thew Posted May 23, 2004 Share Posted May 23, 2004 Ok so far we have.... George Will Pat Buchanan John Mclaughlin John McCain Thew This week we have such Conservatives Tucker Carlson CNN conservative talking head..... It was never a conservative war.. (Iraq). Republican Sen. Richard G. Lugar chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Saturday said the United States isn't doing enough to stave off terrorism and criticized President Bush for failing to offer solid plans for Iraq's future. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120687,00.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thew Posted May 23, 2004 Author Share Posted May 23, 2004 William Saphire, Face the Nation 5/23/2004 The last two months have been a disaster for Bush. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brown 43 Posted May 23, 2004 Share Posted May 23, 2004 Thew, these gentleman, including you don't deserve to call yourselves Republican's. Has Bush made mistakes, yes! But if you want Kerry in office, change your political party my friend! You'll see what happens. We'll have more money in the till and way more Americans being killed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Matt Kyriacou Posted May 23, 2004 Share Posted May 23, 2004 Thankfully I live in a state where we have a Democratic Ex-Governor, Zell Miller, who helps to offset those pansies with his support of Bush. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fred Jones Posted May 23, 2004 Share Posted May 23, 2004 My state will vote Bush this November Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atloldskin Posted May 23, 2004 Share Posted May 23, 2004 They criticize Bush but they will vote for Bush. For any real Republican or conservative, what is the alternative? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fred Jones Posted May 23, 2004 Share Posted May 23, 2004 Swing votes win elections. All these people will not change sides whether they are Republican or Democrat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest SkinsHokie Fan Posted May 23, 2004 Share Posted May 23, 2004 Thew you are conservative? And voting for Kerry I get a good laugh at that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoCalMike Posted May 23, 2004 Share Posted May 23, 2004 The problem is that we have a political machine in this country and is more about winning then doing what is right. People in this country vote according to narratives that candidate say during the campaign. They are all basically saying the same thing, and it all pretty much a load of lies and sneaky rhetoric. If you are more concerned about a candidate winning, then vote dem/repub, but if you really want to vote for someone you agree with on the most issues, a 3rd party candidate is more likely to match that criteria. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thew Posted May 23, 2004 Author Share Posted May 23, 2004 SkinsHokie Fan Thew you are conservative? And voting for Kerry I get a good laugh at that How about laughing at this.... and explain to me how any conservative could suport these policies? Bush took us into a war of convienence unilaterally for what has turned out to be for no good reason much less his stated reasons.. WMD. Worse there is no one in his administration who he feels is accountable for this catastrophic error. Bush has grown the federal government by 200 thousand jobs in his first term in office. This is the fourth straight year where Bush is advocating cutting taxes and increasing government spending. Bush has turned a 200 billion dollar surplus into a 400 billiion dollar deficite over and above the costs of Afghanistan and Iraqi wars. Bush has currently lost about 1.5 milion jobs during his first term in office compared to Bill Clinton who created 11 million jobs during his first term. Bush is on track to be the first President since Herbert Hoover (great Depression) to have a net lose of jobs during a term in office. Bush is currently advocating an "open immigration policy" one which would not be revokeable or reviewable by Congress after approved with Mexico. Bush is currently advocating amnesty for illegal immigrants who have been living in the US illegally which has already caused increased illegal human traffic across our boarders. Bush has severly degraded two cornerstones of American foreign policy for the last 50 years, NATO and the UN. Bush has strained and jeprodized America's relationship with the other most successful and powerful domocracies in the world. Europe and the EU. Bush has alienated and fractured the Republican party with 1 out of 5 Republicans refusing to endorse him for re-election!Robert Novak, Conservative base shows crackshttp://www.suntimes.com/output/novak/cst-edt-novak20.html When Bush took office we were the leader of the free world, currently we are not even considered members of the free world by some of the other great democracies and traditional allies. Now we are seen as a modern dangerous colonial power a throw back to what was the very worst of European 19th and early 20th century policies. Bush has disengaged from the middle east peace process resulting in thousands of innocent lives on both sides. He has not addresses or even involved himself in America's greatest foreign policy liablility, Peace between Israel and the Palestinians. 