Republicans & Conservatives: Archives

You’ve got to be kidding! The Bush/Cheney administration has the worst environmental policies by far than any previous administration. He has consistently favored oil/mining/timber/polluting industries at the expense of our health. See http://www.sierraclub.org/planet/200404/bush10worst.asp

Thats what I always think when people say that it doesn’t matter if it is Kerry or Bush (gore/bush)President W. Bush is setting up a system that will continue to make our enviorment an unhealthy place, Esspecially if you live a big city, for years, and I am scared that 4, 8, 12 more years of his policies will choke us, litterally.

Coattails, - they got trimmed by the Kerry SteamRoller and Bush’s polls have been going down ever since, helped tremendously by the shape and dimensions of the government and its actions under his watch.

There might be enough thread left though, in Nov., to turn that coat into a necktie :-) !

Matthew:

At this point, and up until the election, its often the case that both sides make an attempt to turn to the middle. The logic is that you wont lose your base, since they know (wink wink) that you are just patronizing people with what they want to hear. But you might pick up some of the middle ground undecided voters.

We’ve seen Kerry move hard to the middle after being forced to go further left than he wanted to by Howard Dean. And we’ve seen Bush move also, taking issues such as Medicare etc off the table.

So, are the candidates different. I doubt anything we hear from now on will be of any use in answering that question, since their only answer now is to tell us what we want to hear.

Gentleman,
Why must you Bush Bash so ardently on the republican string. This site must be monopolized by Dems.

I have seen enough of this worst president this and worst president that. Let’s look at the worst president stuff:

There were 39 combat related killings in Iraq during the month of January….. in the fair city of Detroit (Michigan) there were 35 murders in the month of January. That’s one American city folks, about as deadly as the entire war torn country of Iraq!

The following appeared in the Durham, NC local paper as a letter to the editor.

Liberals claim President Bush shouldn’t have started this war. They complain about his prosecution of it. One liberal recently claimed Bush was the worst president in U.S. history. Let’s clear up one point: We didn’t start the war on terror. Try to remember, it was started by terrorists BEFORE 9/11.

Let’s look at the “worst” president and mismanagement claims.

FDR led us into World War II. Germany never attacked us: Japan did.

From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost, an average of 112,500 per year. Truman finished that war and started one in Korea, North Korea never attacked us. From 1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost, an average of
18,333 per year. John F. Kennedy started the Vietnam conflict in 1962. Vietnam never attacked us. I think history might show Eisenhower committed the troops and Kennedy was honoring that commitment.

Johnson turned Vietnam into a quagmire. From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were lost, an average of 5,800 per year. Clinton went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent, Bosnia never attacked us. He was offered Osama bin Laden’s head on a platter three times by Sudan and did nothing. Osama has attacked us on multiple occasions. In the two years since terrorists attacked us, President Bush has liberated two countries, crushed the Taliban, crippled al-Qaida, put nuclear inspectors in Lybia, Iran and North Korea without firing a shot, and captured a terrorist who slaughtered 300,000 of his own people. We lost 1000 soldiers, an average of 500 a year. Bush did all this abroad while not allowing another terrorist attack at home. Worst president in history? Come on!

The Democrats are complaining about how long the war is taking, but… It took less time to take Iraq than it took Janet Reno to take the Branch Davidian compound. That was a 51 day operation. We’ve been looking for evidence of chemical weapons in Iraq for less time than it took Hillary Clinton to find the Rose Law Firm billing records. It took less time for the 3rd Infantry Division and the Marines to destroy the Medina Republican Guard than it took Teddy Kennedy to call the police after his Oldsmobile sank at Chappaquiddick.

It took less time to take Iraq than it took to count the votes in Florida for god’s sake!

And as much as you might claim, you and I both know that no one is going to choke on greenhouse gasses. Stop being so melodramatic.

> There were 39 combat related killings in Iraq
> during the month of January….. in the fair
> city of Detroit (Michigan) there were 35
> murders in the month of January. That’s one
> American city folks, about as deadly as the
> entire war torn country of Iraq!

Your comparison is completely ridiculous.

You’re forgetting the 5,500 murders that were committed in Baghdad alone since the end of American hostilities, not including suicide bombing victims and coalition casualties. That’s ten times the New York City murder rate. And it’s about twenty times the murder rate in Baghdad before the invasion.

If you’re trying to argue that Iraq is safer than New York City, then I invite you to volunteer for the Army right away.

