What is George W. Bush?

[Prosperity]

I don't know if he is a populist, he did support CAFTA

[chomerics]

Spending would be no different if Dems were in power now. THe money would just be being spent on different things

Ummm, if you really think that Sarge, you need to re-evaluate the democrats platform. Government would have expanded a little, but not even remotely close to the extent it has under Bush.

There is one other discrepency you are overlooking as well. The democrats would have actually paid for any increased spending, what a novel idea, actually paying for something, not passing your tax breaks for the uber-wealthy onto my generation.

[Chopper Dave]

I don't know if he is a populist, he did support CAFTA

It depends on how you define populism. The way I learned it, a populist is someone who is economically liberal and socially conservative. I should probably rephrase my previous post because that isn't the usual connotation.

[chomerics]

You know, I wish I knew as much as you Sarge. I mean, hell, you can predict the completely non-existent. Clearly you're not taking a slippery slope to advance a right-wing agenda aimed only at trashing those that don't agree with you, right?

Sarge is a socialist, not a righty, you should ask him his stance on free trade and protectionism

[chomerics]

It depends on how you define populism. The way I learned it, a populist is someone who is economically liberal and socially conservative. I should probably rephrase my previous post because that isn't the usual connotation.

That's the way I also understood the neo-conservative agenda, liberal-republicans. Completely opposite of my ideology, conservative-democrat.

[Chopper Dave]

Sarge is a socialist, not a righty, you should ask him his stance on free trade and protectionism

Somehow I doubt he would agree with you.

[nelms]

Wow, I really thought I would see more votes for moderate or conservative. Over 50% so far think he's a right wing wacko. I'm not shocked, but I am surprised.

[brooksfb]

He's the personification of Alfred E. Newman.

[footballhenry]

Hahahah, wow. I mean I used to think Bush was really conservative but looking at his track record he is increasingly moderate. I mean seriously, the man is bashed on CONSERVATIVE radio shows all the time, I know bc Ive listened to it alot. Its funny how liberals say hes extremely conservative and many conservatives say hes way too moderate, very very ironic.

[Ancalagon the Black]

Where is "unpredictable, inconsistent wacko" in the poll options?

[@DCGoldPants]

Hahahah, wow. I mean I used to think Bush was really conservative but looking at his track record he is increasingly moderate. I mean seriously, the man is bashed on CONSERVATIVE radio shows all the time, I know bc Ive listened to it alot. Its funny how liberals say hes extremely conservative and many conservatives say hes way too moderate, very very ironic.

how is that ironic?

I think he's only recently being bashed by conservative radio shows....because he sold out the people who voted for him.

He's not the president from the republican or democrat party. he's the president from the Saudi Royal Family. He's the president from Haliburton. He's the president who legacy is going to be.

1. WMD not to be found

2. War in Iraq

3. Social Security plan that never made sense.....and never happened

4. Cut Taxes, but spend like you just raised them

5. Two big Whiffs when it came to picking the type of Conservatives his voters wanted for the Supreme Court

6. Oh yeah..... he did do well after 9/11 and in Afghanistan.

Too bad #6 happened in the his 1st years. Nothing since has giving off that sense of leadership and focus.

Now its just stubborness with blinders on.

[Guest Rafterman]

how is that ironic?

I think he's only recently being bashed by conservative radio shows....because he sold out the people who voted for him.

He's not the president from the republican or democrat party. he's the president from the Saudi Royal Family. He's the president from Haliburton. He's the president who legacy is going to be.

1. WMD not to be found

2. War in Iraq

3. Social Security plan that never made sense.....and never happened

4. Cut Taxes, but spend like you just raised them

5. Two big Whiffs when it came to picking the type of Conservatives his voters wanted for the Supreme Court

6. Oh yeah..... he did do well after 9/11 and in Afghanistan.

Too bad #6 happened in the his 1st years. Nothing since has giving off that sense of leadership and focus.

Now its just stubborness with blinders on.

:applause:

You summed it up beautifully. I've been around since Eisenhower, Bush the younger is the sorriest excuse for a president that I've seen.

[chomerics]

Hahahah, wow. I mean I used to think Bush was really conservative but looking at his track record he is increasingly moderate. I mean seriously, the man is bashed on CONSERVATIVE radio shows all the time, I know bc Ive listened to it alot. Its funny how liberals say hes extremely conservative and many conservatives say hes way too moderate, very very ironic.

