AStone
Member
73, 57, 267.
Your View on President Bush
- Thread starter GotGlock
- Start date
- Status
Rembrandt
Member
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2003
- Messages
- 4,657
Finding a President that agrees with each persons view will never happen. Doesn't matter who the next ten Presidents are, no one will make all the right choices for all the people. Many voters are typical whineners, seeing the glass as "half empty" rather than "half full". Our society has fostered a culture of impatience, wanting "drive through fast food" results, like televison shows that solve problems in one hour, sound bites that simplify complex issues.
For the most part GWB has done a good job, lowered taxes, got us some good supreme court replacements, been a friend to the 2nd amendment, supports the military, improved our intell capabilities. Tried to fix social security (but couldn't get Congress to move off its arse).
There are things I'm dissappointed with, border security, prescription drug bill, campaign finance reform.
Don't think you'll see the Bush administration defiling the oval office with sexual escapades, assault weapon bans, more taxes, berateing our military, or his National Security advisor stuffing documents down their pants.
For the most part GWB has done a good job, lowered taxes, got us some good supreme court replacements, been a friend to the 2nd amendment, supports the military, improved our intell capabilities. Tried to fix social security (but couldn't get Congress to move off its arse).
There are things I'm dissappointed with, border security, prescription drug bill, campaign finance reform.
Don't think you'll see the Bush administration defiling the oval office with sexual escapades, assault weapon bans, more taxes, berateing our military, or his National Security advisor stuffing documents down their pants.
Marshall
Member
JaxNovice
Jax,
I'm in your camp.
**Note to self: Work on improving sarcasm.
jack the toad
Member
Don't like Pres. Bush. Didn't like his dad either. I voted for both them rather than the alternative.
Sux not to have someone good to vote for.
Sux not to have someone good to vote for.
v35
Member
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2006
- Messages
- 910
It's not as simple as that. Certainly I'm no Bush fan. His administration has been a disappointment at best. Any educated man who can't correctly pronounce "nuclear" loses a few points right there. And Harriet Miers??? But to characterize him as the worst president ever is doing history a disservice. Jimmy Carter, for instance, and that's just in my lifetime.
What's disappointing to me is his dramatic reversal from his stated positions before the age of terrorism began. To illustrate the difference between himself and his predecessor, candidate Bush advocated selective engagement in foreign affairs. No more Somalia-type interventions in which we had no vital national interests. No one, not Bush, nor his policy advisors ever advocated imposing democracy upon cultures too immature or disorganized to value it. Life sucks in most parts of the world. Classes war with one another, life is cheap, leaders massacre and starve their own citizens, and we are arrogant to think the American military can change any of that.
The about face that occurred nine months into his presidency struck me as lacking a certain amount of introspection, self-critique, or (contrasting with the elder Bush) apparently well-informed advice. Was invasion of Afghanistan justified, if only to demolish the toxic regime that occupied the vacuum left by retreating Soviet forces? I believe so. Is the world a much, much better place with Saddam and his ilk now permanently below ground level? Certainly. The problem now seems to be the question "now what". Cultures in the Middle East have been warring with one another for centuries, and as much as we love our representative form of government, attempting to impose an American-styled democracy upon class-divided cultures more accustomed to benevolent - or otherwise - dictatorships isn't working. As long as this country depends upon energy from that oil-soaked part of the world, we will be motivated to impose some kind of order, some semblance of assurance tomorrow will be little changed from today, upon it, to permit our wheels of commerce to continue to run. Unfortunately order in the Middle East isn't coming any time soon, no matter what Washington does.
Clearly I want to be less dependent upon Middle Eastern oil. It disgusts me that so much of our GDP goes right to Saudi Arabia, which shows its thanks to us by sending its young men to destroy my city, kill my friends, and crush my livelihood. Bush responds by an unprecedented expansion of government and intrusion of privacy, and squandering our resources so much that it’s nearly certain that I will get to keep even less of what I earn for the rest of my economic life. I have no sense of justice in his actions.
