COMMENTS:
Wow. Is this really you Neal_Anderthal? If so, I take back (almost) everything I ever said to you.
Yes, it's me. To people who ask me "Are you a liberal or a conservative?" my stock answer is "I'm a human being, and thus too complex to be adequately described in one word." Not that they understand that, either.
I also detest labels. Much too limiting.
Although some people have earned the dubious honor. ;)
the current u.s. government does not represent 49% of the people. bush is not my leader. i reject him as my president. i have no president. i do not recognize bush as my president. nor do i recognize the 51% of the idiots who voted for him as rational human beings. truth be told, this is the greatest tradegy in american history. we are fucked. this is sinister and there's no hope. this bush reelection will lead to catastrophe. it will lead to the collapse of the united states. i wish to god it would not, but chances are that ideology will destroy this country.
which i suppose is fine, considering that this country was built on the backs of non-whites that continue to get shafted and oppressed by racist, fat, religious white people.
Fair enough, NHBman. My only point is that if Kerry had won yesterday, nothing would be noticeably different. I'm not asking you to agree with that, only to think about it.
Intensely.
We haven't had a good government in a century.
Sadly, yes.
Totally.
However, I place partial blame on the people who totally elect these morons into office year after year because they're too weak to try to do anything about it. Go ahead and think you can't make a difference. Just follow the herd and place your useless vote for Clown A or Clown B and watch the circus. Then expect things to somehow get better, despite the fact that we're doing the same thing we've always done and getting the same thing we've always gotten. It's not like a bunch of rebels could've founded this nation.
I love my country and feel ashamed about many of its "citizens".
Right, conservative, because "loyal opposition" is not part of your lexicon. It is entirely possible that all those on the other side of your party line love this country as equally as you, yet they have entirely different ideas on how it should be run. If you think yours is the only opinion that matters, why don't we just dispense with the two-party system and declare Bush as our king? After all, God wanted him there, didn't He?
Thanks for the civic lesson Doof. I am well aware that the opposition is a necessary part of the system. I don't agree with your premise that it is a two party system. I like that the Reform Party did well in 92, and that the Green Party is still growing. I wish that there was a stronger Libertarian party because that makes the nation stronger. Not just two parties.
I don't suscribe to Pluralistic theory I believe in the Elite theory of politics.
Anyways, this is all besides the point because I can still believe in (more than) two party system and be ashamed of the actions of some of the citizens. And not just in the "loyal opposition" which is part of my lexicon, but in my own party. For example: John Ashcroft, Senators Helms and Thurmond. Or Al Sharpton, Micahel Moore, and Ted Kennedy.
ConfidantConservativ: I too believe in the two-party system. I've often wished America had one.
Okay, my bad... it's just that many I've seen (Republicans and Democrats alike) refuse to see anything wrong with their own party. I'm not saying all do. For example, my mom thinks Kerry is 100% suitable, while my dad thinks Bush is God's second son. If anyone believes one candidate is perfect, I think they were fooled into thinking that way. John Kerry may not be palatable, and may have flip-flopped, but he did so to gain more support. Ultimately that may have failed, but any candidate who doesn't change their policy to reflect their committment to the people should not be elected. My problem with Bush is that he does not and will not represent the other half of the country. Granted, there are not two parties, but the majority of the country will fall into those parties. Bush will ignore the opposition. Oh sure, he thinks he is doing the right thing. But he is leaving behind the other half. I think he should take the approach Arnold Schwarzenegger took with California. He made a promise to reduce the bi-partisan bickering and has straddled the middle. I did not agree with the recall, but my hat's off to Arnold for fulfilling his promise to represent all Californians. Bush, as the nation's president has that same obligation.
I'm proud of my country, in my opinion, they looked at two sub standard candidates, and picked the better of the two.
Like I've said before, to win, you have GOT to get the moderate conservative vote, and as soon as Kerry started mawing about raising taxes, government health care, and approving gay marriage, he completely alienated the moderate conservative vote.
If you want to lay blame for this election on anyone, don't lay it on the 51% of the people who feel they voted for the better candidate, lay it on the democratic party for picking the most liberal candidate they could and running on a platform of completely confusing stands and no ideals to speak of.
Doof that is all fine and well. I absolutely don't agree with you about Arnold. I am a Californian, and an active Republican. I voted against the recall and against Arnold.
I NEVER heard the kinds of concerns about the 'other half' during the Clinton Administration.
