Take your weapon strike me down with all of your hatred and your journey to the dark side of Bush bashing conservatism will be complete.
Posted on 07/10/2002 11:27:06 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
This is an unofficial quick and dirty presidential poll. Apparently, there is a good sized contingent on Free Republic that believes that President Bush is:
Please list the numbers that best match the reasons you don't like Bush (or state other reasons if not on the list) and state whether you believe that President Bush should be defeated even if it means installing a Democrat in the Whitehouse.
Conversely, if you believe President Bush should be re-elected, please state why.
Please state who you would like to see win the Presidency in 2004 and whether or not you believe he/she has a chance of winning.
Thanks,
Jim
If you two can agree, there may be some good in this thread.
I still say, go on to the issues/action threads, and get going on something positive.
Cheers,
Richard F.
My vote for the best thing to come out of this thread. Nobody but us can beat the democrats, so lets have at it
That is a fact. But we can also beat ourselves, and that's what threads like these, and others that force us to question ourselves, our principles, and our motives are good for.
Take your weapon strike me down with all of your hatred and your journey to the dark side of Bush bashing conservatism will be complete.
But - I can't take the poll because I am not a Bush Hater.
Why do I want him re-elected? ---- I trust him.
Coming into this over a day late, I just wanted to go on records as saying I agree with you completely.
You can destroy the Bushbot. He has forseen this!
Ok as for Bush. He so far has done about what I figured he would. Weak with China, Encircling himself as his dad did with the same weak policy makers of the Bush Sr term. Actually I have more dislike for Cheney than Bush if you could call it dislike. I do not hold Cheney to the great military mind status so many others do. The Bush SR military was in trouble by the end of the Bush SR term. Military wise he was closer to Carter than Reagan.
I read the Bush platform and had problems with it early on. What he was saying and what others were saying he was saying were two different things. One example is the Second Amendment. There was post after post about the pro- 2nd Bush. But an honest read of his releases on the subject were far from it. Bush Jr isn't by any means the worst POTUS nor is he by any means close to the best. I put him in the same group as Lamar Alaxender the former governor of Tennessee who was elected to replace Ray Blanton the most corrupt man in our states history. He looked good when compared to Blanton but was at best a so so governor which is why I will support congressman Ed Bryant-R for the senate race over Alexander-R.
Lamar Alexander brings up another sore point. The White House and RNC, as well as Senator Frist {my senator BTW} should have stayed out of it till we held our state primaries. Alexander was anointed to succeed Fred Thompson before the words were barely uttered from Freds mouth about his retirement. This has substancially harmed Bryant {a Conservative Chances} in the primaries and for all practical ended as well the chances of anyone else namely a conservative canidate opposing Moderate Alexander. {A Bush Sr man BTW} In that respect Bush is doing the conservatives very dirty by supporting Moderates early on.
I think unless he receives strong chastising from conservatives G.W. Bush will give away the conservative farm so to speak. I think he's purposely disengaged himself and his administration from main stream conservatism. Bush could do a lot better but I honestly don't think he has enough smarts or self will to break away from the Ford/Bush Sr circle of big government liberal leaning advisors and cabinet members. Yes this might get him re-elected but in the mean time he is setting us up for some major problems in the future with his precedents. There are many programs I just assume government not start. Home Land security? A political favor made post opening the door to bigger government and yet another regulating agency. Faith Based Programs? Not needed or rather no government funded needed. A better solution is to just abolish the restrictions placed upon churches and let Uncle keep the dollar so Uncle is never running the pulpit.
The U.N.ICC what part of unconstitutional and Endangering Entanglements does this man not understand?
But again he's not Clinton. But this is indeed worthy of remembering as well. Remember during the Bush/Gore debates when he stated him and Gore were not that far apart on many {most} {can't remember exact quotation} issues? This waves a big red flag he is a man to watch and when needed must be called on the political carpet on a lot of matters war or no war. Speaking of which Remember the Fast Track Trade Authority push? Right after 9/11 to be exact he tried to use it as an excuse to push through that bad piece of legislation.
