NationStates Jolt Archive

What he has done is called himself a conservative who's goals are to stay out of the publics business such as gay marriage and government expansion and spending but he hasnt done any of that. Government size has risen, thats a fact. He wants to ban gay marriage throughout the country, thats a fact. And governemt spending is at a huge rise.

I agree

What he has done is called himself a conservative who's goals are to stay out of the publics business such as gay marriage and government expansion and spending but he hasnt done any of that. Government size has risen, thats a fact. He wants to ban gay marriage throughout the country, thats a fact. And governemt spending is at a huge rise.

i agree. but the government getting bigger is a good thing, same as banning gay marriage.

I agree
...uh, what (s)he said!

george bush never portrayed himself as someone who would not take the needed action of banning gay marriage. also, government power has not increased since bush was elected to his office. if anything it has decreased.
please do not say "thats a fact" on matters of opinion also. well i think bush rocks :D

I think that there is a great quote about Bush: "He taxes like a Republican and spends like a Democrat."

What he has done is called himself a conservative who's goals are to stay out of the publics business such as gay marriage and government expansion and spending but he hasnt done any of that. Government size has risen, thats a fact. He wants to ban gay marriage throughout the country, thats a fact. And governemt spending is at a huge rise.
Bush is not a conservative. He's a politician. Unfortunately, he needs the collusion of a non-conservative Congress to carry out any plans and they have been all too willing.
Best thing about Bush's tenure -- War on Terror hasn't encroached on U.S. soil.
Worst thing -- Spending like a sailor on shore leave trying to make the Dems like his politics.

Best result of 2006 election? Re-elect a Clinton and a Republican Congress.

i agree. but the government getting bigger is a good thing, same as banning gay marriage. wtf is wrong with you? everyone thinks that conservatives are big government, but here is an anti-bush who is big government and be a conservative who is anti-big-gov'mt
why do you think bigger is better anyway?

He contradicted himself, but as said he is a politician.

Bush is not a conservative. He's a politician.

Best result of 2006 election? Re-elect a Clinton and a Republican Congress.
a couple of things. the next elecion is in 2008. bush does not want liberals to like his politics, bush wants liberals to shut up and leave him alone . things like no more slander from that sonuvabitch dan rather. also, a conservative is a type of politician. you can be both

He contradicted himself, but as said he is a politician.
yeah? that means that all politicians are contradictory. we already know that clinrton, kerry, edwards, jfk, dammit the list goes on, are hypocrites but bush is still ahead of the bandwagon

also myrmydonsia clinton has already served two terms

george bush never portrayed himself as someone who would not take the needed action of banning gay marriage. also, government power has not increased since bush was elected to his office. if anything it has decreased.
please do not say "thats a fact" on matters of opinion also. well i think bush rocks :D

Are you kidding? Its not an opinion, it has either happened or it hasnt happened and in this case it has happened. The govt. has gotten bigger and is ruling peoples lives. Like the Patriot act, do you think that rocks also. Even our four fathers, such as Ben Franklin said that anyone who bans rights in order for a little temporary safety does not deserve to be free at all.

Oh, or do you think Bush is smarter and less corrupt than those guys. You my friend need to look further into the Bush administration than that gritz eating clutz.

also myrmydonsia clinton has already served two terms

Be that as it may if he ran again he would get re-elected. Clinton was a dream as a politician. I loved the guy! He was an excellent Democratic politician with that down home charm that noone can resist!

also myrmydonsia clinton has already served two terms
Myrmidnonisia wasn't actually talking about Clinton himself, s/he said 'a Clinton', as in someone who is like Clinton was.
At least that's how I read it.

yeah? that means that all politicians are contradictory. we already know that clinrton, kerry, edwards, jfk, dammit the list goes on, are hypocrites but bush is still ahead of the bandwagon
don't forget Frist, Reagan, Nixon, Alexnader, DeLay, Kennedy, etc., etc.

a couple of things. the next elecion is in 2008. bush does not want liberals to like his politics, bush wants liberals to shut up and leave him alone . things like no more slander from that sonuvabitch dan rather. also, a conservative is a type of politician. you can be both

Leave him alone?! Are you kidding, Bush is currently the most powerful man in the world! He has the power to kill every person on the face of the earth! The only thing that has kept him, and any president for that matter in order has been criticism. That and Checks and balances. Here, do yourself and this forum a favor and go re-read the constitution.

don't forget Frist, Reagan, Nixon, Alexnader, DeLay, Kennedy, etc., etc.

lol

Many Americans, sadly, agree with many of Bush's policies. These are dangerous times, so we need to protect ourselves from terrorists, weapons of mass destruction, communists, and homosexuals. Bush is a man of the people, so he's enacting legislation to do all of the above, hence the expanded security forces, the war, the PATRIOT act, and the proposed constitutional amendment. In other words, Bush is trying to be a populist. But most people don't like paying taxes either, so he gives them a tax cut.

