13 May 10
Are conservatives kill joys? We stand up and say such things as, you need to balance your budgets. You need to have a handle on immigration. You need to be energy independent and anything less is unacceptable. You need to focus on people getting back to work more than entitlements that those who have jobs left are paying for.
Its hard being politically incorrect all the time, but hey, someone has to do it.
Now all you lefties out there, I left out, "Don't forget to eat your vegetables or there will be no desert!!" ðŸ˜
13 May 10
Originally posted by whodeyFunny, conservatives weren't saying any of that when they were in power.
Are conservatives kill joys? We stand up and say such things as, you need to balance your budgets. You need to have a handle on immigration. You need to be energy independent and anything less is unacceptable. You need to focus on people getting back to work more than entitlements that those who have jobs left are paying for.
Its hard being politically ...[text shortened]... out there, I left out, "Don't forget to eat your vegetables or there will be no desert!!" ðŸ˜
13 May 10
Originally posted by whodeyYes they were as you well know. I realize that present day conservatives are desperately trying to re-write history to make GW a non-conservative but in any event all those problems were present and most exacerbated when Reagan was President. Or was he a "statist", too?
Conservatives were in power?
13 May 10
2 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderSo what the @$$$ made "W" conservatives? Was it the wars he initiated? Was it his out of control spending? Was it his enormous entitlement for drugs for seniors? I know, he said he was against abortion. LOL. Yep, that qualifies him as a conservative.
Yes they were as you well know. I realize that present day conservatives are desperately trying to re-write history to make GW a non-conservative but in any event all those problems were present and most exacerbated when Reagan was President. Or was he a "statist", too?
13 May 10
1 edit
Originally posted by PsychoPawnHe is the lowest of the low because he posed as a conservative. People then turned on conservatism and voted for the Dems, but now we have "W" on steriods via Obama. I think people now see how closely the two operate. We spend uncontrollably without raising taxes enough to cover such spending. In addition, we add to the mix massive entitlements that will further burden our econmic demands. Did I forget to mention how they both turned a blind eye to illegal immigration and the nations energy needs as they both continue wars abroad to defent their foriegn oil supplies?
You don't call them conservatives anymore.
I think that as a result of both "W" and Obama's policies the two party system may have its days numbered.
14 May 10
Originally posted by whodeyThe funny thing is all this whining about how Bush wasn't a conservative NOW.
He is the lowest of the low because he posed as a conservative. People then turned on conservatism and voted for the Dems, but now we have "W" on steriods via Obama. I think people now see how closely the two operate. We spend uncontrollably without raising taxes enough to cover such spending. In addition, we add to the mix massive entitlements that will ...[text shortened]... a result of both "W" and Obama's policies the two party system may have its days numbered.
There was none of this when he actually was in power. Conservatives either thought he was a conservative or didn't care about the non-conservative stuff that he was doing. Which was it?
If Bush left power with a 58% approval rating and not one that was in the 20s or low 30s do you think he would have been thrown under the bus by conservatives still?
14 May 10
Originally posted by whodeyI think that as a result of both "W" and Obama's policies the two party system may have its days numbered
He is the lowest of the low because he posed as a conservative. People then turned on conservatism and voted for the Dems, but now we have "W" on steriods via Obama. I think people now see how closely the two operate. We spend uncontrollably without raising taxes enough to cover such spending. In addition, we add to the mix massive entitlements that will ...[text shortened]... a result of both "W" and Obama's policies the two party system may have its days numbered.
I think the two party system's problems have nothing to do with Bush or Obama.
I also think that without campaign finance reform there won't be any kind of change in the corporatocracy that we essentially have.
14 May 10
Originally posted by PsychoPawnI can't aruge that, however, I think Obama and "W" may be the nails in their respective parties coffins.
I think that as a result of both "W" and Obama's policies the two party system may have its days numbered
I think the two party system's problems have nothing to do with Bush or Obama.
I also think that without campaign finance reform there won't be any kind of change in the corporatocracy that we essentially have.
14 May 10
1 edit
Originally posted by PsychoPawnIts all about popularity isn't it? And what brings popularity? It seems to me that money in peoples pockets bring one popularity and you can't do that wrecking the economy with reckless spending, at least not for long. So "W" leaves office with the economic world collapsing as he leaves in addition to an unsavory war abroad. Not good. Of course, if he had been popular the conservatives would have attempted to feed off this popularity into the next election.
The funny thing is all this whining about how Bush wasn't a conservative NOW.
There was none of this when he actually was in power. Conservatives either thought he was a conservative or didn't care about the non-conservative stuff that he was doing. Which was it?
If Bush left power with a 58% approval rating and not one that was in the 20s or low 30s do you think he would have been thrown under the bus by conservatives still?
As for why conservatives did not lambast him, although I heard many be critical of him, was simply because they feared the alternative, which is what we are witnessing today. In fact, I hit the floor when I heard many of the conservative voices attacking his attempted successor McCain.
14 May 10
Originally posted by PsychoPawnwhodey, as a matter of strict bi-partisan free speech principle, is both FOR and AGAINST campaign finance reform, depending on whether he approves or disapproves of the policies of the politicians who receive donations.
I also think that without campaign finance reform there won't be any kind of change in the corporatocracy that we essentially have.
14 May 10
Originally posted by FMFJust because I may disapprove of corporate donations does not mean I would support any legislation that may "reform" such donations. I am very skeptical regarding such reform in light of the power corporate America now has on both parties. In addition, I am that much more skeptical when such reform is controlled by only one party.
whodey, as a matter of strict bi-partisan free speech principle, is both FOR and AGAINST campaign finance reform, depending on whether he approves or disapproves of the policies of the politicians who receive donations.
14 May 10
Originally posted by whodeyThat's handy. It allows you to always whinge under any and all circumstances, but also allows you to go quiet if the distortion caused by the money happens to be something you approve of. A kind of political sourpuss janusism. Handy that.
Just because I may disapprove of corporate donations does not mean I would support any legislation that may "reform" such donations.
14 May 10
Originally posted by FMFYou are a peice of work.
That's handy. It allows you to always whinge under any and all circumstances, but also allows you to go quiet if the distortion caused by the money happens to be something you approve of. A kind of political sourpuss janusism. Handy that.