Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
...there had been no G.W. Bush. Then imagine after Obama was elected he passed the Patriot Act, No Child Left behind, Medicare Part D and sent troops to Afghanistan and started the war in Iraq. Would G.W. Bush supporters have supported Obama? Would Obama supporters have supported him?
This is an interesting thought that Jack Hunter brings up in a rebuttal to an article in the publication that accuses Ron Paul of being a new-Liberal and of Ron Paul supporters of being leftisits that he wrote in aLetter to the Editor in "The American Spectator". The details are here: http://www.city-data.com/forum/20593719-post97.html
I think that people's minds are so confused that they don't know which end is up sometimes -- especially Republicans. They say they are for small government yet those who call themselves Republicans and supported GW Bush supported the huge government expansion when he was in office. They supported the wars. They supported the new entitledment programs under Bush.
Obama supporters say he inherited a mess that Bush created when he's had plenty of opportunity to turn things around and undo the damage but yet he's chosen to ADD to the problems; make government bigger; take more of our liberties away and start more wars when Democrats are supposed to be the Peace party.
I'm wondering if Obama voters can see that Obama hasn't been much different than George Bush as far as damage done to the country. All he's done is expand and make worse what Bush started and even add more brand new problems.
Can Obama voters who voted for Obama because they thought he was going to bring the troops home; repeal the Patriot Act and make government more transparent see that he hasn't done those things and isn't about to if he is re-elected and admit that maybe another candidate might be better suited and would be more likely to do those things?
Are your views traditional Democratic or Republican, Liberal or Conservative or Libertarian? Certainly our recent presidents have not shown they held traditional values of the party they were elected by.
Have your views changed also? Do you know what party your views most closely align with? Take this quiz and find out. You don't have to give your email address and your results are shown on the next page. Political Quiz.net
...there had been no G.W. Bush. Then imagine after Obama was elected he passed the Patriot Act, No Child Left behind, Medicare Part D and sent troops to Afghanistan and started the war in Iraq. Would G.W. Bush supporters have supported Obama? Would Obama supporters have supported him?
This is an interesting thought that Jack Hunter brings up in a rebuttal to an article in the publication that accuses Ron Paul of being a new-Liberal and of Ron Paul supporters of being leftisits that he wrote in aLetter to the Editor in "The American Spectator". The details are here: http://www.city-data.com/forum/20593719-post97.html
I think that people's minds are so confused that they don't know which end is up sometimes -- especially Republicans. They say they are for small government yet those who call themselves Republicans and supported GW Bush supported the huge government expansion when he was in office. They supported the wars. They supported the new entitledment programs under Bush.
Obama supporters say he inherited a mess that Bush created when he's had plenty of opportunity to turn things around and undo the damage but yet he's chosen to ADD to the problems; make government bigger; take more of our liberties away and start more wars when Democrats are supposed to be the Peace party.
I'm wondering if Obama voters can see that Obama hasn't been much different than George Bush as far as damage done to the country. All he's done is expand and make worse what Bush started and even add more brand new problems.
Can Obama voters who voted for Obama because they thought he was going to bring the troops home; repeal the Patriot Act and make government more transparent see that he hasn't done those things and isn't about to if he is re-elected and admit that maybe another candidate might be better suited and would be more likely to do those things?
Are your views traditional Democratic or Republican, Liberal or Conservative or Libertarian? Certainly our recent presidents have not shown they held traditional values of the party they were elected by.
Have your views changed also? Do you know what party your views most closely align with? Take this quiz and find out. You don't have to give your email address and your results are shown on the next page. Political Quiz.net
Bascailly one only has to look to see that domesticall Clinton was much more conservative than Obama ;bu far. Look at Clinton;s hands offf wall street and business just as example. He knew that growth wqas important and didn't want to stop what reagan had accomplished in growth which with the so called peace divident is what really aloowed his military cuts and brought the deficit downward;especailly the frowth. The clinton verus obama liberal factions where in plain view at the Democratic committee meetings before the election.Remember that clinton was the one that warned that the country couldn't be governed from the left i the democratic party.
Exactly. He called it "compassionate conservatism" which means I will screw the base that elected me and reach across the aisle to placade the leeches that always have their hands out for a government service.
I think you overstate the case when you say Republicans supported Bush's expansion of entitlements via Medicare Part D. Republicans voted for it, generally, in the house and senate but support among "conservatives" was far from monolithic. Many saw it for what it was: a massive, unfunded expansion of government. Yo can go back and read conservative commentators who opposed it strongly. Same goes for the other examples of you cite.