But before 9/11, he wasn't a populist. He was just a rich-kid Republican who bought a degree from Yale. So, in accordance with his Republicanism, he promised big tax cuts and a smaller government.

And then there were the planes.

Well, most presidents claim to be popularists.

Many Americans, sadly, agree with many of Bush's policies. These are dangerous times, so we need to protect ourselves from terrorists, weapons of mass destruction, communists, and homosexuals. Bush is a man of the people, so he's enacting legislation to do all of the above, hence the expanded security forces, the war, the PATRIOT act, and the proposed constitutional amendment. In other words, Bush is trying to be a populist. But most people don't like paying taxes either, so he gives them a tax cut.

But before 9/11, he wasn't a populist. He was just a rich-kid Republican who bought a degree from Yale. So, in accordance with his Republicanism, he promised big tax cuts and a smaller government.

And then there were the planes.

I have to agree with you, the communists, have already tried to overthrow Bush three times so far, and the rampage of the rainbow flags has never been scarier.

But I also disagree, I think giving people back all there money is a perfect way to raise funds for the Iraq war.

I know. Like Reagan. Reagan was really conservative, but he had a fabulous PR consultant, so he managed to pass himself off as a populist.

What else is there to say? He was a great actor, at least when he was in the White House.

He's a politician. Contradiction is part of his job.

But I also disagree, I think giving people back all there money is a perfect way to raise funds for the Iraq war.



Good thinking, but according to my calculations the war, according to numbers I completely made up, has cost $500 billion so far (it's probably actually even higher). Given that there are about 160 million taxpayers in the country (again, I made that number up), that means the average taxpayer is paying upwards of $3,000 for the war. Granted, if you gave people their money back many would donate maybe a couple hundred, maybe up to $1000 to the war. Still, that would leave the war terribly underfunded.

we already know that clinrton, kerry, edwards, jfk, dammit...

I didn't know we had a President Damnit.

Good thinking, but according to my calculations the war, according to numbers I completely made up, has cost $500 billion so far (it's probably actually even higher). Given that there are about 160 million taxpayers in the country (again, I made that number up), that means the average taxpayer is paying upwards of $3,000 for the war. Granted, if you gave people their money back many would donate maybe a couple hundred, maybe up to $1000 to the war. Still, that would leave the war terribly underfunded.
There is no way people could raise that much money, unless they're feeling really charitable.

Hence the words "maybe up to" preceding the word "$1000"

Is "$1000" a word?

I do feel Bush contradicts himself, but would like to point out that the question is moot. Emerson, a famous American author that many people look up to, wrote "a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds," and when someone pointed out that he contradicted himself, he replied "That's nice, but I don't give a crap"

Well, not in those words, but that's more or less what he meant.

Let's take a look at a British author named George Bernard Shaw. Shaw once said, "Darwin was stupid! I'm a Christian." Off course, he used bigger words, but that was pretty much what he said. On another occasion, he said, "Religion is BS! I'm a Darwinist!" Again, not in those words, but that's what he meant.

In one well-known essay, he argued strongly against censorship, on the grounds that free speech was necessary to maintain order in society. In a play that he wrote, he argued that war was bad because we shouldn't kill people. Then in yet another play, he wrote that the government should be able to kill political dissidents if they, by utilizing free speech, threatened the rule of the government. Essentially contradicting his two previous essays. He solidified the connection when he said, "Assassination is the msot extreme form of censorship."

Shaw is widely regarded as a literary and political genius. He is the only person in history to win both the Nobel Prize and the Academy Award. Yet he contradicts himself on many occasions.

But he's just one example.

I personally have no objection to people who contradict themselves. That's why I voted for Kerry.

I think that there is a great quote about Bush: "He taxes like a Republican and spends like a Democrat."

nice quote

Leave him alone?! Are you kidding, Bush is currently the most powerful man in the world! He has the power to kill every person on the face of the earth! The only thing that has kept him, and any president for that matter in order has been criticism. That and Checks and balances. Here, do yourself and this forum a favor and go re-read the constitution.

Actually, I think it might be the ICBM launchers that the Russians have parked in Vladivostok.

The Bush Administration has taken DoubleSpeak to a new level.

:gundge:

Good thinking, but according to my calculations the war, according to numbers I completely made up, has cost $500 billion so far (it's probably actually even higher). Given that there are about 160 million taxpayers in the country (again, I made that number up), that means the average taxpayer is paying upwards of $3,000 for the war. Granted, if you gave people their money back many would donate maybe a couple hundred, maybe up to $1000 to the war. Still, that would leave the war terribly underfunded.


The cost of the Iraq war is currently over $160.4 billion and counting.

Do a Google search of 'cost of war' and you can see a running tab.

