Bush: Conservative, or moderate?

Users who are viewing this thread

BadBoy@TheWheel

DT3's Twinkie
Messages
20,999
Reaction score
2
Tokenz
0.06z
They only do it if you are a suspect terrorist, not if you disagree with GW. Call me naive, but I have faith that he would never detain someone because of their belies, only because of their actions or their suspected actions.

And that is what the hard right wants us to think.

Don't ever drink enough Kool-Aid to think that if they are given the power, it won't be abused;)
 
  • 82
    Replies
  • 2K
    Views
  • 0
    Participant count
    Participants list

gLing

Active Member
Messages
4,972
Reaction score
1
Tokenz
0.01z
It might have seen liberal thought until this.

Gitmo, without Habeaus Corpus, and......and....

TA DA

DEPT. OF HOMELAND DEFENSE/PAtriot Act;)


Just my opinion, but the government can imprison you on theory, detain you without p/c and tap your phone because they think you disagree with GW.
That's how I read it
That is why I don't see bush as that much of a conservative. Conservatism is supposed to be about a smaller, less intrusive government and more freedoms.
About the only thing bush has done that could be considered conservative is cut taxes and stand up to terrorism.
 

BadBoy@TheWheel

DT3's Twinkie
Messages
20,999
Reaction score
2
Tokenz
0.06z
Good point Gi Gi, as a matter of fact the "Ronald Regan" conservatives seem to have forgotten his epic speech involving government actually being the problem, rather than a solution.

Regan believed in minimizing government intrusion.
 

gLing

Active Member
Messages
4,972
Reaction score
1
Tokenz
0.01z
Good point Gi Gi, as a matter of fact the "Ronald Regan" conservatives seem to have forgotten his epic speech involving government actually being the problem, rather than a solution.

Regan believed in minimizing government intrusion.
That is why I am finding myself liking the libertarians. They are a nice mix of conservatism when it comes to less government and more economic freedoms but are more liberal when it comes to social issues.
 

All Else Failed

Well-Known Member
Messages
10,205
Reaction score
1
Tokenz
0.00z
He's a die-hard conservative!

The War in Iraq, the tax cuts, the attempted privatization of social security, anti-abortion, pro-free trade, etc. He's not all conservative (NCLB is a good example), but for the most part, he's a right winger.
God, It'll be sad when he leaves office.
You'll be the only one. :24:
 

Carthage

Minor
Messages
933
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
I know. I'll be wearing black, and fall asleep crying. Meanwhile, the rest of my family and friends are going to be having a party.
*deep sigh*
 

Carthage

Minor
Messages
933
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
And rightly so. One of the worst presidents we ever had, and thats fact.

Well, he's no Reagan, but how was he that bad? I mean, he's prevented any other terrorist attacks, he's prevented the spread of the war on terror by focalizing it on a small patch of desert, he's supported capitalism for most of his career, he managed to push a surge through while the world was turning against him and the congress was mojority democrat - he's not that bad.
Then again, you're a socialist, so I doubt you would see him as good.
 

All Else Failed

Well-Known Member
Messages
10,205
Reaction score
1
Tokenz
0.00z
Well, he's no Reagan, but how was he that bad? I mean, he's prevented any other terrorist attacks, he's prevented the spread of the war on terror by focalizing it on a small patch of desert, he's supported capitalism for most of his career, he managed to push a surge through while the world was turning against him and the congress was mojority democrat - he's not that bad.
Then again, you're a socialist, so I doubt you would see him as good.
He's an imperialist


He's driven up the national debt to extravagant amounts


His ties with big business are sickening


There's no such thing as "keeping terrorism in a small place". it's everywhere.

He's against basically anything that us socially progressive


Capitalism forces poverty to work properly


My socialism has nothing to do with how I see him, he's just a lame duck president. But then again, you're a Reaganite, so you would love Bush since.
 

Dana

In Memoriam - RIP
Messages
42,904
Reaction score
10
Tokenz
0.17z
I still can't believe you're from the same state as I am, Carth. Gaahh..


Oh yeah and Bush sucks
 

Carthage

Minor
Messages
933
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
He's an imperialist
how is he an imperialist? He is merely attempting to keep the US in it's position as a super power, which he should. We are a free democratic state, so we have the full right to be a superpower. But that does not make him an imperialist.

He's driven up the national debt to extravagant amounts

In order to combat terrorism. It's worth it.


His ties with big business are sickening

Capitalism has always helped people (the ones who work hard and make a good effort). Bush is supporting this. When I said what I said, I meant the tax cuts primarily - trickle down economics.


