Is Bush a Conservative?

Enter Stage Right ^ | February 9, 2004 | Tom DeWeese

[Milligan]

Well, I'm going to Vote for Bush 2004. I'm going to wear my Bush button in my heavily democrat-voting area where I live. I rather get hit by bricks than to have Kerry put his foot inside the oval office. He will put US in harms way by placating to the terrorist!

[BillyBoy]

>> If a proponent of socialist policies (social security, welfare, healthcare, prescription drugs...) makes one a socialist then indeed Bush is a socialist, albeit a bourgoisie socialist (conservative socialist). However both parties are socialist. Bush represents the conservative socialist party (Republicans) and the Democrats are utopian socialists. There is no true "liberal" party, and the conservative party is merely the one that is most resistant to change, by definition. Bush IS a conservative. Modern conservatives ARE bourgoisie socialists. We now need a pro-liberty party to counter the two socialist parties. <<

Given your post, I'd say you're a POLITICALLY CORRECT "Conservative" who INSIST on using different terms so you don't have to label yourself with the "status quo"

"I'm NOT a CONSERVATIVE, I'm a CLASSICAL LIBERAL!"
"I'm NOT a cripple, I'm DIFFERENTLY ABLED!"
"I'm NOT a black, I'm a PERSON OF COLOR!"

A rose, by any other name...

[deport]

Welcome to FR......

Did they teach you about Paragraphs? If not maybe a trip to the SANDBOX would help......

[deport]

You are absolutely right. President Bush has ignored the wishes of the American People, especially his conservative so-called "base", which he continues to alienate.

---

Who would you recommend in place of President Bush? Any suggestions?

[cynicom]

Conservative???? Need anyone ask???

[Cathryn Crawford]

Don't you like philosophical discussions?

Oh, I'm quite fond of them.

I thought this thread was pulled? Odd.

[Mark Felton]

"A rose, by any other name... "

I claim the original definition of the names. I am advocating an end to the very thing you accuse me of.

Thomas Jefferson was a liberal yet, by today's standards he would make Pat Buchanan look like a sandal-wearing, tree-hugging flower child.

I stand by Thomas Jefferson. A classical liberal. With whom do you stand?

[Paul C. Jesup]

Thomas Jefferson was a liberal yet, by today's standards he would make Pat Buchanan look like a sandal-wearing, tree-hugging flower child.

Bump for excellent quote.

[BillyBoy]

I stand for CONSERVING the U.S. constitution, CONSERVING the bill of rights, and CONSERVING the way American culture has been for 200 years.

Liberals call themselves liberals because they LIBERAL use of my money to spend more socialist programs. They believe in a LIBERAL interpretation of the constitution and founding fathers and a LIBERAL method of taxation.

Calling yourself "classically liberal" because you believe in Jefferson would be like calling yourself "classically gay" because you are happy. The old use of the word is long dead and has been corrupted. The only reason someone would want to re-use that label is because they are think they are too good for the current label.

If Jefferson was anything, he was a Democratic-Republican. That movement died a long, long, time ago. Jefferson didn't even stay true to "Jeffersonian" principles completely when he was President (Louisiana purchase, etc.) I refuse to use the label of the people who have warped it into the party of treason now.

[Mark Felton]

Modern liberals are a hodgepodge of authoritarians, statists, marxists. collectivists, socialists. They are not liberals.

Modern conservatives are a hodgepodge authoritarians, statists, marxists, collectivists, and socialists.

They have both cloaked themselves in false colors and call themselves names which mask their true nature in order to gain foavor of the ignorant masses.

I am a classical, Jeffersonian liberal, not a modern liberal. I believe 3/4's of current federal spending is unconstitutional. I believe the two parties have a stranglehold on the US government and have usurped the Constitution.

I would almost guarantee I am to the "right" of you on most any issue.

I believe in a very weak central government that has authority strictly limited to that explicitly granted it by the Constitution.

I am a champion of the 2nd amendment (unlike Bush)

I want the Fed government out of Social security, healthcare, welfare and all other social engineering enterprises. (unlike Bush)

I want the Amendment that grants the Feds authority to collect income taxes repealed (unlike Bush)

I want the 17th amendment repealed (unlike Bush)

I believe nobody should be allowed to vote who does not own property, pay taxes or served in the military (unlike Bush)

I do not believe in compulsory education (unlike Bush) (though this is not a Fed issue)

I believe Roe vs Wade should be repealed, and each State be allowed to rule that abortion is murder, just as they have authority to prosecute murder today.