If you really want to compare apples to apples, you should compare the murder rates of police officers in New York to American soldiers in the Baghdad metro area (I’ll be fair and I won’t include Iraqi security forces, who are being slaughtered). As far as I know, there haven’t been hundreds of cops killed here in New York. So far this year the number is more like, well, it’s only one.

Oh, wait. That one was a heart attack. So the answer is actually zero.

> It took less time to take Iraq than it took
> to count the votes in Florida for god’s sake!

I’m not even sure we’ve “taken” Iraq. Are you? Deposing Saddam and dismantling the top level Baathist leadership and most government institutions isn’t the same as controlling Iraq, as we’ve come to learn the hard way.

Frankly, your analogies are pretty silly, and I fear for our nation’s future if people are using such illogical thinking to formulate their political beleifs. Just because Iraq isn’t as deadly as Vietnam or WWII doesn’t mean it’s not a bad situation in need of fixing. I mean, do you think that we shouldn’t be worried about Iraq for real until we start seeing hundreds of American deaths per day?

I happen to think that the current average of a handful a day is a problem that can be fixed. If you think that such numbers are acceptable, well, again, I suggest you join the Army right away.

-Cf

This thread, by the way, seems to have two aims:

1) To help those who reluctantly intend to vote for Bush rationalize that even though they know that their candidate is a failure, that Kerry would be a failure, too, so they might as well vote for the guy who gives us tax cuts and doesn’t look French.

2) To convince liberals who are sympathetic to Nader to forget about Kerry and vote for Nader.

Good try. I think that America’s consensus opinion will slowly continue to build: Bush ain’t the right guy for America, and Kerry ain’t the same thing. He will inherit many of Bush’s disasters (Iraq, deficits, jobs, health care, the environment, on and on) and like Bush he’ll have to deal with those problems, but the similarities end there.

-Cf

The Ark, whew! are you mixing up your facts. True, we did not elect the war on terror. True, WE DID elect the war in Iraq. Fact, it is not just liberals who hold that the invasion of Iraq was a humongous blunder in the way it was undertaken, a large number of conservatives, some well known and media spoken, like Pat Buchanan for example, also agree. This view that invading Iraq was a grave mistake as implemented, is a bi-partisan critique.

You seem to be arguing that wasted American troops only matters if their numbers are large. A small number of wasted American soldier lives appears to be OK with you, by your argument above. WOW!

Your last comment shows a fair amount of ignorance. 10’s of thousands of Americans die each year prematurely due to smoke stack and water born pollutants. The Journal of Medicine estimates 100’s of thousands of Americans suffer from pollutants each year in the form of asthma and other respiratory symptoms.

I know you won’t change your vote. That is fine. But, please, don’t pretend to be better than that other herd of bleating sheep who follow the Democratic Party line rather than get information and think for themselves. Kerry and Bush are just shepherds of different herds and represent only 1/3 of eligible voters, so you might want to cut the other 2/3 of eligible voters who know better than to belong to either of those parties, a little slack.

CF, there are differences between Kerry and Bush on some issues. But they are kindred spirits on a whole host of others. NAFTA, WTO and free trade, Staying the course in Iraq, increasing troops in Iraq, larger government, electing to invade Iraq and a few others. These are not peripheral issues. These are big time issues.

And why doesn’t Kerry want to discuss other important issues like how we are going to save Soc. Sec., how we are going to compete against growing international populations whose productivity will inevitably overtake our own in just a decade or two? And what about REAL campaign finance reform, or abolition of the FEC and Commission on Presidential Debates which provide no debates at all between (R) & (D) candidates by mutual agreement?

Sorry, but, in so many ways, Kerry and Bush are two peas from the same pod.

Okay ARK,

Beginning dismantle in T-minus ten seconds…

A: The war on terror does not include Iraq. The Taliban occupation of Afghanistan yes, Al Qaida yes, various other terror cells and organizations yes, Hammas yes, Iranian clerics yes,Not Iraq as there is no shown connection of funding or activity!

B:FDR attacked the axis powers (library cards are free)

C: Vietnam, We actually were under threat from The Soviets or is your memory that selective that huge chucks of history are removed to make way for Bush?

D: THe UN wanted our commitment to help in Bosnia, we refused, sad as that is. UN peacekeepers were unable to stop genicidal massacres as they could not intervene at a functioning military capacity. We joined with NATO that includes France and pulled in too little too late after a good portion of the warcrimes were already done. Now European law won’t let Milosevich hang as he should.

E: Clinton neglected alot of things on the world stage as he was slow to militarily act in numerous cases as evidenced.