There's no such thing as "keeping terrorism in a small place". it's everywhere.

True; but you can limit the spread of the global war on terror by keeping the majority of the war in a central zone where it an be fought.

He's against basically anything that us socially progressive
I don't know if the sentance was cut off (i do that all the time), but I think I got what you meant, so:
Bush has been against social progressivism, yes, but those policies are merely in keeing with Christian faith. We are, after all, one nation under GOD, and many of the socially progressive ideals (abortion, gay marriage, etc) are non-Christian. Others (illegal immigration, drug control) are more because our nation has to keep itself afloat, and allowing huge numbers of illegal immigrants to merely swamp the country or allowing laws on hard drugs (softer ones like Marajuana I can see the merit in your guys's poition) would not be good for it.


Capitalism forces poverty to work properly
Capitalism forces the poverty-stricken to work*. If you don't work in a capitalist society, or you have not worked, then you fail. Poverty is, for the most part, a result of people not working hard enough. There are, of course, other factors, but those are mostly anti-Capitalist ones. For example, an adult cannot go back and get a high school diploma. The high schools are run by the government! The times when Capitalism has caused poverty is merely bad timing, and in tmes like those some measures to try and help the poor are nessesary.
I know what I'm talking about - right now my family is neck - deep in debt and falling faster and faster. But it is mostly because my parents (God bless them both, I love them so much) were really stupid with their money when they were young. I understand that kids do stupid things, but that doesn't mean the government should help them back up.

* I think our definitions here of work differ. We define work as somehow contributing to the country. A manager does it by owning a business and providing jobs, creating products, and keeping society stable (I'm sure you realize that, in today's society, without the rich, there would be a lot of problems). The stock owner is helping out these people who contribute by buying share s in their company - helping via extension. The laborer and the farmer, I think we agree here.
 

All Else Failed

Well-Known Member
Messages
10,205
Reaction score
1
Tokenz
0.00z
how is he an imperialist? He is merely attempting to keep the US in it's position as a super power, which he should. We are a free democratic state, so we have the full right to be a superpower. But that does not make him an imperialist.



In order to combat terrorism. It's worth it.




Capitalism has always helped people (the ones who work hard and make a good effort). Bush is supporting this. When I said what I said, I meant the tax cuts primarily - trickle down economics.




True; but you can limit the spread of the global war on terror by keeping the majority of the war in a central zone where it an be fought.


I don't know if the sentance was cut off (i do that all the time), but I think I got what you meant, so:
Bush has been against social progressivism, yes, but those policies are merely in keeing with Christian faith. We are, after all, one nation under GOD, and many of the socially progressive ideals (abortion, gay marriage, etc) are non-Christian. Others (illegal immigration, drug control) are more because our nation has to keep itself afloat, and allowing huge numbers of illegal immigrants to merely swamp the country or allowing laws on hard drugs (softer ones like Marajuana I can see the merit in your guys's poition) would not be good for it.



Capitalism forces the poverty-stricken to work*. If you don't work in a capitalist society, or you have not worked, then you fail. Poverty is, for the most part, a result of people not working hard enough. There are, of course, other factors, but those are mostly anti-Capitalist ones. For example, an adult cannot go back and get a high school diploma. The high schools are run by the government! The times when Capitalism has caused poverty is merely bad timing, and in tmes like those some measures to try and help the poor are nessesary.
I know what I'm talking about - right now my family is neck - deep in debt and falling faster and faster. But it is mostly because my parents (God bless them both, I love them so much) were really stupid with their money when they were young. I understand that kids do stupid things, but that doesn't mean the government should help them back up.

* I think our definitions here of work differ. We define work as somehow contributing to the country. A manager does it by owning a business and providing jobs, creating products, and keeping society stable (I'm sure you realize that, in today's society, without the rich, there would be a lot of problems). The stock owner is helping out these people who contribute by buying share s in their company - helping via extension. The laborer and the farmer, I think we agree here.
He is an imperialist because he is using military might to force our agenda and spread our influence and military power across the globe, and to secure strategic footholds in the middle east.



Iraq isn't about terrorism. If we were going after terrorism we would be in Syria and Iran right now, not Iraq. Iraq is about securing strategic resources for the future and establishing a permanent military spring board.



This isn't about capitalism. Its about him and his corporate bed fellows raping America (and other countries) just for their own gains. Half of our problems stems from the rich ruling us.