I don't have the solution. I don't think there is a simple solution, but discouraging dependence on Middle Eastern oil is a step in the right direction. Doing so will require standing up to those who think domestic oil production will harm the environment. (does anyone think Iraq cares about its environment? It's OK to trash the Earth over there, but drilling for oil in Alaska, or offshore, with all the environmental protections we can guarantee, is somehow bad. Hypocrites.) I wish that after 9/11, we had adopted a strong stance against Saudi Arabia. We don't need your oil, we'll do without, thanks for your business, goodbye. We would have survived. Gasoline prices, it was estimated at the time, would have instantly shot up to five or six dollars a gallon. We would have survived on oil from Venezuela and Russia. In the meantime, domestic investment in alternatives would have increased while people would alter their habits to lessen their dependence on oil. Think not? Examine what's happening right now, and your conclusion will remain the same, just come to pass a few years later. Eventually, you'll be paying five or six dollars a gallon for gas, and be happy you can get it at all.
Bringing back the subject of a presidency. I voted for Bush twice, and for sound reasons given what I knew at the time. But I did despair, then as now, that the greatest country on Earth couldn't come up with a better choice. I don't think for a moment we would have fared any better under John Kerry. In a country of 280 million people, the greatest minds, the most robust economy, the best leaders on Earth, and this is the best we can do?
Has there emerged a better candidate today? No question that Fred Thompson and Ron Paul offer refreshing alternatives to our present leadership. I would enthusiastically endorse either or both. Unfortunately, I despair that neither will, in the end, be elected. Presidential elections today are manipulated by popular media, who love, for instance, Obama for the singular reason that he's a good-looking, articulate black man, his opinion on critical issues be damned. I despair our present general level of education makes it impossible for an average voter to discriminate real differences between candidates in sufficient detail to make an informed choice. Most people are too obsessed with popular culture to care about anything else, and as election nears – mark my words – the issues will be diluted to a feeble minded topic like flag-burning or gays in the military, issues that everyone has an opinion about but ultimately mean less than nothing in terms of economic prosperity, personal freedom, national security, or preserving the American way of life. Things like that should determine elections, not who has a full head of hair and looks good on camera. As obvious as that last statement is, things will have to get pretty rotten for the average voter to care beyond a candidate's mere appearance. And things aren't rotten enough yet. In the end, people will vote Republican, because they're Republican, or Democrat, because that's what they are, and that's what the talking heads on TV (hey, they're good-looking; they must be smart!) tell them to do.
The point of this long discourse is to point out that it's not as simple as "great president", "worst president ever", or anything in between. Americans have to sort out the facts, decide for themselves, and hold their elected leadership accountable for their every action. Apparently that's just not important to most people.
When things become rotten enough for voters to care enough and think on their own, no one may be able to undo the damage.
What's disappointing to me is his dramatic reversal from his stated positions before the age of terrorism began. To illustrate the difference between himself and his predecessor, candidate Bush advocated selective engagement in foreign affairs. No more Somalia-type interventions in which we had no vital national interests. No one, not Bush, nor his policy advisors ever advocated imposing democracy upon cultures too immature or disorganized to value it. Life sucks in most parts of the world. Classes war with one another, life is cheap, leaders massacre and starve their own citizens, and we are arrogant to think the American military can change any of that.
The about face that occurred nine months into his presidency struck me as lacking a certain amount of introspection, self-critique, or (contrasting with the elder Bush) apparently well-informed advice. Was invasion of Afghanistan justified, if only to demolish the toxic regime that occupied the vacuum left by retreating Soviet forces? I believe so. Is the world a much, much better place with Saddam and his ilk now permanently below ground level? Certainly. The problem now seems to be the question "now what". Cultures in the Middle East have been warring with one another for centuries, and as much as we love our representative form of government, attempting to impose an American-styled democracy upon class-divided cultures more accustomed to benevolent - or otherwise - dictatorships isn't working. As long as this country depends upon energy from that oil-soaked part of the world, we will be motivated to impose some kind of order, some semblance of assurance tomorrow will be little changed from today, upon it, to permit our wheels of commerce to continue to run. Unfortunately order in the Middle East isn't coming any time soon, no matter what Washington does.