F: The arguement about time in contrast to the Waco crimes committed by our government on it’s own citizens. Now I don’t defend Reno, I frankly hope she dies in a fiery wreck somewhere. Now Janet had 200 people all being led by ‘her’ she called the shots at the top and I think after day five she should have been yanked from her post(Slow to act Clinton). Now in contrast, how many soldiers and bradleys? and how much air support, how many apache’s and stealth fighters and f-16’s? How many British Harriers and other Brit aircraft? How many tanks on the ground? How many thousands upon thousands of soldiers mobilized? How many hundreds upon hundreds of bombs dropped and missiles fired? All to topple a dictator with no air force and any army that runs away at the first sight of a real army’s advance or if they do fight don’t have the equipment or reinforcements to keep it going very long? But we do.
Okay so it took more days for an idiotic illappointed attorney general to murder men women and children in a burning house than it took for an army of over a hundred thousand with multi billion dollar budgets and the latest technology and complete air superiotity to essentially knock over a fruit stand. And from two different countries(brit&US), mind you. That’s your arguement?

Now I’m gathering you got much of this pseudo-intelligencia from the national review or some other rediculously fallacious mag or website or did Rush compiled this dank data and put it on the radio while you sat there with pen and pad? Whatever the case war-fan your assertion is eroneous we have a fully equipped military thousands and thousands of soldiers stationed the world over This war was like The L.A. lakers playing a group of children in term of military superiority and equipment and technology and budgets and supplies and available surveilance and airpower and…. Gettin’ any of this yet Ark?

Christopher:

You hit on an important point, though I suspect it was just a subsidiary to your argument. That point was how Kerry, if elected, will inherit the effects of Bush’s policies.

How interesting to hear someone claim that a future President actually has to deal with issues left over from a previous President. And here all along, I was led to believe that a President comes in with a clean slate, and is responsible for all issues the second he is inaugurated.

Perhaps it is only Republican presidents who become responsible immediately for things like an economy that is falling by the time they arrive in the White House, or for jobs that have been declining (in the manufacturing sector, for example, since 1997).

It will be interesting to see Democrats change their mantra if Kerry manages to get elected, and push all responsibility onto the Bush administration for any problems they might incur.

Of course, the logical and correct viewpoint is that all presidents, regardless of party, face the effects of the prior administration. It would have been nice for Democrats in general to have understood this before they faced the prospect of a Democratic presidency.

I am amazed to see someone in the Right column arguing that Bush and Kerry are the interchangeable. Isn’t Kerry a Marxist-Leninist who’s going to surrender to the terrorists as soon as he is inaugurated? ;)

The Seirra Club is a special interest group in the pockers of the democratic party- to give them as a link to support your views on Bush’ enviro policy would be like be giving you an NRA link to support a right-wing view of gun policy. If you want a realistic assessment of Bush’s enviro policies, I suggest you read an environmentalist like Gregg Easterbrook (who is a democrat, by the way), who will explain why initiatives like the Clean Skies and Healthy Forests are actually very good ideas (even though he critizes Bush for not doing enough on energy policy ect). The problem is the left just lumps Bush’s enviro policy in with the rest of their critisms of him, without even thinking about it (you can also put gas prices on this list). Its understandable given that its an election year, but its pretty unthinking.

As for Kerry and Bush- they ARE the same on trade policy (despite Kerry’s current rhetoric about outsourcing, which I dont think he really means given his admirable record as a free trader) and basically would be the same on Iraq. where they differ a lot is in areas like tax policy, abortion (kerry actually opposed the partial birth abortion ban- which even most democrats agree should be banned).

Misha, the Sierra Club has no financial nor political ties to the Democratic Party. To say so, is akin to saying that because a decorated Arab American soldier is a Muslim, he must be a terrorist as well.

Seriously, because two entities share a common value does not put one in the hip pockets of another. If anything, the Democratic Party is in the pockets of the Sierra Club membership, many of whom, are probably Democrats as well. To suggest that Sierra Club is in the pockets of the Democratic Party is ludicrous. The Democratic Party is in the business of soliciting money.

I am surprised that you would defend Bush’s environmental policy. Granted, he has supported a few debateably positive policies for the environment like forest thining in fire danger zones. But, the smoke stack industries got a break from his administration, our National Parks are going to hell in a handbasket as reported this week in many headlines. Thousands of communities are now drinking polluted water, the majority of them from degraded underground pipes which admit external contaminants, which include MTBE’s, lead, and chromium. A large number of communities are now warned - if you are pregnant or contemplating becoming pregnant, do not drink the tap water. Some warning, since water bottlers are far too frequently bottling the same water coming from the taps.