And I know that we conservatives think "Obama lovers" are some kind of monolithic block, which is also a false view.
Most of us hold a shifting and varied collection of views, although core principles usually show through.
I'd never pondered Clinton to Obama. I have pondered Gore winning in 2000 and then 9/11 happening on his watch. Would the then Republican Congress have given Gore the same support they gave Bush? Very unlikely. Just compare the support they gave Bush after 9/11 with the non support they gave Clinton after the attacks on his watch. Now you could say that hey, there's a big difference between 9/11 and the attacks on Clinton's watch, (and I do mean that in the plural because there were close to 3,000 people killed on 9/11 while the total killed in attacks during the Clinton years was a few hundred) the trouble with that though is that after 9/11 the right claimed that Clinton should have put as high a priority on terrorism as bush did...after 9/11
Eight words you would have heard before the towers fell and would still be hearing today
"It wouldn't have happened if Bush had won"
I'd never pondered Clinton to Obama. I have pondered Gore winning in 2000 and then 9/11 happening on his watch. Would the then Republican Congress have given Gore the same support they gave Bush? Very unlikely. Just compare the support they gave Bush after 9/11 with the non support they gave Clinton after the attacks on his watch. Now you could say that hey, there's a big difference between 9/11 and the attacks on Clinton's watch, (and I do mean that in the plural because there were close to 3,000 people killed on 9/11 while the total killed in attacks during the Clinton years was a few hundred) the trouble with that though is that after 9/11 the right claimed that Clinton should have put as high a priority on terrorism as bush did...after 9/11
Eight words you would have heard before the towers fell and would still be hearing today
"It wouldn't have happened if Bush had won"
think your wrong there
911 would have still happened , be a gore presidency or a bush admin...its how things would be handled AFTER that is what we look at
bush, being an uppity guy went for the war potus avenue
gore being a shrew, would have run to daddy clinton to find out how to appease the mid-east
I think you overstate the case when you say Republicans supported Bush's expansion of entitlements via Medicare Part D. Republicans voted for it, generally, in the house and senate but support among "conservatives" was far from monolithic. Many saw it for what it was: a massive, unfunded expansion of government. Yo can go back and read conservative commentators who opposed it strongly. Same goes for the other examples of you cite.
And I know that we conservatives think "Obama lovers" are some kind of monolithic block, which is also a false view.
Most of us hold a shifting and varied collection of views, although core principles usually show through.
I think you overstate the case when you say Republicans supported Bush's expansion of entitlements via Medicare Part D. Republicans voted for it, generally, in the house and senate but support among "conservatives" was far from monolithic. Many saw it for what it was: a massive, unfunded expansion of government. Yo can go back and read conservative commentators who opposed it strongly. Same goes for the other examples of you cite.
And I know that we conservatives think "Obama lovers" are some kind of monolithic block, which is also a false view.
Most of us hold a shifting and varied collection of views, although core principles usually show through.
I know not everyone did but the majority seem to. It just seems like you have the Status Quo party (which is comprised of the Republican and Democratic sheeple who like big government and policing the world don't care about the economy enough to learn anything about it and understand why it is so messed up and don't care that much about Freedom) and then you have those that aren't that may be traditional Republicans or Democrats or are members of the various third party groups.
I'd never pondered Clinton to Obama. I have pondered Gore winning in 2000 and then 9/11 happening on his watch. Would the then Republican Congress have given Gore the same support they gave Bush? Very unlikely. Just compare the support they gave Bush after 9/11 with the non support they gave Clinton after the attacks on his watch. Now you could say that hey, there's a big difference between 9/11 and the attacks on Clinton's watch, (and I do mean that in the plural because there were close to 3,000 people killed on 9/11 while the total killed in attacks during the Clinton years was a few hundred) the trouble with that though is that after 9/11 the right claimed that Clinton should have put as high a priority on terrorism as bush did...after 9/11
Eight words you would have heard before the towers fell and would still be hearing today
"It wouldn't have happened if Bush had won"
Are you talking about civilians killed in this country? What about our military? What about innocent civilians killed in other countries by our military or drones? What about members of our military that come back sick or maimed? There has been WAY TOO MUCH of that and BOTH conventional Democrats and Republicans vote for it and keep it going. I just don't understand WHY they keep doing it! The only people who benefit are the global elites and the elites in the military industrial complex. The whole thing is dispicable.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
More nuanced than monolithic