Really? Bashed on conservative radio all the time :laugh: Man, that's a funny one, because I listen to Wacko radio as well, and the big hitters have been as apologetic as ever. What has Rush said this week that is bashing Bush? How about Hannity> Savage has been going after his imigration, but that's about it.

I don't know, maybe you're listening to different people, but the ones I've listened to have become BIGGER apologists, not bashing Bush.

[Sarge]

You know, I wish I knew as much as you Sarge. I mean, hell, you can predict the completely non-existent. Clearly you're not taking a slippery slope to advance a right-wing agenda aimed only at trashing those that don't agree with you, right?

Get real. The Dems, if they were in office, probably would be spending on things you don't agree with. But if you really think that any of those things would cost as much as Bush's various military expeditions, well, unlike you I can't predict it with complete certainty, but I'm pretty sure it wouldn't cost anywhere near as much.

Bush is a right-wing, socially repressive neocon. He spends like the worst big-government liberal, and has the social beliefs of a 18th century Puritan.

No one can know as much as I

Even a spineless Dem would have had to go after Afghanistan after 9/11. After that, we would have probably gone back to the clinton pizza delivery missions of the 90's, only we would have been doing so in nasty middle eat countries and Africa. We'd be doing so in islamic countries because somehow in a Dems mind, we must have caused 9/11, so we have to be nice to them and attempt understand them. I'd rather be doing something with national security implications.

An 18th century Puritan? :laugh: Where's he been on the display of the 10 commandments among other things?

[Sarge]

Ummm, if you really think that Sarge, you need to re-evaluate the democrats platform. Government would have expanded a little, but not even remotely close to the extent it has under Bush.

There is one other discrepency you are overlooking as well. The democrats would have actually paid for any increased spending, what a novel idea, actually paying for something, not passing your tax breaks for the uber-wealthy onto my generation.

Don't need to re-evaluate at all. Spending/expansion would be the same and Dems would "pay" for it by raising taxes.

As for passing on a deficet, that's the same as the Dems were saying in the 80's about Reagan. Didn't we have a "surplus" a few years ago?

[Sarge]

Sarge is a socialist, not a righty, you should ask him his stance on free trade and protectionism

Keeping jobs in America is hardly a socialist concept

[Sarge]

Really? Bashed on conservative radio all the time :laugh: Man, that's a funny one, because I listen to Wacko radio as well, and the big hitters have been as apologetic as ever. What has Rush said this week that is bashing Bush? How about Hannity> Savage has been going after his imigration, but that's about it.

I don't know, maybe you're listening to different people, but the ones I've listened to have become BIGGER apologists, not bashing Bush.

Savage just started coming on here. I like the guy. And he goes after Bush every day that I have been able to listen on several issues, immigration, Supreme Dork picks, spending, sh!tty prosecution of the war among other things

[jrockster21]

You left off brainless puppet. That's my vote.

[Chopper Dave]

No one can know as much as I

Even a spineless Dem would have had to go after Afghanistan after 9/11. After that, we would have probably gone back to the clinton pizza delivery missions of the 90's, only we would have been doing so in nasty middle eat countries and Africa. We'd be doing so in islamic countries because somehow in a Dems mind, we must have caused 9/11, so we have to be nice to them and attempt understand them. I'd rather be doing something with national security implications.

An 18th century Puritan? :laugh: Where's he been on the display of the 10 commandments among other things?

The Puritan comment was a bit of an exaggeration, but you get the point. He's about as socially open-minded as an 85 year old nun.

And you're right. Anyone would have gone after Afghanistan after 9/11. After that is where Bush sh*t the bed. He opened a second, pointless front in a war against a concept. He didn't have a clear reason for going there, no clear exit strategy, and his public support is declining because of it.

Sarge, poke fun at the Dems unwillingness to go to war if you want. But regardless of what you think, the fact that a country doesn't like us and our ability to beat them in a war aren't the only two criteria for sending over US troops. You can't walk around beating up everyone who disagrees with you. Well, you can, but you'd be an assh*le.

[Chopper Dave]

Don't need to re-evaluate at all. Spending/expansion would be the same and Dems would "pay" for it by raising taxes.