Also interesting to look at the National Debt figures. Make you dizzy just watching the numbers FLY.

http://www.uwsa.com/uwsa-usdebt.html

Devils Advocate']The Bush Administration has taken DoubleSpeak to a new level.

:gundge:


Unfournatly Bush is destroying America as quickly as he can. At least Reagan was a moderate-conservative. By the end of his term the U.S debt will be at least $10 trillion dollars. By now we could have paid it off with time to spare but Bush's policy is spend spend spend gradually making America a third-world nation.(look at Brazil in the 70's and 80's and that is what is gonna happpen to us.)

a couple of things. the next elecion is in 2008. bush does not want liberals to like his politics, bush wants liberals to shut up and leave him alone . things like no more slander from that sonuvabitch dan rather. also, a conservative is a type of politician. you can be both
A couple of things. First, the next congressional election is in 2006. Second, perhaps you shouldn't be talking politics when you don't even know the standard election years.

also myrmydonsia clinton has already served two terms
"A Clinton" is what was said. Maybe Hillary?

Bill Clinton will not be president again. He'd have to get a constitutional amendment to be able to run (see Amendment 22, US Constitution, forbidding presidents from serving more than 2 terms). And he'd have to get it through a republican-controlled legislature.

...A thing for all the Hillary fans out there...
Every die-hard Republican I know hopes desparately that Hillary Clinton will get the democratic ticket for 2008. Because they know that she'll lose.

I didn't know we had a President Damnit.
That's one of my favorite names for most Presidents.

Sorry about the 2006 thing. Sometimes I even forget how to spell Alzheimer's.

Didn't Hillary say something like "...We are the President..." Well she's still eligible for re-election, in that case. A Congress united in it's contempt for her would be the best thing since Newt and the Contract on America. Maybe the government could even shut down for a few more weeks...

Unfournatly Bush is destroying America as quickly as he can. At least Reagan was a moderate-conservative. By the end of his term the U.S debt will be at least $10 trillion dollars. By now we could have paid it off with time to spare but Bush's policy is spend spend spend gradually making America a third-world nation.(look at Brazil in the 70's and 80's and that is what is gonna happpen to us.)
Reagan's tax cuts would have created surpluses. His problem was not vetoing enough of the spending bills that the Democratic Congress approved.

A couple of things. First, the next congressional election is in 2006. Second, perhaps you shouldn't be talking politics when you don't even know the standard election years.
Nah, he was correct, although very nit-picky to criticize my statement. Like I said, it's the dementia talking. Or the bourbon...

Many Americans, sadly, agree with many of Bush's policies. These are dangerous times, so we need to protect ourselves from terrorists, weapons of mass destruction, communists, and homosexuals.




Im not for gay marrages but why do we have to PROTECT ourselves from homosexuals? its not like they have disbanded and are threatening to wage war :fluffle: :mp5: :confused: on the US so why do we have to PROTECT ourselves from them

Hey, how about that "culture of life" bullcrap he's trying to claim as his own project?

This, from the man who put more people to death as a governor than any other in US history, and then got us into two simultaneous wars? He even had the outrageous nerve to try and spin the words of His Holiness in the hour of his passing, implying that the Pope would really have approved of the war in Iraq, because he would want to have "the strong protect the weak." Even after he had publicly and passionately spoken out against both wars in Iraq.

Reagan's tax cuts would have created surpluses. His problem was not vetoing enough of the spending bills that the Democratic Congress approved.

I actually was talking about Bush II he will bring down America with his large spending on a war and tax cuts.

As far as Reagan I'm not sure that's 100% true since he did initiate large spending increases for the millitary but unlike Bush it wasn't for a useless war to put money in his pocket. Actually what Reagen did was to increase spending on building new equipment which was a huge boost to millitary manufacturing companies like Boeing. Since your from Atlanta I would guess you know that the Boeing plant/Dobbins AFB in Marietta is a huge employer for people in Cobb county which is ironic since many people in Cobb county are so anti-government. Reagan only spent about $1.5trillion thru his 4 year adminstration. Bush has already spent over $2.5 trillion in his first adminstration and will probaly spend another $2.5 trillion in his second.

Lets Compare:

Reagan
Cut spending but not starve it off or cause it collapse
Borrored money but used it to build and create jobs.
Was a moderate socially.
Didn't spend like money was coming from everywhere.
Tax cuts that actually did help the economy because they were for everyone.
Didn't want to drill the AWNR and was moderate envrioment

Bush II
Cut spending so that goverment is unstable and is unable to function.
Is borrowing money to fund a war that will go nowhere and will be more expensive than other wars.
Is a hardline christian right-winger who wants the government to intrude into our live and dictate what we can say and do.
Tax cuts that only benifit the few 1%
Using a war to fund his friends and his own pocket.
Want's to drill ANWR wants to deforest national parks and allow corporations to pollute as much as they want.