I'll support the good GOP candidates. I'll do written flames on those who by their deeds and words need them. I stated the other day in a thread if Bush stands up to the U.N. and stops us from becoming accountable to the ICC I would consider it his greatest accomplishment. Now we face yet another year to once again have a POTUS rather than say we can not sign into such an agreement puts it off.
So who in 2004? As far as POTUS goes it will be Bush whether he is capable of winning or not. POTUS though is not the problem. The Legislative Branch is. It's a horrible mess and the life long seat warming RINO's need to be sent home political party be ****** for the good of this nation. When a majority of our United States Senators defended the corruption of Bill Clinton that alone speaks volumes. When our congress seeks indictments for adulterous affairs over a list of felonies and acts against this nation that compromise National Security we have a problem. Simply put my requirement for office isn't a party membership or party endorsement but a willingness on the candidates part to uphold, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States and actually do it.
Your question is a bit open ended. If you are asking why I am convinced that the United States will not survive as a nation beyond a decade or two, it will take a while to find out for sure, but history offers some clues. All democracies and all socialistic governments have eventually failed. When one segment of society parasitizes another, eventually those being preyed upon overthrow their slavemasters or flee. When there are no productive members, the society collapses. Production over and above a sustenance level requires incentive. Take away the incentive and you wipe out the production. Can you name a single government program or agency that is a success in your mind? Can you identify anything that you believe government can do better than private enterprise? Even if you are convinced there is something where the government is a resounding success, is it the exception or the first of many good things to come.? Are you willing to concede that my conclusion is factually correct: Socialism is growing relentlessly in the United States and the continued growth of socialism will eventually bring about the end of the United States. If you are, then that only leaves the question of timing.
Look at the chart of our national debt on the Grandfather's Economic Report>. How long do you think the socialists can continue to compound that chart? Parabolic growth ends in crashes. Now look at total US debt>, which includes public (all governments and corporate) and private. If you thought the prior chart was terrifying, this graph should put most conservatives into shock. Mr. Hodges asked if we should be concerned about the debt being handed down to younger generations? That is not the right question. The children and the grandchildren of the boomers are going to start getting the bills for their parents in less than decade? They are also going to get handed the bill for the debt you see compounding on these two charts. The question to ask is how concerned are they going to be? They will also be asking themselves if they pay these bills, how will they provide for their own sustenance let alone their own retirement? And if they can't, who will?
I have given you my opionion of the timing? What is yours if you disagree? Have you considered that the record debt that you see accumulated over the last ten years has been accumulated during what has been reported to be the most extraordinarily good times in the history of the world? Have you also factored in that the next decade is expected to be one of subnormal economic performance and that some experts are predicting that a depression is possible while others say inevitable?
I suspect your question was actually how do I know I am right about controlling the behavior of the Republicans? There have only been four occassions since 1932 when Republicans have run either a conservative candidate or a conservative agenda. They won three of the four elections by very wide, even sweeping margins. In the sixty-two years between 1932 and 1994, Republicans controlled both houses of Congress for a total of two years under Ike. They controlled the Senate for another two years under Reagan. My parents are in their 80's; the Republican Revolution of 1994 was unique in their lifetimes. The Contract with America was the difference. After Dole dropped the ball on the balanced budget amendment and Republicans were embarrassed by Republican defections on Term Limits, they began moving left. Newt's embarrassing resignation and the even more embarrassing aftermath destroyed the conservative leadership and the party moved left. They have progressively lost seats in every election since 1994 because they abandoned the conservative agenda. While you may disagree with my reasoning and conclusions, I think you will find the facts are basically accurate even if somone finds a minor error in the detail. What are the outcomes of the various possibilities with the backgrounds above? Kenneth Fisher is the portfolio editor of Forbes magazine, and the CEO of Fisher Investments, a $12 billion private investment firm founded by Philip Fisher, Kenneth's father. Philip may be the second most successful investor in history behind Warren Buffet. Kennth Fisher postulates that the market can move up a little, up a lot, down a little or down a lot. Those four combinations cover the possibilities. He believes that portfolio theory says results will be superior if you are 100% invested in the market in three of the four scenarios. You want to be zero invested when the market is down a lot. How does that relate to your question about how I know I am right and everybody else is wrong?