As for passing on a deficet, that's the same as the Dems were saying in the 80's about Reagan. Didn't we have a "surplus" a few years ago?

Sarge, I know you know what you're talking about, but sometimes you make me wonder. The fact that you're saying with absolute certainty that spending/expansion would be the same is absurd. An overly-large military is probably the most expensive thing a government can fund. Even if the dems enacted three dozen new social programs and increased funding to the existing ones, it still probably wouldn't equal the cost of our military expansion. And don't get me started on government expansion. You're just sore because your party is guilty of something that you don't like.

[Sarge]

The Puritan comment was a bit of an exaggeration, but you get the point. He's about as socially open-minded as an 85 year old nun.

And you're right. Anyone would have gone after Afghanistan after 9/11. After that is where Bush sh*t the bed. He opened a second, pointless front in a war against a concept. He didn't have a clear reason for going there, no clear exit strategy, and his public support is declining because of it.

Sarge, poke fun at the Dems unwillingness to go to war if you want. But regardless of what you think, the fact that a country doesn't like us and our ability to beat them in a war aren't the only two criteria for sending over US troops. You can't walk around beating up everyone who disagrees with you. Well, you can, but you'd be an assh*le.

I always thought we hit Iraq to have a central position from which to launch both military and covert operations against countries that need their clocks cleaned (saudi arabia, iran) but I've seen very little evidence of this to this point.

Bush's public support is for the war declining for a number reasons. One, we aren't prosecuting it correctly. Two, Bush as a communicator, sucks. If you can't convey your reasons for something as challenging as a war, you're gonna lose support. Three, you have the media, who are very good at communicating their leftist agenda to the public every night and day, putting up the death count and negative stories on the news 24/7. Reagan or Clinton would probably have a hard time countering that kind of constant bashing. Bush doesn't stand a chance

[chomerics]

Keeping jobs in America is hardly a socialist concept

Sure it is, it is communistic to the core, and it is completely against free market philosophy. It is Marxist in nature, as it is a protectionist attitude concerning labor, and a government control to eliminate free trade.

You are a socialist Sarge, that part just hasn't come out of you yet. Wait until you hit the private sector, you'll be quoting Marx in no time. . . Workers of the world unite

[Chopper Dave]

I always thought we hit Iraq to have a central position from which to launch both military and covert operations against countries that need their clocks cleaned (saudi arabia, iran) but I've seen very little evidence of this to this point.

Bush's public support is for the war declining for a number reasons. One, we aren't prosecuting it correctly. Two, Bush as a communicator, sucks. If you can't convey your reasons for something as challenging as a war, you're gonna lose support. Three, you have the media, who are very good at communicating their leftist agenda to the public every night and day, putting up the death count and negative stories on the news 24/7. Reagan or Clinton would probably have a hard time countering that kind of constant bashing. Bush doesn't stand a chance

Don't make excuses. You just basically agreed that Bush has done a bad job and then excused it with his being a bad speaker and the media being infested with leftists. Please.

[Sarge]

Sarge, I know you know what you're talking about, but sometimes you make me wonder. The fact that you're saying with absolute certainty that spending/expansion would be the same is absurd. An overly-large military is probably the most expensive thing a government can fund. Even if the dems enacted three dozen new social programs and increased funding to the existing ones, it still probably wouldn't equal the cost of our military expansion. And don't get me started on government expansion. You're just sore because your party is guilty of something that you don't like.

Dems spend. It's a fact. It's as sure as the sun coming up. Throughout history, ever since the New Deal, Dems have been proponents of spending on social/welfare programs like the New Deal and the Great Society. Republicans, up until this administration, spent money as well. But they at least made the attempt to look like they were controlling spending and controlling the size of government.

No good can ever come from the expansion of government, be it brought on by Dems or Repubs

[Sarge]

Don't make excuses. You just basically agreed that Bush has done a bad job and then excused it with his being a bad speaker and the media being infested with leftists. Please.

Oh no, no. Don't confuse my post thinking I think Bush has done a good job. about the only thing he has done right IMO is the war on terror, and I have my doubts about some of that.

Bush as a public speaker sucks. He could have a news conference every night if he wished, but he can't because he sucks at public speaking. He has come a long way since he was first elected, but that's not saying much.

And the media is full of leftists