1999, the year before Bush took office was the last year nobody died in Israel due to terrorism. Bush's lack of insite and lack of desire to involve himself has lead directly to the deteriation of the region. Not only didn't he address this important issue, he's created larger issues for America to overcome in the region. Bush has done to the Republican party what Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan did to the Democrates in 1980. He is a re-ordering episode which will end up over time costing the Republican party the majority in the House, Senate and Presidency. Republicans for a generation will be judged by Bush who isn't a conservative and who shouldn't be supported by the Republicans for re-election. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest SkinsHokie Fan Posted May 23, 2004 Share Posted May 23, 2004 But yet Thew you support John Kerry? If you truly were conservative why not vote 3rd party as I plan to do today. (key word being today) Why on earth would you, as a conservative, want to give John Kerry a vote? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomerics Posted May 23, 2004 Share Posted May 23, 2004 Originally posted by SkinsHokie Fan But yet Thew you support John Kerry? If you truly were conservative why not vote 3rd party as I plan to do today. (key word being today) Why on earth would you, as a conservative, want to give John Kerry a vote? If you want Bush gone, voting for a third party won't do the trick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest SkinsHokie Fan Posted May 24, 2004 Share Posted May 24, 2004 The point I am making Thew and chomerics is sure you can dislike Bush but what point would it be to be voting for Kerry if you are a conservative? I abhor many of the policies our president has had passed by Congress. However I abhor even more the thought of John Kerry becoming President because I think he is a flip/flopping (and yes people can change positions over years but changes on policies in 3 months? That scares me) poll driven liberal politician. And you Thew as a conservative will vote for Kerry? Rather then vote for an actual consevative? I find that hard to believe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ancalagon the Black Posted May 24, 2004 Share Posted May 24, 2004 SHF--as a good conservative, you probably believe that governmental action should be minimal and that spending should be reined in. Now, the Republicans have demonstrated that when they control Congress and the presidency, they will spend just as happily as the Democrats. So what better way to ensure tighter government than having a Republican Congress and a Democratic president? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest SkinsHokie Fan Posted May 24, 2004 Share Posted May 24, 2004 I totally agree with you ATB. I however in good conscience could not vote for a democratic presidential candidate just beause the potential, based on his ideology, would exist for him to continually expand the government. It really is a sick game at the Federal level. I just couldn't vote for a guy whose whole ideology is based on a larger role for the federal government in America life. In theory GWB does not have that ideology but as we have seen it is quite different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thew Posted May 24, 2004 Author Share Posted May 24, 2004 I however in good conscience could not vote for a democratic presidential candidate just beause the potential, based on his ideology, would exist for him to continually expand the government. So rather than vote for a guy who says he's going to shrink government and lower federal spending KERRY.... Who you don't believe..... You're advocating a guy who's demonstrated that he's all about record setting deficites and record setting federal government spending in addition to declairing war on folks who threatened his daddy...... I don't get that logic...... Anaconda the Black So what better way to ensure tighter government than having a Republican Congress and a Democratic president? I think the Republicans in the house and senate have proved that they don't have a backbone to stand up to Bush. I'm not even sure they can be trusted to balance against a democrate. But you're right, if we can't trust either, maybe all we can hope for is keeping either from a monopoly of power like George has had... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ancalagon the Black Posted May 24, 2004 Share Posted May 24, 2004 ANACONDA the Black? Makes me sound like a cheap porn star. :pimp: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomerics Posted May 24, 2004 Share Posted May 24, 2004 Originally posted by SkinsHokie Fan I totally agree with you ATB. I however in good conscience could not vote for a democratic presidential candidate just beause the potential, based on his ideology, would exist for him to continually expand the government. It really is a sick game at the Federal level. I just couldn't vote for a guy whose whole ideology is based on a larger role for the federal government in America life. In theory GWB does not have that ideology but as we have seen it is quite different. SHF. all I can say is to wait until the DNC and make your own mimd up about Kerry. I have my beliefs about the guy, and I feel that my values will be best represented by him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomerics Posted May 24, 2004 Share Posted May 24, 2004 Originally posted by SkinsHokie Fan The point I am making Thew and chomerics is sure you can dislike Bush but what point would it be to be voting for Kerry if you are a conservative? Bush has totally distorted true conservative values. The Neo-conservative era, which started with Regan and will end with Bush will go down as one of the worst policies the world has ever seen. It distorts the facts of true conservatism and it makes consertive values seem like they're radical. I mean come on now, a smaller government? Who the hell wants that. I abhor many of the policies our president has had passed by Congress. However I abhor even more the thought of John Kerry becoming President because I think he is a flip/flopping (and yes people can change positions over years but changes on policies in 3 months? That scares me) poll driven liberal politician. And you Thew as a conservative will vote for Kerry? Rather then vote for an actual consevative? I find that hard to believe Read up on the flip flop stuff. It's crap spewed out by the Bush Administraton. What Kerry doesn't realize is the support he does have. We need a leader now, he has been groomed for the position his whole life and now he has to stand up and be one. When he does this, he will finally turn this country around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest SkinsHokie Fan Posted May 24, 2004 Share Posted May 24, 2004 Here is a good article on the flip flop stuff chomerics by the washington post called "Mr. Kerry revises" I think we can all consider the Post a "credible" source for you liberals since they haven't endorsed a conservative candidate in decades. It is called "Mr. Kerry Revises," you can search for it in the Washingtonpost.com editorial section and pay the money for yourself if you wish to read it since it is more then 2 weeks old. Thew I have never advocated GWB in this thread as you asserted. I simply said I could not vote for Bush. As of now I plan on voting 3rd party. Please keep your facts in check there And I guess anytime an American president stands up to a global evil they are labeled a neo-con. Regan a neo-con?? By that logic you probably thought JFK was a neo-con also with his tax cut and increase in defense spending and his hard line stance against the Soviets. And chomerics you have never come on this board and stated you are a conservative voting for Kerry. Thew has. And he is the first conservative I know that is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Sick Posted May 24, 2004 Share Posted May 24, 2004 Originally posted by SkinsHokie Fan However I abhor even more the thought of John Kerry becoming President because I think he is a flip/flopping (and yes people can change positions over years but changes on policies in 3 months? That scares me) poll driven liberal politician. Sounds like you are spouting the party line on flip-flopping and polling. A simple question: What is better? Doing what the majority of people want (polling an issue) or doing what your donors want? ------------------- With just a quick google search, I found this article about Bush's polling proclivity. Of course, this is from June 17, 2002 so the numbers are probably much higher now. George W., Poll Junkie http://www.prospect.org/print-friendly/print/V13/11/devil2.html Back when president Bush was still candidate Bush, harping on the need to restore honor and integrity to the Oval Office, one of his most reliable applause lines was his pledge to govern "not by polls and focus groups, but by principle" -- an obvious shot at the poll-driven presidency of Bill Clinton. During one stump speech, Bush challenged voters to "ask my Texans whether I stand on principle or on polls and focus groups." So it was no small embarrassment when the April issue of The Washington Monthly revealed that, contrary to his public assurances, Bush was spending an awful lot of money on polling. It turned out that the Republican National Committee (RNC), which pays the White House polling bill, had forked over nearly $350,000 to Bush's principal pollsters -- Matthew Dowd, Fred Steeper, and Jan van Lohuizen -- and had spent close to $1 million overall on polls and focus groups in 2001. True to current form, the Bushies couldn't seem to get their message straight, alternately claiming that the actual number spent on polling was $731,000, or $336,000, or even ... nothing. (In an April 18 Roll Call article, then-presidential adviser Karen Hughes suggested that Republican pollsters such as Frank Luntz submitted polling voluntarily. "He's doing it for himself," Hughes said.) But a recent Washington Post headline ("Bush Turns More Partisan With Coming of Elections") got us thinking: If Bush spent so much money in an off year like 2001, what's his