Clearly I want to be less dependent upon Middle Eastern oil. It disgusts me that so much of our GDP goes right to Saudi Arabia, which shows its thanks to us by sending its young men to destroy my city, kill my friends, and crush my livelihood. Bush responds by an unprecedented expansion of government and intrusion of privacy, and squandering our resources so much that it’s nearly certain that I will get to keep even less of what I earn for the rest of my economic life. I have no sense of justice in his actions.
I don't have the solution. I don't think there is a simple solution, but discouraging dependence on Middle Eastern oil is a step in the right direction. Doing so will require standing up to those who think domestic oil production will harm the environment. (does anyone think Iraq cares about its environment? It's OK to trash the Earth over there, but drilling for oil in Alaska, or offshore, with all the environmental protections we can guarantee, is somehow bad. Hypocrites.) I wish that after 9/11, we had adopted a strong stance against Saudi Arabia. We don't need your oil, we'll do without, thanks for your business, goodbye. We would have survived. Gasoline prices, it was estimated at the time, would have instantly shot up to five or six dollars a gallon. We would have survived on oil from Venezuela and Russia. In the meantime, domestic investment in alternatives would have increased while people would alter their habits to lessen their dependence on oil. Think not? Examine what's happening right now, and your conclusion will remain the same, just come to pass a few years later. Eventually, you'll be paying five or six dollars a gallon for gas, and be happy you can get it at all.
Bringing back the subject of a presidency. I voted for Bush twice, and for sound reasons given what I knew at the time. But I did despair, then as now, that the greatest country on Earth couldn't come up with a better choice. I don't think for a moment we would have fared any better under John Kerry. In a country of 280 million people, the greatest minds, the most robust economy, the best leaders on Earth, and this is the best we can do?
Has there emerged a better candidate today? No question that Fred Thompson and Ron Paul offer refreshing alternatives to our present leadership. I would enthusiastically endorse either or both. Unfortunately, I despair that neither will, in the end, be elected. Presidential elections today are manipulated by popular media, who love, for instance, Obama for the singular reason that he's a good-looking, articulate black man, his opinion on critical issues be damned. I despair our present general level of education makes it impossible for an average voter to discriminate real differences between candidates in sufficient detail to make an informed choice. Most people are too obsessed with popular culture to care about anything else, and as election nears – mark my words – the issues will be diluted to a feeble minded topic like flag-burning or gays in the military, issues that everyone has an opinion about but ultimately mean less than nothing in terms of economic prosperity, personal freedom, national security, or preserving the American way of life. Things like that should determine elections, not who has a full head of hair and looks good on camera. As obvious as that last statement is, things will have to get pretty rotten for the average voter to care beyond a candidate's mere appearance. And things aren't rotten enough yet. In the end, people will vote Republican, because they're Republican, or Democrat, because that's what they are, and that's what the talking heads on TV (hey, they're good-looking; they must be smart!) tell them to do.
The point of this long discourse is to point out that it's not as simple as "great president", "worst president ever", or anything in between. Americans have to sort out the facts, decide for themselves, and hold their elected leadership accountable for their every action. Apparently that's just not important to most people.
When things become rotten enough for voters to care enough and think on their own, no one may be able to undo the damage.
koja48
member
"Not great, but we could have done worse."
Now this sentiment I DO agree with! Whomever does become our next leader has a tough road ahead. I pray they are up for the task.
Now this sentiment I DO agree with! Whomever does become our next leader has a tough road ahead. I pray they are up for the task.
Thin Black Line
Member
Calling him "dumb" shows that some of you truly underestimate George II. He
will go down in history as someone who was able to put much of Machiavelli's
The Prince into actual practice.
His presidency will be discussed on The History Channel 100 years from now.
will go down in history as someone who was able to put much of Machiavelli's
The Prince into actual practice.