I just can’t agree with you on this one.

Ark,
I believe you got the same “worst president?” email I got from my dad and cut/pasted it into this thread…

Lesley, I guess that that letter must be another example of the GOP mailing template letters out to their supporters telling them to cut-n-paste them into letters to the editors in local papers.

-Cf

well, we must admit…cut/paste is easier than actual research…

I’d don’t want to comment on most of the political gunk. I really could care less whether agendas are taken care of by those who come into government. I realize that most campaign promises get broken because they are either made from ignorance, or made for the ignorant. That is, the candidate doesn’t know what’s wrong with what’s promised, or the people it’s meant to persuade don’t know enough to tell it’s B.S. So for me, I’d rather have an apt and astute government than honest politicians. Or at least politicians who are wiser about what they promise.

I think the parties have allowed themselves to get too rigid about their platforms, a false consistency being the hobgoblins of small minds and divines as Emerson said. Give me Republicans and Democrats who are allowed a range of disagreement, instead of being forced into battle lines ala WWI.

With all that said, I’d like to make the case for political parties and other partisan organizations: Sometimes, you just have to act.

The genesis of the Democratic Party is in part owed to a choice that certain people made: not to back the constitution until certain guarantees were made concerning civil liberties. The ratification of the Bill of Rights was the compromise that made the constitution the law of the land.

It is understandable that America is a two party country, because many issues have an dilemma at their center that is difficult to resolve, and many issues of our time concern clear and distinct camps.

All in all, things come down to what views it becomes hard to hold when one acts along certain lines. A man in a company committing certain illegal acts to keep afloat may choose against a candidate promising reform for reasons of self interest. A person opposing the reasons for a war, might drift into opposing the continuance of the war itself, given enough time. A person who wishes to improve education, but finds the education program they supported to do it want, might very well retract support for the candidate, even if they agree with that person on other issues.

While we revile people for flocking to one side or another, we might want to take a moment to reconsider our oversimplified picture of the two party system, and understand that some change may very well occur beneath a shell of seeming conformity and stagnation.

Let’s look at the worst president stuff:

There were 39 combat related killings in Iraq during the month of January….. in the fair city of Detroit (Michigan) there were 35 murders in the month of January. That’s one American city folks, about as deadly as the entire war torn country of Iraq!

Ark, you bring up a great point. Three cheers for President Bush’s record on violent crime!

There were 39 combat related killings in Iraq during the month of January….. in the fair city of Detroit (Michigan) there were 35 murders in the month of January. That’s one American city folks, about as deadly as the entire war torn country of Iraq!

Detroit has a population of 951,270. Our troops population is at about 138,000. To equal the per capita murder rate of our soldiers, Detroit would have to see 269 people die in a single month. Our soldiers are dying at a much faster rate than murder victims in detroit.

Which is exactly why BUSH MUST GO.

I have long ago learned to take anything coming from BushNews, excuse me, FoxNews with a grain of salt. It is hard to present balanced and objective news when those running the company are major players in the GOP. That is why I love sites like this with all view points presented, even the wrong ones haha.

Lets just look at Sept 11 2001 to Operation Iraqi Liberation (OIL).

This guy claims 2900 civilian/government lives have been lost since 9/11 in the US and only 600 US military in Iraq. The actual number on 9/11 is 3200+, maybe the other 300+ are foreigners?. The number of US military is probably near 900 (not including the ever statistical ‘self-inflicted’ casualty).

Abu-Ghraib should teach us that humans should be treated as people… WHAT IF we say that Iraqi civilians do count, in the one year and three months since the war with Iraq started? 11,232 Iraqi civilians dead (which is more than the US casualties on 9/11). WHAT IF we also SAY that Afghani civilians actually do count also? In two years and four months, 3,767 dead (again more than US casualties on 9/11).

SOMEHOW Osama Bin Laden has fewer civilian deaths than Bush, even on a per year basis! If this guy argues that the death rate is a basis of reason that Bush is a better president, Osama Bin Laden would be a better selection for president according to this guy’s rules. Osama has only 1280 dead / year -vs- Bush has 6000 dead / year. This guy could argue that OSAMA IS 5 TIMES BETTER THAN BUSH!?

Suppose its just HOW LONG it takes???
OSAMA got most of his work done in one day. The war in Iraq was announced “Mission Accomplished” on May 1st (40 days). This guy should be more impressed that Osama was 40 times faster?