Look at those charts again. If the country keeps moving left, those graphs will continue to go straight up until they fall straight down. For most of the last seventy years, it didn't matter whether Republicans were in control or not, the country moved relentlessly to the left. For the last eight years, Republicans have controlled either Congress, the Whitehouse or both. Has it made any difference? The only time in the lifetime of any living American that it made a difference whether socialism was getting worse instead of better was the eight years under Ronald Reagan, and the first two years of the Republican Revolution in 1994. At some point in the not too distant future, it won't matter who is in control, the collapse that is predicted by those two graphs will become inevitable. If reversing socialism quickly is the only possible way to avoid economic collapse and the destruction of the United States and that is only possible by completely changing the political strategy of the Republican Party or replacing the Republican Party with a conservative third party, then the decision to make the change is easy. I have offered one suggestion of how to force the Republican Party to change. There may be other ways. I hope Freepers will offer several. The other outcomes, Democrats win leads to more socialism and collapse, Republicans win but don't change leads to more socialism but at a slower rate and still leads to collapse. If collapse is inevitable, I would argue that the sooner it happens the better. Freedom now is better than freedom later, and certainly better than never enjoying freedom again in out lifetime. That is not an acceptable alternative.
You are not advocating Conservatism in your 100 or so post. What you are advocating is a dictatorial form of Government when you want our markets to collapse and our economy to tank, As if this would usher in your utopian dreams of silencing decent from the left.
The founding fathers understood debate from all sides was the only way to preserve the right of all opinions to be heard in our Republic
Unfortunately, it seems to be the main characteristic of the Bush supporters. They're always on the attack.
Your argument is analogous to the whores in the legal fashion. If the facts are on your side, argue the facts. If the law is on your side, argue the law. (This is the art of technicalities that are frequently meaningless and frivilous. Look at just the US tax code, thousands of pages of convoluted idiocy that is commonly contradictory and is anathma to common sense. After all Democrats and some Republicans want to use the tax code for social engineering or profiteering by creating favors for their friends and families or their campaign contributors. Look at the code of federal regulations. I will make the categorical statement that if we made a blanket blind discard of everything in it, that the country would be far better off and the economy rebound strongly in less than a couple of years.)
The last argument of lawyers is even more telling and describes your argument precisely. If the facts are not on your side, and the law is not on your side, then baffle them with bull shit and pray that they become hopelessly confused.
I think your own words describe the endless psycho-babble you've been posting quite accurately........
"If the facts are not on your side, and the law is not on your side, then baffle them with bull shit and pray that they become hopelessly confused"
Good Luck in your ventures and have a great day, I'm outta here!
MJY
Great idea Deb. But correct me if I am wrong, there seems to be some contradiction in my mind between electing conservatives and re-electing Republicans. There are a lot of Republicans in both the House and the Senate (proportionately more in the Senate) that are luke warm conservatives or worse. A great portion of this thread and many others on this web site has been devoted to re-electing Republicans so that we can have this great super majority of conservatives in Congress. I have a small problem with that thinking. When it comes down to crucial votes to defeat idiot enviromental legislation, defeat more transfer payments, drill ANWR, defeat campaign finance reform, pass the flat tax or the fair tax instead of adding a thousand pages to the tax code that lowers taxes in the next century instead of today-and are subject to retroactive recall any time in the next decade, privatize Social Security, instead of raising the minimum wage to discard it completely and on and on endlessly. These re-elected Republicans don't vote with conservatives; they vote with the Democrats. Not occassionally, but repeatedly.
Is it fair for me to ask if re-electing Republicans who don't vote for conservative issues, but vote repeatedly with the Democrats is rational thinking, wishful thinking, delusional thinking, or completely irrational? My own answer is that it is most likely wishful thinking. And it can be corrected and so can the behavior of the Republicans. But it won't happen as long as we keep repeating the same mistakes.
The argument that follows is long, detailed-maybe even tortuous, but not complex. Those who have trouble making it through a 30 second soundbite as opposed to a 15 second should stop reading now.