His presidency will be discussed on The History Channel 100 years from now.
esmith
Member
You people have no idea of the danger that lurks beyond out country's borders. There are islamic radicals that would kill you without batting an eyelash and you people call Bush a(n) 'idiot, dumb, retarded'. His campaign was completely devoted to protecting you and your rights that you have no idea the extreme effort used to get. Have you people seen a terrorist attack on U.S soil since 9/11? No you haven't, why do you think?
And for all the people who think Bush is an idiot because he pronounces nuclear wrong you need to understand something. Countless political figures have done things like saying words incorrectly because it shows they aren't perfect, it shows that he/she is just like you and that they make mistakes as well. It pertains to the people without showing he is incapable of making large mistakes. Its when people in the U.S take it to the extreme and make it out to be as if he is unable to do his job as president.
Lastly, a lot of you people are buying into the left wing media. With the corruption today you can't get a clear political view. This is why liberals have any power remaining today. If their media stations were regulated and not totally one sided, Democrats today would have no where to stand and all remaining power would fall. People would see the countless contradictions and hippocracys in the liberal mindset and boom, this country would change. It is time for America to wake up and smell the coffee.
And for all the people who think Bush is an idiot because he pronounces nuclear wrong you need to understand something. Countless political figures have done things like saying words incorrectly because it shows they aren't perfect, it shows that he/she is just like you and that they make mistakes as well. It pertains to the people without showing he is incapable of making large mistakes. Its when people in the U.S take it to the extreme and make it out to be as if he is unable to do his job as president.
Lastly, a lot of you people are buying into the left wing media. With the corruption today you can't get a clear political view. This is why liberals have any power remaining today. If their media stations were regulated and not totally one sided, Democrats today would have no where to stand and all remaining power would fall. People would see the countless contradictions and hippocracys in the liberal mindset and boom, this country would change. It is time for America to wake up and smell the coffee.
HankB
Member
Bush the worst?
Doesn't anyone remember Lyndon B. Johnson, the main architect of the Vietnam war - and ~58,000 dead Americans - not to mention his "Great Society" welfare programs, whose total cost to date is eerily close to our national debt?
Or Jimmy Carter, whose stance on human rights led the USA to kowtow to the U.N. on Rhodesian chrome, forcing us to buy it from that great defender of human rights, the Soviet Union? (It was OK for US coffee companies to buy their raw product from Uganda, then under Idi Amin, an admitted cannibal . . . seems to me that devouring someone ranks pretty high up the ladder of human rights abuses.) And of course, Jimmy's buddy Robert Mugabe is doing such a good job in Rhodesi - I mean Zimbabwe - today.
Of course, the extra cash from our chromium purchases helped the Soviets finance their invasion of Afghanistan with all the problems that followed, and then Jimmy idly watched the Ayatollah take over Iran and seize our embassy . . . and belatedly micromanaged the hostage rescue attempt into failure.
Bush isn't the worst president in my lifetime - by far.
But it's not for lack of trying, especially on profligate spending, treasonous illegal immigration policies, and fighing a PC war - it's just that LBJ and Jimmy set the bar so low . . .
(And just to be clear . . . dislike of Bush does NOT repeat NOT equate to approval or support of Hillary, Obama, Edwards, or any of a host of other Democrats.)
Doesn't anyone remember Lyndon B. Johnson, the main architect of the Vietnam war - and ~58,000 dead Americans - not to mention his "Great Society" welfare programs, whose total cost to date is eerily close to our national debt?
Or Jimmy Carter, whose stance on human rights led the USA to kowtow to the U.N. on Rhodesian chrome, forcing us to buy it from that great defender of human rights, the Soviet Union? (It was OK for US coffee companies to buy their raw product from Uganda, then under Idi Amin, an admitted cannibal . . . seems to me that devouring someone ranks pretty high up the ladder of human rights abuses.) And of course, Jimmy's buddy Robert Mugabe is doing such a good job in Rhodesi - I mean Zimbabwe - today.
