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.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,330 posts, read 54,419,437 times
Reputation: 40736
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by LancasterNative
Lesser of two evils...
All in all, Algore or John F. Kerry (Who Served in Vietnamâ„¢) would've been immeasurably worse
Very, very debatable, I don't think the man who won the popular vote in 2000 would have mired us in Iraq, then again the man who spoke out against using the military for nation building shouldn't have either.
That doesn't explain how a man TWICE nominated by the Republican Party can be accused of masquerading as a Republican. It's an attempt to disown the wayward son. To paraphrase Rumsfeld, you don't get the party you want, you get the party it's evolved into.
And no, I don't think the adjective would be necessary if conservatives were compassionate, you can try to dress 'em up but it doesn't change the man underneath.
I can't speak for dunkel, but I for one do not classify GWB as a conservative. Republican, yes. But conservative?
A conservative is one who believes in limited government, individual liberty, free markets (capitalism) and traditional values. Bush has only demonstrated one of those four traits.
"Conservative" and "Republican" are not synonymous. Reagan happened to be both! Unfortunately, GWB is no Reagan.
Conservatism IS compassion. It does not need a modifier.
I agree with dunkel25 above. As GWB has plainly showed us, a "compassionate conservative" is really just a liberal masquerading as a Republican—also known as a "RINO"!
1) Spending has gone up significantly under every Republican president for the past 40 years. So the mantra that liberals spend your money is a very well circulated myth.
2) George Bush's policies certainly aren't within the confines of a traditional Paleocon. His policies are RADICAL, but not to the left, but to the right.
1) Spending has gone up significantly under every Republican president for the past 40 years. So the mantra that liberals spend your money is a very well circulated myth.
Under Reagan, however, it was for very different reasons. Reagan boosted spending for national defense--arguably the only valid/necessary function of the FedGov under our Constitution.
Ronaldus Magnus also prioritized tax cuts (letting us citizens keep more of the money we earn) over a balanced budget--the classic pro-individual freedom position. Heck, we could've probably balanced the budget too, if the Democrats weren't so busy funding domestic pork then.
GWB, on the other hand, has raised spending in all the wrong areas--saddling us with yet another "entitlement" that wasn't even demanded by the public (Medicare Rx) and signing obscenely bloated, pork-laden, regulation-riddled bills for Ag, Energy and Transportation. He has presided over the largest growth of the welfare state (domestic social spending) since "Great" Society!
GWB is more philosophically akin to FDR or LBJ than to Reagan, Goldwater or Coolidge.
Unfortunately Nixon, Ford and Bush 41 were of the same mold as "W." Big Government-luvvin' Liberals, all of them!
Quote:
Originally Posted by roseba
2) George Bush's policies certainly aren't within the confines of a traditional Paleocon. His policies are RADICAL, but not to the left, but to the right.
No argument there. In fact, I think we've found some common ground!
Yes, he has shown liberal tendencies. He was right about taxes, stem cell research, and the need for a strong national defence.
He is way, way wrong on immigration, No Child Left Behind, Department of Homeland Security, increasing the size of government, massive spending increases, and so on.
Better than Kerry? Well, yeah, of course, but not far, far from perfect. Or conservative.
All in all, Algore or John F. Kerry (Who Served in Vietnam™) would've been immeasurably worse
Is there some reason why you choose to misspell Al Gore? Your choice purposely misspell, might be making more of a point than you realize. Pretty hard to live up to your bible, isn't it.
John Kerry did serve in Vietnam. Where was GW Bush and his administration?
Is there some reason why you choose to misspell Al Gore? Your choice purposely misspell, might be making more of a point than you realize. Pretty hard to live up to your bible, isn't it.
I have to give it to the Dems on this one...calling Bush "the Shrub" is much wittier than "algore"
Quote:
John Kerry did serve in Vietnam. Where was GW Bush and his administration?
Not this again...
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.