I believe the borders should be sealed. (unlike Bush)

I believe the Dept of Education should be abolished (unlike Bush)

I support the war on terror, and the war in Iraq (like Bush, he is to be lauded)

I support massive deregulation of industry.(unlike Bush)

I support reciprocal trade agreements (unlike Bush)

I do not support the gold standard. ( I like the current system pegged to productivity, not to lumps of metal)

I support fierce protection of US technology and patents (unlike Bush)

I support the abolition of Political Action Cmte's (unlike Bush)

I support the abolition of political contributions by corporations or other associations (they are merely people).

I support the unlimited campaign contributions by individuals who reside in the districts of the politicians, but they must be publicly accountable.

Politicians and their staff must be paid by the people of their Districts and States, not by the Federal government.

I believe the States must collect all taxes on individuals and then forward any necessary monies to the Fed government. (related to my desire to abolish Fed income tax)

I could go on, but it is late.

Don't let them fool you BillyBob. Bush is not superior to Jefferson. We do not have any party today which champions liberty for the people and demands a weak central government.

Our government today has become the monster our Founding Fathers feared and it was created by the tyranny of the parties that George Washington feared.

"The solution to our problems is not more government. Government is the problem" -- Ronald Reagan (not George Bush)

[Stu Cohen]

Yee Haa! Is this one of them there flame threads?

LOL.

And here i've been baited. What the heck ... I have insomnia.

No, Bush is not a conservative.

The 1st, 2nd, and 4th ammendments are eroding (non-existent in some places) ... spending of taxpayer money is very higher than many "liberal" presidents, more is wanted to go to Mars, and he wants to dissolve the nation's borders.

Now, when I was growing up, we called those people liberals. Perhaps the defitinition has changed, but I certainly wouldn't consider him a conservative.

I like his stance on marriage, and abortion, but other than that ... I don't see any strict interpretations of the consitution (the definition of a conservative).

Patriot act repealed? Can you purchase a firearm in NYC yet? Military deporting the millions of illegals yet? If we had a conservative, the answers to those questions would be yes.

Tax cuts you say? They are still way too high. Ridiculously so. Our forefathers rebelled against a 1% income tax and dumped tea in the water when that was taxed. Now we are paying close to 50% to various federal, state, and local programs when all is said and done.

We don't have a conservative President. As a matter of fact, I don't even think we have any conservative candidates.

We're still vote for the lessor of the two evils from the status-quo party.

Yippie. I can't wait for election day. /sarcasm .... flame retarant underwear on (yes, I washed them from last night)

[Sabertooth]

Sometimes, and he doesn't give a rip about the other times,
when he's being a "compassionate conservative."

[Sabertooth]

Who would you recommend in place of President Bush? Any suggestions?

Before anyone asks, I'm busy.

[antisocial]

Antisocial is kind of shorthand for anti-socialist. If you
bothered to read the article you would see that it was not written by me. Now, as for someone being retarded, if your first instinct is to insult someone you just might be. If you care to refute the article, it might just help to show where the article is wrong instead of trying to insult me.

[Don Joe]

when i read things like this, i immediately tune out because I know that this writer, while sincere, is probably way outside the mainstream.

And your point is?

Is "the mainstream" something we aspire to emulate?

"The mainsteam" get its "news" from Dan Rather, spends its life sitting in front of the boob-tube, laughing on cue at the laugh-tracks that key in for the "likeajoke" material, and... well, you get the picture.

So explain to me why NOT being "mainstream" bears some sort of stigma?

[Don Joe]

There is an itty bitty outside possible tiny chance that maybe perhaps Bush is 'third way' in his political philosophy, (like Clinton) but in his own particular way.

And of course by that I do not mean "third party".

There may be a gram of truthscian to what you suggest.

[Don Joe]

Well, I'm going to Vote for Bush 2004. I'm going to wear my Bush button in my heavily democrat-voting area where I live. I rather get hit by bricks than to have Kerry put his foot inside the oval office. He will put US in harms way by placating to the terrorist!

I'm not sure how you define your "area", but if you live in a state that will NWIH go "R" in November, I'd like someone to 'splain to me the downside of "sending a message" via a "protest vote" (obviously not for "D", of course).

[raloxk]

i dont remember what i was responding to.