally, I think that's why a mixed party government produces better bills. More debate and compromise usually helps to create better laws.

Hence why the smaller spending Republicans are spending like no other administration since WWII. Highway pork bill, military spending gone wild, medicare prescription drug bill, 15 billion in NEW tax breaks to big oil, deficits outpacing GDP growth (by far) 5 out of 6 years and looks like again this year, on and on and on. Sure its fair....there is no fiscal conservatism in the current DC leadership. Even the Democratic Clinton did a better job of spending and cuts than the chimp does.

IMO that's because you have the "unholy alliance" of evangelicals and career politicians, so all of a sudden the Republican party doesn't have to stand so much for small government and fiscal conservatism, just social conservatism. Their base mainly cares about jackass issues like "the sanctity of marriage" and "legislating from the bench."

It's a bad situation.

The democrats are theoretically even worse, but we'll have to see.

I won't be voting Republican again myself for a long time, unless a really high quality candidate comes up

 

[Polish3d]

Originally posted by: xxxInfidelxxx
and even though he's a big government, big spending clown, I would vote for him just because the Democrats and all their ilk are idiots. Have the proposed a single piece of legislation or offered a single idea in the last 2 years years since they got their @$$ handed to them, yet again?

I wasn't going to vote the last time around, but I didn't want to not vote and die (Vote of Die...what a joke). I dislike both parties and will wait for Goldwater to be cloned before I pull a lever for either again. Unless, however, the retards on the left get out of hand again with their rhetoric, which seems to be the case.

LOL, I agree here. Just because Bush may suck in a variety of ways, that doesn't automatically make the dumbs the better choice... their idiocy in the year running up to Nov. 2004 was too much for me to take.

Hell, you had top dems publicly appearing at the opening night of Fahrenheit 9/11.. amongst a billion other things...

The repubs suck, (and are largely corrupt IMO), the dems suck too, almost immature in a sense. (Like a lot of people here.)

 

[FelixDeCat]

Originally posted by: xxxInfidelxxx

Originally posted by: Frackal

Originally posted by: Killerme33
Everyone conservative is gonna hit vote yes, everyone liberal is gonna vote no. Whats the point of this thread?

I voted for him in 2004 and I would not vote for him again. I think I'd vote Libertarian since I was not favorable to Kerry at all either

Judging from the results, not too many were Fonda Kerry, either.

If Hilary or Kerry or Edwards is the best they can do, we are screwed.

You forgot the guy who invented the internet - Al Gore.

 

[Polish3d]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: Taggart
The main thing I consider in hindsight...if Kerry had been elected we'd be looking at 2 more liberal justices instead of a much more balanced court, which you get with Roberts and Alito.

In other words: Eliminate Roe vs Wade FTW to so called conservatives. The one issue party. I can't wait for that crap to be overturned so that it can be thrown back to the states and we can move this country forward instead of working wedge issues (well, then the GOP will throw up the gays, etc. but that will soon fall too).

Yes, I would love it if the evangelical base was fractured.

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: FelixDeKat

Originally posted by: xxxInfidelxxx

Originally posted by: Frackal

Originally posted by: Killerme33
Everyone conservative is gonna hit vote yes, everyone liberal is gonna vote no. Whats the point of this thread?

I voted for him in 2004 and I would not vote for him again. I think I'd vote Libertarian since I was not favorable to Kerry at all either

Judging from the results, not too many were Fonda Kerry, either.

If Hilary or Kerry or Edwards is the best they can do, we are screwed.

You forgot the guy who invented the internet - Al Gore.

Too bad he never said that.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: FelixDeKat

Originally posted by: xxxInfidelxxx

Originally posted by: Frackal

Originally posted by: Killerme33
Everyone conservative is gonna hit vote yes, everyone liberal is gonna vote no. Whats the point of this thread?

I voted for him in 2004 and I would not vote for him again. I think I'd vote Libertarian since I was not favorable to Kerry at all either

Judging from the results, not too many were Fonda Kerry, either.

If Hilary or Kerry or Edwards is the best they can do, we are screwed.

You forgot the guy who invented the internet - Al Gore.

Myth. Never happened.

And here you go...

 

[HamburgerBoy]

I'd vote for a 3rd party.

 

[trenchfoot]

I meant every word I said. After suffering for eight years under Clinton, America has had a chance to enjoy the most wise and munificent leadership of the honorable President George W. Bush, Esq., et al.

you know, even laura and harriet won't go this far.

keep going, you're on a roll here. :thumbsup:

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Frackal

Originally posted by: Killerme33
Everyone conservative is gonna hit vote yes, everyone liberal is gonna vote no. Whats the point of this thread?

I voted for him in 2004 and I would not vote for him again. I think I'd vote Libertarian since I was not favorable to Kerry at all either

I'm considering voting Libertarian even more often than I already do. If there is a GOOD Libertarian candidate, I'll take them over a similar Dem or Rep any day of the week. I didn't vote for Badnarik because I think he was a little to extreme, even for the Libertarian party. However, I voted Libertarian for several other candidates in the 2004 election, including their candidate for Senator from California running against Boxer. She's an idiot, and this guy seemed pretty on the ball, formed judge with very reasonable libertarian views.

My only problem with voting Libertarian is that they aren't all that well run as a party, I kind of feel like I'm throwing my vote away, or at best, using it to help prove a point to the Dems and the Reps. Which is fine for the most part, except the current actions of the Reps have made me think that having ANYONE keeping them in check would be better than the current situation. Our government doesn't function all that well (apparently) with one party running everything. While the Republicans in congress are finally standing up to Bush, it's too little, too late, IMHO. They all need adult supervision, and while I'd rather have it be the Libertarians than the Dems, you know the saying about birds in the hand vs birds in the bush.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: xxxInfidelxxx
and even though he's a big government, big spending clown, I would vote for him just because the Democrats and all their ilk are idiots. Have the proposed a single piece of legislation or offered a single idea in the last 2 years years since they got their @$$ handed to them, yet again?

I wasn't going to vote the last time around, but I didn't want to not vote and die (Vote of Die...what a joke). I dislike both parties and will wait for Goldwater to be cloned before I pull a lever for either again. Unless, however, the retards on the left get out of hand again with their rhetoric, which seems to be the case.

While I totally understand the concept of voting AGAINST a party, instead of voting FOR someone, I wonder whether voting based on rhetoric is really the way to go. It seems like voting against rhetoric is just as dumb as voting for it. The Dems may say stuff you don't agree with, but it sounds like the Reps are actually DOING stuff you don't agree with. Which has a higher priority for you?