^UGGHHH

 

I dont wanna hear it!

 

Bush is a horrible president no matter where his exact stances rate on the "political scale" hands down a terrible insensitive man who cares more about a good US reputation than good US lifestyle.

 

He makes me sick

:sick2:

 

Ummm read my post, i'm not supporting him. I'm stating what he is. I'm stating what he is, not a conservative.

THus bringing back to my original point, liberals are about huge government and so is bush, so why do they hate him so? We all know he;s a bad leader, but from a liberal stand point fiscally, he's one of the most liberal leaders we've had, thus why would fiscal liberals hate him? it makes no since, he's enacted policies that align with them, yet they still bash him.

I know, I was referring to all those pro-Bush posts. I didnt mean to insult your post, but I just dont like hearing that Bush is better than B Clinton cuz B Clinton didnt start a war for no reason.

 

 

And I know CM cant be pres cuz hes not US citizen, but lets get that amended!

I know, I was referring to all those pro-Bush posts. I didnt mean to insult your post, but I just dont like hearing that Bush is better than B Clinton cuz B Clinton didnt start a war for no reason.

 

 

And I know CM cant be pres cuz hes not US citizen, but lets get that amended!

 

Bill was much better then Bush, like i said he was conservative compared to Bush and i'm a conservative so i would like Clinton over Bush.

And libs hate him cuz most libs are anti-war, hes obviously pro-war.

 

 

 

:ears:(Bush): Hey, lets invade Iraq!

:thinking:(Random liberal politician): But Mr. President, theres no reason to get involved, its obvious they have no WMD's.

:ears::I dont care, lets invade and then later say its for "rebuilding". Yeah people will buy that right?

:smart:(Dick Cheney): Yes, of course they will. Now INVADE! KILL THEM ALL!! HAHAHA!!

:confused:(Concerned liberal): Well our country's goin down the :toilet:

 

THE END

And libs hate him cuz most libs are anti-war, hes obviously pro-war.

 

 

 

:ears:(Bush): Hey, lets invade Iraq!

:thinking:(Random liberal politician): But Mr. President, theres no reason to get involved, its obvious they have no WMD's.

:ears::I dont care, lets invade and then later say its for "rebuilding". Yeah people will buy that right?

:smart:(Dick Cheney): Yes, of course they will. Now INVADE! KILL THEM ALL!! HAHAHA!!

:confused:(Concerned liberal): Well our country's goin down the :toilet:

 

THE END

 

But we must always think intelligently, democrats and republicans in congress supported and ok'd this horrid war. They too are the problem along with Bush. If we ignore this, the problems will keep repeating themselves, we have to go after Bush and Congress.

Bush's Government Expansion:

1. War Department (a closer fit than Defense under Bush)

2. Spy agencies

3. Debt. growing

4. Church-State Agencies

5. Pork to Donors

-----------------------------------------------

Liberal Government Programs:

1. FEMA

2. Funding Real Science

3. Agencies for oversight of common interests (OSHA, FDA, etc.)

4. Safety-nets (health care, Soc. Sec. retirement benefits, etc.)

 

So, Bush is no Liberal in my book! He's grown the government all right - just not things that benefits the majority of Americans! Tell the truth!

Liberal common definition is big government, not in any certain way. Conservative is small government. By the general definition he is very liberal. He's the wrong kind of liberal, i don't mind liberals who fund science and health care. He's just a plain loser, he can't even be a liberal very well.:shocked2:

Money Talks! Too many political pay-outs and campaigns checks; it's an incestuous relationship between big corporations, lobbyists, and politicians. True, this is where Campaign Finance Reform with Real Teeth needs to take hold. Without it, the Government will not do what's in the best interests of we, the people.

Liberal common definition is big government, not in any certain way. Conservative is small government. By the general definition he is very liberal. He's the wrong kind of liberal, i don't mind liberals who fund science and health care. He's just a plain loser, he can't even be a liberal very well.:shocked2:

In the most common sense, by definition, this is true. However, most people do not see it this way. And while he may be "conservatively spending" on programs aimed to help people in need, he is "liberally spending" on those programs which are damaging to our well being! What most people think of when they hear the term "liberal" or the term "conservative" is not simply one of spending preference, but also of philosophical difference. So, I would rather not have the term "liberal" applied to Bush - yes, he is criminal, not liberal.

I have neighbors who I do hold in high regard - and they are the Eisenhower conservatives. Their version of conservatism I see as legitimate and thoughtful, to the benefit of the nation, and very cautious on excess defense spending. So, if we could combine careful spending with effective government, we would get somewhere!!;)

I just wish we could do like Jefferson said and hit the "reset" button every 19 years. We don't need all these laws, taxes, obligations, etc.