Granted you could argue that Bush’s civilian casualties are all collaterial. However when you get the Pentagon’s view on things, there is room for debate…

When U.S. warplanes strafed [with AC-130 gunships] the farming village of Chowkar-Karez, 25 miles north of Kandahar on October 22-23rd, killing at least 93 civilians, a Pentagon official said, “the people there are dead because we wanted them dead.” The reason? They sympathized with the Taliban. When asked about the Chowkar incident, Rumsfeld replied, “I cannot deal with that particular village.”

As an ACTUAL conservative - I’d like another option in November. Bush, Kerry or Nader are not going to do.

DUH-

kerry or bush?
NEITHER
come on now…
we either get a hypocrite or an easily-manipulated overachiever…

gimme some other options and then we can start talking…

until then…

just let the electoral college do its thing since that’s what they do anyways…

good debating though, I give you all props,
awesome site

I have to agree with smith. I am completely on the fence, and the grass doesnt look green on either side. I voted nader last year, so I do lean to the liberal side, but what makes me mad is everyone seems to be either “Pro-Bush” or “Anti-Bush”. I see little “Pro-Kerry”. C’mon guys, Bush sucks, fine- I get it already; But whats so great about Kerry? Dont tell me what Bush is doing wrong-tell me what Kerry will do right!

How about vote for a third party. It seems like there is only two parties who has a say. Think about it. Please

I would like to say all my friends are totally against Bush. That doesn’t mean I agree with them, because I don’t. The Iraq conflict or war as so called, is not the cause of Bush. If we weren’t paying so much attention to all the crap happening at the time of when we were deciding if O.J. was guilty and not concentrating on the little spooge stain on former President Clinton’s trousers, I believe we could have prevented all this. Mr. Clinton did nothing to help the security of our nation, he only helped weaken it. If we continue this route then all the third world piss ant countries will continue to dominate the U.S. and anyone who suports the U.S. We need to secure our country before its too late and if you believe Kerry will help, GOD HELP US. I GUESS WE LOST AND THE TERRORIST’S HAVE WON ALREADY! BUSH WILL NOT LET THIS COUNTRY DIE. WE’RE ALREADY DEAD IF KERRY IS THE ANSWER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I am a proud white American. I own Alot to the point I make the employees work every holiday the same pay. I have maid so much off this war I think I am going to take off on vacation. I love when our party took the office over. The best was when every dam demphat cried. George bush can stay in office when I make this Kind of money. I say forget the poor half ass folk. If there parents had no money how do you think they be able to keep it. Just probably invest in burger king or nappy fried chickkken. Don’t worry My fellow white americans, With bush in office we will be singing to the bank, Like in the thirties when we just took all that money and started a war to boost intrest and make more debt for the poor . Just like when we did the indians. Yes praise the lord.OOPS! no god really But don’t tell the others they might get smart and stop going to church, and become rich and edjucated. Don’t let that happen cause we need all to wrk for us and get rich, Thank god I am White.

just 1 question y da world can have peace and love.Look at all ya’ll fighting for this crap.

Christopher Fahey,

Im sorry that you feel this way about Bush and his works while President. I applaud you on the research though. Yet I am still disapointed in the fact that no matter what he has done you still cannot support him. In one of your responses you invited anyone who thought that Baghdad was safer than New York City to join the Army. I am especially angered that those who are in the military and those who are joining ,like myself, risk their lives for people like you. However, it is my choice on what profession I am involved in, and I know that there are other good things that we fight for. I also know that as a Christian it is required for the grace of God, which none of us deserves, that we must love all. So therefore I want to make it known that even though there are somethings that are not appreciated by others, such as soldiers fighting in Iraq, that I will still fulfill my duties in whatever i pursue with love in my heart.

Repubicans say that the world is safer without Saddam. Here’s the fact. Saddam was a secular dictator that was not a strong supporter of Islam. Saddam downplayed religion in his country in order to secure his power. Yes he was a ruthless man. However, The UN sanctions had rendered him basically harmless due to a decade of sanctions.

Now with the upcoming elections in Iran the Shiite majority will elect a pro Islamic figure to occupy power. The elected President will no doubt be influenced and allied with neighboring IRAN.

Hatred for America will boil over in a radical Muslim environment that did not exist before Bush created it. It is already happening, we are already becoming desensitized by the amount of violence against our troops and Iraqis. It will continue to fester and grow

The fools who think America by right just Kicks Ass are going to be the ones who bring this country down. We have killed over 100,000 Iraqis ,mostly women and children. They will seek revenge and Iraq will be a hot bed for terrorism that it never was before.

This will be historically worse than Vietnam. Of course we could leave our troops there for 40 years and spend trillions of dollars to try and fight this. That would do wonders for our economy.