I think Americans are, or want to be, conservative and independent. I think they are still embarrassed to have to take handouts and if the handouts stopped, they would not vote the socialists into even greater power. I think they would get off the gravy train and get a job leading to a new life. Necessity is still the mother of invention and capitalism still works every time it is tried. You are being deceived and falling for the socialist's arguments. It is the only way they derive power. Dependent people who get jobs and become independent develop pride and confidence. They grow to resent those who made them dependent. Ending socialism cold turkey would put the socialists out of business in two election cycles, and they know it. Incrementalism prolongs and perpetuates the dependency and the socialists. It really is that simple.
If the education of the electorate is not done by conservative candidates for all races, the education will have to be done by a national candidate for president as Reagan did it. The education can be done by a national candidate who campaigns to all of the people on a strong conservative agenda. Regardless of the agenda, folks don't like it when their candidates double cross them. Candidates transgress when they do what they said they wouldn't or don't do what they said they would. Candidates and the voters don't mind the little white campaign lies that all of them tell and everybody knows they are lieing. But they don't like being lied to on the big stuff that matters. Those of you who believe "W" is concealing how conservative he really is and that when he is re-elected and has a working majority in Congress that he will then take off the gloves of his compassionate conservative and morph into a Reagan unchecked by a Congress 60% controlled by Democrats are delusional. "W" is a child of government. Look at his actions: W is far more compassionate than conservative. Now that he has one election behind him, who is he currently trying to appeal to now? Conservatives? Or those who seek to benefit from his compassion?
Bush family "conservatism" follows the classic mold of the benevolent tyrannt. The reason the government solution didn't work in the past, is because "I-the great W" wasn't in charge of the government. Anybody affiliated with government for any length of time sees failure after repeated failure. And they always blame the people in charge, rather than the system that puts government in charge in the first place. And they are trapped into believing I can make a difference if I can just get the power to be in control. Government efficiency and Bush's faith in government can be one of the few remaining solaces to a conservative like me, when you consider the fact that all that stands between Daschle and a terrorist with his name on it is the Patriot Act and Bush's Homeland Security Plan.
No one worships Ronald Reagan anymore than I do, but even Reagan made the mistake of believing that he could do more to cut the government down to size and lower the spending to balance his tax cuts. But he underestimated his own ability and power. Tip and the Democrats taught him a vivid lesson when they betrayed their promises to reduce government spending. No matter how well intentioned or sincere the man, the system is corrupt. And it is the Democrats who made it corrupt. No man has the right to take the property of another man without his consent and give that property to another man. That is the root of socialism, the source of power for the Democrats and the me-too RINO Republicans. Until conservatives cut the incumbent RINOS in the Republican Party off by forcing them to change or getting them out of office, this magical education process is a pipe dream. Until a national campaign on conservative issues takes place, as a result of our (FreeRepublic) efforts or another Contract with America/Congress or a genuine Reagan Republican presidential candidate (Bush is not unless we convince him to become one. And I definitely think this might be possible, but we would not be taking a chance with Rush. No one can have any doubt about Rush. Those who would dispute this are lying and dangerously deceptive to informed discussion. Be aware.) frames the campaign/campaigns on solidly conservative issues aimed squarely at restoring the Constitution as the law of the land.
I have finished reading roughly half of the thread. I don't know what is coming in the second half, but the debate has been clearly framed. There may be added arguments or improved arguments to both sides that may improve the appeal to either side. But there are really only two significant sides to the argument and it goes without saying that each Freeper will make his own decision. One of the problems with democracies, is that complex issues are difficult for everyone. Sometimes even issues that should be simple and straight forward get obscured by impassioned or even well reasoned but incorrect arguments. There is an old adage that comes to mind, "The majority is almost always wrong. And in the few instances where the majority is right, it is always for the wrong reasons."
In making your decisions think about the facts not your feelings, and not your wishes. Remember the much cherished bull market from 1996-2000? There has never been anything like it in history before and hopefully there won't be in the future, since we now know that it was nothing more than bubble based on lies and a fraudlent basis. Anyone who invested in the market in 1996 and has held would have been better off putting their money in a money market earning 1.5%. Anyone who invested after 1996 and held their investments has lost money. And that is even before ajusting their investments to the present value of the dollar which has declined 9% since the first of January. I hope you will factor that into your decision making?
One other comment: Wishful thinking doesn't make changes. It takes action and change to make changes.
How about it Jim Robinson, are you a Republican Patsy or an American Patriot?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.