And I don't hear it now in California. But, I do hear 'this is not your state' it is for Democrats. Do you really think that Nancy Pelosi or Barbara Boxer consider the other half in respect to my party's view in California. I can tell you that they absolutely don't. It would be nice if the Democrats ever practiced what they preached. When Clinton gets 43% of the popular vote in 92 they didn't offer to be bipartisan. On the contrary they went ahead with the exact thing they knew that the Republicans would despise. Socialized medicine. And they paid for it in the midterm elections in 94.
its truly tragic that 51% of americans voted for bush. i actually had more faith in the american people than that, silly me i really thought that people would wisen up and vote for kerry. im disgusted with our gov't. sadly we have to put up with bush for the next 4 years. im afraid for what he will put this country and the world through in that time. will he go blow up iran next? how many more soldiers will die. will they ever come home. we are gonna be at war for the next 4 years, while does what he does best, run this country into the ground. lets just hope that jeb bush doesnt run for president in 2008. to anyone who did vote for bush, go see farrenheit 9/11, then see how u feel about bush. most likely bush supporters will just dissmiss that film as junk or not even give it a chance. that film made me sick, to see what we are doing in iraq. we blew up civilians homes. killed innocent people. thast what bush did, how can anyone support him?
Sweet vitriol, I saw Farencrap 911. I also saw Farenhype911. Did you? Did you see Celsius 41.11?
What exactly is tragic about Americans voting for who THEY chose. Or should everyone just march lock step with you and your ilk.
Did you vote for Kerry? Yes, then WHAT WAS HIS POSITION ON IRAQ?
Can't answer lemming? He was going to "stay the course" and "do it better" would you just leave like a coward? Now that Iraq is messed up you would leave.
Read about Neville Chamberlain. Try to comprehend appeasement.
Try reading a book, instead of seeing a facistic lie that is so heavily edited that it does not resemble reality.
Farencrap is not a documentary. It is called agit/prop. Do you know what that means? No of course not because Michael Moore doesn't want you to know.
Don't forget the criticism on the lapse of the Assault Weapon ban. That definitely alienated the gun owning population. (To all Democrats: I told you so.)
Check it out: two terms of Reagan and one of Bush, the country had a record deficit. Two terms of Clinton unpopularly raising taxes bailed us out to the point of having a surplus, something economists said would never happen. Taxes are necessary. The trouble is, whenever we get close to recovering, a Republican gets into office to spend any revenue and start a war. The effect is a stagnation of all reform movements.
Regardless of what you think of Iraq, we should not be there now. Saddam and his kin were terrible assholes, and I'm glad many of them are dead, but the motives for going there were all wrong. Bush changed the motives because he couldn't find WMDs. Now he says it's safer and there is less "terr'ism" there. More Americans and Europeans are dying there due to terrorism now than before 9/11. But I guess you can't make an omelete without breaking a few US soldiers.
Check out my new ballot # 57620 about oil and conservation.
The assault weapons ban was useless. In California, in the month before the lapse Officer Issac Espinoza was killed with an AK47.
California still has an even more stringent AW ban. On the day before the national ban lapsed there was a murder in a Colma graveyard in broad daylight using an AK47.
This just illustrates the uselessness of writing new laws when the existing ones are not enforced. If a criminal wants the best firepower he ain't worried about breaking the AW ban!!
Regarding the period between 1980 and 1992 what was the majority in Congress? They are the ones that make appropriations. During the entire Reagan and Bush administrations there was only one two year period when the Democrats didn't control both houses. From 1982 to 1984 there was a slim Republican majority in the Senate. Economically speaking you are confusing the short run with the long run. 17 months before Clinton took office is when the boom began. It ended before Bush W took over. This is neither because of Clinton nor despite him. The business cycle is not controlled by the administration, or any government agency for that matter.
It wasn't until 1994 that Republicans held the purse strings.
I don't know what reform you are talking about. What reforms was the Clinton administration responsible for?
Putting aside both the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan there was a trillion dollar hit to our economy as a direct result of 911.
I think that there were myriad great reasons for going to war in Iraq. chief among them was WMD. However, any of the other reasons are good for me.
I'm just ashamed that I'm human, at least I'm a girl though. Look, is this the best the men can do?
by x__ on Sat Nov 06, 04 11:34pm
[+]
Confidentconservativ: There are 3 points Republicans always conveniently forget to mention when claiming that the record deficits under Reagan were the fault of the Democratic Congress:
1. Reagan proposed even larger budgets than the ones Congress passed.
2. The Republicans had a majority in the Senate for at least some of the Reagan years. Did you notice the budget getting any smaller in those years? I didn't.
3. If Reagan thought any of the budgets was too big he could have vetoed them. The chances of Congress getting enough votes to overide were slim indeed. Even if they had overridden, At least Reagan would have gone on record as opposing the "Democratic" deficit spending. That he didn't, makes that spending bipartisan.
Neal, wrong. Read the comment and then criticize. I clearly put down that the Senate was controlled from 82-84 by the Senate.