Of course, the extra cash from our chromium purchases helped the Soviets finance their invasion of Afghanistan with all the problems that followed, and then Jimmy idly watched the Ayatollah take over Iran and seize our embassy . . . and belatedly micromanaged the hostage rescue attempt into failure.
Bush isn't the worst president in my lifetime - by far.
But it's not for lack of trying, especially on profligate spending, treasonous illegal immigration policies, and fighing a PC war - it's just that LBJ and Jimmy set the bar so low . . .
(And just to be clear . . . dislike of Bush does NOT repeat NOT equate to approval or support of Hillary, Obama, Edwards, or any of a host of other Democrats.)
longeyes
member
Precisely.
Discussions of Bush's "IQ" miss the point. He is the spear-point of a spear that was hurled long, long ago at the heart of America.
pcosmar
member
Those that don't remember history are doomed..
This from 20 years ago.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=82g3KxcFuoY
It is 9 parts and takes a while to watch, but is worth your time.
This from 20 years ago.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=82g3KxcFuoY
It is 9 parts and takes a while to watch, but is worth your time.
Kaylee
Member
"Have you stopped beating your wife yet?"
Such is the poll question, as I see it.
Oh, he's not the worst ever, not by a long shot. Nor the best.
He's had some great ideas, and for most of his first term was doing quite well, Medicare expansion and steel protectionism aside. That he took on the Social Security problem is a big plus to me, even if he failed he at least had the gumption to address the problem more or less realistically.
Second term hasn't been nearly so good.. his position on the immigration thing was not only bad for the country, it was politically stupid. You just can't ignore not only your base, but 80% or so of the country like that.
On the war.. mixed bag. On the one hand, he's one of the few in Washington who truly have some grasp on the true breadth of the problem. On the other, he's fallen prey to the "business as usual" mindset and let the momentum seriously slip.
I daresay the history books will be sympathetic to him on the issue, given his position as the head of a country that wanted neither to face a looming danger or even admit the nature of the enemy. In the light of future events, I think he'll look a lot better than he does now.
-K
And as to the "he's a moron" - can't really take seriously those who preach that. Daddy connections or no, a man doesn't run his academic and flying record with mush for brains. He's a bright guy, but a miserable public speaker. When he gets offscript and speaks from the heart, like he did just post 9/11 he can be good... but that's turned out to be the rare exception.
Such is the poll question, as I see it.
Oh, he's not the worst ever, not by a long shot. Nor the best.
He's had some great ideas, and for most of his first term was doing quite well, Medicare expansion and steel protectionism aside. That he took on the Social Security problem is a big plus to me, even if he failed he at least had the gumption to address the problem more or less realistically.
Second term hasn't been nearly so good.. his position on the immigration thing was not only bad for the country, it was politically stupid. You just can't ignore not only your base, but 80% or so of the country like that.
On the war.. mixed bag. On the one hand, he's one of the few in Washington who truly have some grasp on the true breadth of the problem. On the other, he's fallen prey to the "business as usual" mindset and let the momentum seriously slip.
I daresay the history books will be sympathetic to him on the issue, given his position as the head of a country that wanted neither to face a looming danger or even admit the nature of the enemy. In the light of future events, I think he'll look a lot better than he does now.
-K
And as to the "he's a moron" - can't really take seriously those who preach that. Daddy connections or no, a man doesn't run his academic and flying record with mush for brains. He's a bright guy, but a miserable public speaker. When he gets offscript and speaks from the heart, like he did just post 9/11 he can be good... but that's turned out to be the rare exception.
longeyes
member
Bush's mistakes aren't garden variety, they are so gargantuan as to suggest he's had "help." His immigration policy alone would have represented a grievous groin-kick to the American Republic. His war policy is, as far as I'm concerned, fatally tainted by disingenuous motives and political correctness. His spending policies show a flagrant disregard for the country's financial stability.
And, oh, yeah, where President 9/11, is the Manhattan Project for nuclear energy that should have followed hard upon?