You can't fight terrorism like its a standing army, nor is it a single group of individuals. Its theoretically everyone, everywhere. Plus, I would think twice about throwing around the word "terrorist". By our own government's definition of terrorism, our founding fathers would have been considered terrorists as well.



One of the biggest myths EVER is that the US is a christian nation. Our government is a secular one, it just so happens that a bunch of Christians live here. "Under god" was added to basically everything because of the Red scare. Just because it says we are, doesn't make it so. Our founding fathers set up a secular government for a very good reason.



This is from the Treaty of Tripoli:

"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries." [bold text, mine]





I don't know where I should even begin with your cpaitalism comments...the very idea of "people are poor because they don't work hard enough" is crazy. A lot of people are poor because of social/cultural and economic injustice that still exists. Sure, there are poor people because they make bad choices, but to say this is the reason for all poverty is ridiculous. But, I'm going to guess that you are white, and middle/upper-middle class, so you wouldn't know of those personally. Why shouldn't the government help your parents? The government exists to make sure the welfare (well being) of the people is taken care of, and I think social programs are just fine for people in debt. Look at various European countries that are welfare states, they have a much higher standard of living than us and they manage to function fine and exceed us in many aspects of society.
 

IntruderLS1

Active Member
Messages
2,489
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
About the only thing bush has done that could be considered conservative is cut taxes and stand up to terrorism.

It looks like the thread is moving in a different direction than I planned on, but gLing is close to the point I was planning on.

No Child Left Behind and amnesty for illegal immigrants would normally be found on a more liberal agenda.

John McCain is hailed daily in the news for being so moderate. He has strong conservative credentials on one side, but very liberal credentials on the other. How is that different than the President?

To the off-topic of America's Christian foundation, I love the Tripoli argument. I've meant to take it apart for you a hundred times Ron, but we always end up getting side tracked.

Remind me when you have time, and we'll go over it. :nod:
 

All Else Failed

Well-Known Member
Messages
10,205
Reaction score
1
Tokenz
0.00z
It looks like the thread is moving in a different direction than I planned on, but gLing is close to the point I was planning on.

No Child Left Behind and amnesty for illegal immigrants would normally be found on a more liberal agenda.

John McCain is hailed daily in the news for being so moderate. He has strong conservative credentials on one side, but very liberal credentials on the other. How is that different than the President?

To the off-topic of America's Christian foundation, I love the Tripoli argument. I've meant to take it apart for you a hundred times Ron, but we always end up getting side tracked.

Remind me when you have time, and we'll go over it. :nod:

America is only a "christian nation" in the sense that a butt load of Christians live here. However, our government is in no way religious in nature. It was set up to be a secular one, and was intended to be so.
 

Carthage

Minor
Messages
933
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
America is only a "christian nation" in the sense that a butt load of Christians live here. However, our government is in no way religious in nature. It was set up to be a secular one, and was intended to be so.

This is true of the Christian religion. However, I am speaking more of the Judeo-Christian tradition of values, and only partly of the religion.
 

All Else Failed

Well-Known Member
Messages
10,205
Reaction score
1
Tokenz
0.00z
This is true of the Christian religion. However, I am speaking more of the Judeo-Christian tradition of values, and only partly of the religion.
If our government had truly Judeo-Christian tradition of values in it's systems then our country would be way different. I think you can see that from what our country is like, that isn't so, and good to that.
 

IntruderLS1

Active Member
Messages
2,489
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
America is only a "christian nation" in the sense that a butt load of Christians live here. However, our government is in no way religious in nature. It was set up to be a secular one, and was intended to be so.

I agree with you on both counts. Our government is and always has been secular. No church tells us what to do, and no Christian that I know would argue it should be different.

That said though does not change the fact that our culture and institutions bedrock foundations are Christian. The founding fathers were by in large all Christians, etc...

We'll fire this one up again when you have time. I don't want to derail your current campaign. :p
 

All Else Failed

Well-Known Member
Messages
10,205
Reaction score
1
Tokenz
0.00z
I agree with you on both counts. Our government is and always has been secular. No church tells us what to do, and no Christian that I know would argue it should be different.

That said though does not change the fact that our culture and institutions bedrock foundations are Christian. The founding fathers were by in large all Christians, etc...

We'll fire this one up again when you have time. I don't want to derail your current campaign. :p
Thats incredibly debatable. Most of the important ones were self described deists, which are basically atheists who want to think somehting is out there to feel comfortable. :p
 
78,875Threads
2,185,391Messages
4,959Members
Back
Top