Second read the damn US Constitution and find out where the approprations are made.
And you apparently have no understanding of politics. If Reagan had vetoed a budget your welfare check would have been cut off. Or possibly you were a kid like me. So your parents would have had to go out and work and get off the food stamps.
Please if you want to challenge me pretend that I am not one of these idiots who don't know what I am talking about. You have gotten so used to putting up irrelevant information and having it accepted. Maybe you fancy yourself the Michael Moore of B&W. In that case you should know that everything he says I take with a whole box of salt. So now I know that your comments are just useful idiot vehicles.
Yes, ConCon, you ARE one of those idiots who doesn't know what he's talking about, and I won't pretend otherwise. Only an idiot could have written what you did here: "I clearly put down that the Senate was controlled from 82-84 by the Senate" Who else besides the Senate WOULD have controlled the Senate, Connie? The voices in your head? Your imaginary playmate who told you his name was Jesus? Your fellow members of the North American Man-Boy Love Association? Ah, so it was the SENATE controlling the Senate! You figure that out all by yourself, did you?
You're the kind of idiot who gives idiots a bad name.
And there IS a lot of irrelevant information being posted here - all of it by you. For just one thing, your hysterical rant about Michael Moore is totally irrelevant, given that I never wrote one single word about him. You don't even know what that word, irrelevant, means, do you? Then you should refrain from using it, because your doing so makes you look like an even bigger idiot than you are.
And you, being an idiot, are unable to distinguish between the pay I received while serving in the U.S. military - the only money I or any of my relatives has ever taken from the government - and the welfare, food stamps, section 8 housing, and SSI which your own worthless trailer trash inbred family has leeched off ever since your worthless asses arrived here to start soiling my country with your presence in it. That's the reason why you're so relieved Reagan never cut you off by vetoing a budget.
Connie, YOU didn't by any chance serve in the military, did you? I didn't think so. I rest my case.
And I notice that you never answered the question I posed. Perhaps you weren't aware of the question since you can't read. So get someone to read it TO you: Did the federal budget not go UP when the Republicans controlled both the White House and Congress? The answer is "yes" although I know a big word like that gives you a lot of trouble.
And yes, the Congress makes appropriations. When did I say otherwise? I never did, but since you're illiterate, it's understandable why you weren't aware of that. And no, Connie, Congress doesn't make approPRAtions, as you put it. Dan Quayle teach you to spell, did he?
I hit a nerve with you did I? Good. I did make alot of mistakes and spelling errors, so I can't complain about that. I served in the US Army for 8 years including combat in the First Gulf War, so reopen your case you coward.
I am aware that the budget went up yes.
Hysterical rant about Michael Moore? It is called an analogy.
Is the imaginary friend in my head the Spanish pronunciation of Jesus or the English pronunciation of Jesus?
Connie: You admit that the budget went up under a Republican president, it went up higher under a Republican president and Senate, and even higher still under a Republican president, Senate and House. Do you detect a pattern emerging here, Sherlock?
But I want to thank you for proving my point for me, better than I could. And incidentally, also for your being such a gracious loser. While the Democrats are at least honest enough to admit they want big government before doing everything in their power to obtain it, Republicans claim to want smaller government until they're safely in office, whereupon they give us even bigger government, budgets and deficits than the Democrats would have. Which was exactly my point, so I'm glad we agree on it.
While it's true that neither of the two major parties is worth a used condom, The Gang Of Plunderers is in one way even worse. The GOP has all the same flaws as the Jackass Party plus two more: lying and hypocrisy. Yes, I think conservatism can be a good thing - I only wish the Republicans would try it some time.
As for your rant about Michael Moore: It wasn't an analogy, it was an irrelevancy. It's called a dictionary - discover it!
HEY CONFIDENTCONSERVATIVE: What is tragic is that the American people are being lied to by the very person they voted for. Yes Im proud to say I voted for Kerry. Kerrys' position on Iraq? Well at this point he would have no choice but to stay in Iraq and clean up the mess left by Bush.
I'm ashamed of my country's government and citizens, but I don't love my country or any country, for that matter. Countries are not lovable.
I love my country and I like my government. It does not mean I like all of the people in power, but I like the structure of our government. For the most part, our government is benevolant to the American people. I also like it because if you have a dolt as President, you know you can vote them out at the next election (or at least you HOPE you can :)
I love my country more for the people and their spirit and kindness. I guess like anyone, I can sometimes be disillusioned because of our government, but when it comes right down to it, I'd do anything to protect my country.
Yes except for the part about agreeing with them a lot of years.
If I were a Christian and looked into these guys faces all I'd see was the devil.
Beware of false prophets.
Wolf in sheeps clothing.
Rat in snake's clothing, whatever.
|