Those of you who want to give him the benefit of the doubt, feel free. I think Bush isn't stupid, he's just in the grimy pocket of corporate interests that care little about the survival of this nation as we've known it.
And, oh, yeah, where President 9/11, is the Manhattan Project for nuclear energy that should have followed hard upon?
Those of you who want to give him the benefit of the doubt, feel free. I think Bush isn't stupid, he's just in the grimy pocket of corporate interests that care little about the survival of this nation as we've known it.
"Finding a President that agrees with each persons view will never happen."
Dude, if it were as simple as 'disagreements', there wouldn't be as much stewing resentment among the man's own political grassroots. He's boned the conservative movement over and worked feverishly to damage constitutional protections in the name of 'national security'. He had help of course, but that's neither here nor there- a truly principled man, who took his oaths seriously, would not have walked the path GW Bush has sprinted down.
Dude, if it were as simple as 'disagreements', there wouldn't be as much stewing resentment among the man's own political grassroots. He's boned the conservative movement over and worked feverishly to damage constitutional protections in the name of 'national security'. He had help of course, but that's neither here nor there- a truly principled man, who took his oaths seriously, would not have walked the path GW Bush has sprinted down.
Ala Dan
Member in memoriam
Wonderful President, Would Vote For Again Without Reservations
In all honesty, a lot of grief and heartaches have happened during his
tenure; other than the Wars in Iraq and Afaganistan. Come on people,
he had to endure the World Trade Center fiasco, a space shuttle crash,
two major hurricanes along the gulf coast. My GOD, what do you expect?
Mr. and Mrs. Bush are honorable people, who have tried to restore some
diginity to the Office Of The President; as well as to The White House.
Its just too bad that we don't have a stong "back-boned" candidate
runn'in in '08.
In all honesty, a lot of grief and heartaches have happened during his
tenure; other than the Wars in Iraq and Afaganistan. Come on people,
he had to endure the World Trade Center fiasco, a space shuttle crash,
two major hurricanes along the gulf coast. My GOD, what do you expect?
Mr. and Mrs. Bush are honorable people, who have tried to restore some
diginity to the Office Of The President; as well as to The White House.
Its just too bad that we don't have a stong "back-boned" candidate
runn'in in '08.
I cannot believe some of you are actually supporting this guy and this administration. Under Bush & Co. too many laws have been passed that are quite draconian. I'm sorry for you all that fell for the Iraq LIE back in 2003. I argued with a friend about this "war" even before it started, telling him that Saddam did not have any WMD's and that the information was bogus. How did I know this? Oh, these little things called ALTERNATIVE news sources. Funny how these little news sources knew what was going on while the MSM was spoon feeding all this BS to everyone. Let's not forget that we had 'no fly zones' over Iraq since the FIRST Gulf War. We never left Iraq the first time and we were expected to believe that they had time to develop all these weapons. I'm glad I didn't fall for the lie and I know to listen and read more than what the MSM puts out.
Democrat or Republican, it doesn't really matter anymore. Both parties are slaves to the lobbyist and corporate interests. They surely don't represent "We, the people". For all of you so worried about the Dems taking our weapons please do not think for one second that there are Repubs out there that who wouldn't do the same thing in a heart beat. It's all a matter of timing. And why are we in the pockets of Israel?? Like someone already mentioned, why are we sending them billions in aid every year?
For some strange reason, I don't have this great fear of these so-called terrorists that I am supposed to have. I am getting sick and tired of the fear-mongering and war-mongering going on. Ex. It's always great to announce the raised terror alert in the airport. That'll make the passengers feel good during their flights! Yeah! This government, does not represent us anymore, they represent themselves. To see it any other way is to be blind.
Democrat or Republican, it doesn't really matter anymore. Both parties are slaves to the lobbyist and corporate interests. They surely don't represent "We, the people". For all of you so worried about the Dems taking our weapons please do not think for one second that there are Repubs out there that who wouldn't do the same thing in a heart beat. It's all a matter of timing. And why are we in the pockets of Israel?? Like someone already mentioned, why are we sending them billions in aid every year?