 

But yeah, I respect all other opinions in this thread even if they suck. :D :P

In the most common sense, by definition, this is true. However, most people do not see it this way. And while he may be "conservatively spending" on programs aimed to help people in need, he is "liberally spending" on those programs which are damaging to our well being! What most people think of when they hear the term "liberal" or the term "conservative" is not simply one of spending preference, but also of philosophical difference. So, I would rather not have the term "liberal" applied to Bush - yes, he is criminal, not liberal.

I have neighbors who I do hold in high regard - and they are the Eisenhower conservatives. Their version of conservatism I see as legitimate and thoughtful, to the benefit of the nation, and very cautious on excess defense spending. So, if we could combine careful spending with effective government, we would get somewhere!!;)

 

Ill give you that, It pisses me off when he calls himself a conservative or others do. Bush is not a conservative, we're a dying breed. Just ask Ron Paul.

 

But you have a point, we agree.

If our founding fathers were alive they'd be ashamed of America and its government.

THus bringing back to my original point, liberals are about huge government and so is bush, so why do they hate him so? We all know he;s a bad leader, but from a liberal stand point fiscally, he's one of the most liberal leaders we've had, thus why would fiscal liberals hate him? it makes no since, he's enacted policies that align with them, yet they still bash him.

 

 

which policy has he enacted that aligns with liberal policies today? Last time i checked i wanted my tax dollars to go to Social Security, medicaid, healthcare, and various other social services, not to increase the defense budget to 600 billion dollars.

 

 

 

my favorite thing about bush is that he takes a sky high surplus left by Clinton, absolutely runs the economy into the ground and into trillions of dollars in debt. The dollar is tanking, gas is outrageous, and Americans are dying. On top of that he increases defense spending to 600 billion dollars.....BUT every time congress tries to get some money for social welfare programs, he vows to "corral runaway liberal spending".

which policy has he enacted that aligns with liberal policies today? Last time i checked i wanted my tax dollars to go to Social Security, medicaid, healthcare, and various other social services, not to increase the defense budget to 600 billion dollars.

 

 

 

my favorite thing about bush is that he takes a sky high surplus left by Clinton, absolutely runs the economy into the ground and into trillions of dollars in debt. The dollar is tanking, gas is outrageous, and Americans are dying. On top of that he increases defense spending to 600 billion dollars.....BUT every time congress tries to get some money for social welfare programs, he vows to "corral runaway liberal spending".

 

Liberal is big government and big spending, not big government how you like it. So by default he is technically fiscally liberal. Thus fiscal conservatives such as myself can't stand him. So just spending tons and expanding government makes him liberal, maybe not the liberal you agree with but liberal none the less.

 

He is the worst kind of fiscal liberal, i'd rather spend the money he has spent on doing good things, and he's socially conservative which is bad. He may not be liberal like you, but he's NOT fiscally conservative.

 

I guess he's not aligned with modern day liberals, like you pointed out, but he's not aligned with conservatives, at least true ones(not Sean Hannity)

I have an idea, why don't we swap governments for a year.

 

Get Brown and co running America and Bushy and company running U.K, then you will see how bad Brown is.

which policy has he enacted that aligns with liberal policies today? Last time i checked i wanted my tax dollars to go to Social Security, medicaid, healthcare, and various other social services, not to increase the defense budget to 600 billion dollars.

 

 

 

my favorite thing about bush is that he takes a sky high surplus left by Clinton, absolutely runs the economy into the ground and into trillions of dollars in debt. The dollar is tanking, gas is outrageous, and Americans are dying. On top of that he increases defense spending to 600 billion dollars.....BUT every time congress tries to get some money for social welfare programs, he vows to "corral runaway liberal spending".

 

He changed Medicare to include prescription drugs, something that's going to increase the amount of taxpayer money going to social services substantially more than any Democrat has done since LBJ.

 

http://services.alphaworks.ibm.com/manyeyes/view/S62J0EQ9mVa6O_kEoi71E2~

 

Here's an interactive graph that shows you the growth of government spending over the years.

 

Further, I don't understand why a "sky high surplus" is necessarily a good thing, either: after all, if the government takes more of your money than is necessary, isn't that a bad thing as well?

 

Somehow we've managed to make it this far without such a big government. We've survived, thrived. But the liberals continue to make us believe that if we just reallocate our incomes to paying for the stupidity of others (smoking, obesity, etc) we'll be much better off in the world. There isn't any proof socialist policies like that work. Indeed, I'd go so far as to call it "voodoo economics". ;)