polling bill for a midterm election year? A trip to the Federal Elections Commission to examine RNC disbursement filings confirms that Bush is well ahead of last year's pace. In the first three months of 2002, Bush's three principal pollsters collected more than $236,000. Extrapolate that figure across the rest of the year and they can expect to collect more than $944,000. And that's not all. As one Republican pollster told us, the Bush White House prefers to spread its polling work across multiple firms. So far this year, the RNC has spent $317,100 on polling, which would project to about $1.3 million -- and because polling will only intensify as the November elections heat up, the actual numbers are certain to be much higher. A couple of years ago, on Meet the Press, Bush confessed to Tim Russert, "I've been, frankly, amazed at the amount of polling that goes on to determine the behavior in the White House." To which we can now reply: So are we. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn X Posted May 27, 2004 Share Posted May 27, 2004 About the only nice thing I can think to say about John Kerry is the following. Back in January or thereabouts a question was put to all the Democratic presidential candidates: "Which film from 2003 do you feel was best?" Most picked Seabiscuit, a nice, typical, Oscar-worthy choice. Except Kerry. He picked Old School. Right on, Johnny! But other than that, I'm not impressed by the guy. Bush will be getting my vote in November. Why? Because I look at the political landscape in America and see on one side: The aforementioned John Kerry, a man who once said he wanted U.S. troops put under the command & control of the United Nations and who supported the so-called "Nuclear Freeze," a piece of 1980s legislation that called for unilateral nuclear disarmament by the U.S. at a time when Ronald Reagan correctly understood that you had to play hardball with the Soviets -- not "kill 'em with kindness" -- if you wanted to beat communism. And on the other side I see: George W. Bush, who, while not the greatest President in the history of this country, clearly recognizes the threat we face from Islamic terrorism and has chosen to take the fight directly to the bad guys, rather than sitting back and treating these assh*les like common criminals (as Clinton did and as Kerry would do again), simply siccing cops & prosecutors on these motherf*ckers when it's obvious that the Marines and Navy SEALs are necessary to do the job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted May 27, 2004 Share Posted May 27, 2004 Thew, You need to stop, immediately, calling yourself a conservative. You are not. You are not even close. You are as liberal as any here. You may have some twisted belief you're conservative, but that doesn't make you so. No conservative would ever vote for Kerry. It's an impossibility. You may not vote for Bush. You just wouldn't vote for Kerry. Further, nothing you've said on this board appears to be conservative in nature. It's a game you're playing you get to stop shortly or have help stopping it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted May 27, 2004 Share Posted May 27, 2004 Mccain is not a conservative.... Bush is not a conservative... Kerry is as far from conservative as you can be and still be on this planet.... The 1st 2 are republicans and have a couple of conservative ideals but will brush them aside to make certain constituants happy. The 3rd will do ANYTHING and say ANTHING knowing its a lie to make the people he is with at the time happy. ie drilling for oil, voted for/against, i own suv/i dont own... I would vote Bush out in a minute for a Conservative that would: Consolodate some of the Govt Groups.. Education and such. Push forth a real Social Security reform no matter how small. 2% into private stocks or whatever? Up the National Guard and Military to help with the borders... (Not close them up, but lock them down) There are 3 entries for President: now-a-days its all about money...None of the 3 are great choices....It's too bad they are not required to maintain a 2nd job anymore....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn X Posted May 27, 2004 Share Posted May 27, 2004 Originally posted by Art Thew, You need to stop, immediately, calling yourself a conservative. You are not. You are not even close. You are as liberal as any here. You may have some twisted belief you're conservative, but that doesn't make you so. No conservative would ever vote for Kerry. It's an impossibility. You may not vote for Bush. You just wouldn't vote for Kerry. Yeah, with all due respect, thew, this is an odd tack you've taken here. That doesn't mean you can't take it. Do whatever tickles your fancy. However, it certainly is strange for someone who claims to be a conservative to state (with quite a bit of gusto) that he is supporting for even the position of local dogcatcher, much less President of the United States, someone like John Kerry, who possesses one of the most reliably liberal voting records in the U.S. Senate. Going gaga over somebody like Scoop Jackson I could understand. But John Kerry? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.