For some strange reason, I don't have this great fear of these so-called terrorists that I am supposed to have. I am getting sick and tired of the fear-mongering and war-mongering going on. Ex. It's always great to announce the raised terror alert in the airport. That'll make the passengers feel good during their flights! Yeah! This government, does not represent us anymore, they represent themselves. To see it any other way is to be blind.
Master Blaster
Member
Wow completely off topic, NOTHING to do with GUNS, 100% political.
Belongs on DU IS this site now Democratic underground EAST???
What happened to THR? Has it been Hijacked by a bunch of liberals from DU?
Belongs on DU IS this site now Democratic underground EAST???
What happened to THR? Has it been Hijacked by a bunch of liberals from DU?
WildeKurt
Member
If he's not the worst, he's close to it. He's a man who has gotten where he has because he was born into wealth. He's poorly educated (yes, I know he went to an Ivy League school): He's taken the advise of others who have thier own agendas and is not educated enough to know the difference between good advise and bad advise. Frankly, I doubt he's a bad man, probably means well but is weak and insecure. It's those behind him that give him his lines who are setting US policy.
Frankly, I'm amused at the number of people here who still support him. His administration is very arrogant. They seem to consider themselves above the constitution (Didn't Mr. Cheney clain the Vice President wasn't part of the Executive branch recently?). Given enough time these neo-cons would go after our 2nd Amendment rights as they've tried with some of our other constitutional rights (limiting free speech, etc.). And Fox and most of the other neo-con networks will be right along for support.
Frankly, I'm amused at the number of people here who still support him. His administration is very arrogant. They seem to consider themselves above the constitution (Didn't Mr. Cheney clain the Vice President wasn't part of the Executive branch recently?). Given enough time these neo-cons would go after our 2nd Amendment rights as they've tried with some of our other constitutional rights (limiting free speech, etc.). And Fox and most of the other neo-con networks will be right along for support.
Given enough time these neo-cons would go after our 2nd Amendment rights as they've tried with some of our other constitutional rights (limiting free speech, etc.). And Fox and most of the other neo-con networks will be right along for support.
Agreed.
Neo-cons have Trotskyists ideological underpinnings.
The forerunners of neoconservatism were generally liberals or socialists who strongly supported World War II, and who were influenced by the Depression-era ideas of former New Dealers, trade unionists, and Trotskyists, particularly those who followed the political ideas of Max Shachtman[citation needed]. A number of future neoconservatives such as Jeane Kirkpatrick were Shachtmanites in their youth; some were later involved with Social Democrats USA[citation needed].
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservative
Agreed.
Neo-cons have Trotskyists ideological underpinnings.
The forerunners of neoconservatism were generally liberals or socialists who strongly supported World War II, and who were influenced by the Depression-era ideas of former New Dealers, trade unionists, and Trotskyists, particularly those who followed the political ideas of Max Shachtman[citation needed]. A number of future neoconservatives such as Jeane Kirkpatrick were Shachtmanites in their youth; some were later involved with Social Democrats USA[citation needed].
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservative
longeyes
member
Well, by your logic and by the polls, that would mean 80 per cent of America is part of the Democratic underground?
No, Bush is disliked not because he's on the Right but because he's a globalist leftist in all but name. He follows the cult of liberation theology--now combined with corporate capitalism. Missionary globalism, a peaceable kingdom of plantation capitalism. He, along with the neo-cons, are serious threats to our civil liberties--and THAT is where all of this is directly on-point in terms of the Second Amendment.
Shanghai McCoy
Member
GWB has been just as good a President as is daddy was...
Regretably I must admit to having voted for both of them
Regretably I must admit to having voted for both of them
Master Blaster
Member
longeyes
member
It's gratifying to see Bush getting in some quality time in his relationship with Putin. Maybe they can talk about gangster capitalism in Mother Russia, fueled by American investments?
- Status
