Some united..... up to his old tricks

Discussion in 'Political Discussions' started by Mr. Engineer, Nov 5, 2004.

Loading...
  1. Mr. Engineer

    Mr. Engineer member

    Yes - less than 48 hours after his victory and speech about being a "uniter", the divider is back to his old tricks. I can only hope that the new democratic leadership has more balls than Dachle to keep this man in check

    http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20041105/ap_on_el_pr/bush&cid=694&ncid=716

    What GW forgets is that the Nation is not a corporation and he is not the CEO. He can either learn the art of compromise, or risk seeing any program which requires a 66% vote go down in flames. And history will remember what he did or did not accomplish, not what the Congress did to stifle any proposed changes.
     
  2. Guest

    Guest Guest

    Less than 48 hours after Bush's victory speech and the left is back to its old tricks------one of which is criticizing the president of the United States..........
     
  3. Mr. Engineer

    Mr. Engineer member

    Oh, you mean our Commander in Chimp? The one who slimed his way out of Vietnam, and his caped crusader, the one who dodged all together? The same two who had the nerve to criticize the service of both Kerry and McCain?

    Yes, he was elected. It doesn't mean I have to respect the slimeball any more than I suspect you respected Clinton.
     
  4. Guest

    Guest Guest

    What's the problem here? Bush said in his campaign that he wanted to reform SS and institute Personal Savings Accounts.

    I wish I had the opportunity in my younger days to keep my social security deductions and invest them.

    For a Libertarian you seem to be for big government which is anathema to libertarianism.

    The majority of the people agree with him. Give it up, Mr. Engineer, you lost...you lost...you lost. Stop being a sore loser and stop doing what you accuse the President of, being divisive!

    I said I was willing to hold off on any criticism of Kerry for six months to a year if he got elected. Can you not even give Bush a few months into his new term before you criticise him?
     
  5. Mr. Engineer

    Mr. Engineer member

    The problem with Bush is that he will always be a divider. His true beleiver attitude has divided this nation and what he said today makes me believe that he will continue with his agenda.

    There is very little difference between the Cons and Liberals when it comes to government programs and control. The Cons want to provide welfare to Halliburton, the Demos give it to drug addicts. The Cons want to limit gay marriage (I guess they think that gays will want to do them if given the opportunity - lol) - The Demo's want to stuff it down our thoats.

    And the worst of all: The Cons want to give limitless power to corp without regulation but limit the regress of the people to sue these corps. The Demo's want the opposite

    My opinion: Limit government regulations but also do not intervene in lawsuits. Believe it or not, in a civilized society is the common man's only regress against corporate misconduct. What is the common man supposed to do - go off and shoot the CEO of Philip Morris for creating a product that kills people? Now - how civilized is that?
     
  6. nosborne48

    nosborne48 Well-Known Member

    Mr. Engineer:

    I fear that your assessment is accurate.

    I have posted here in the past that I thought the President's faith was fake, merely a cheap way to garner votes while giving the country to his rich friends. I now suspect that I was wrong.

    Mr. Bush will not change because economic reality, scientific facts, even MORAL considerations do not seem to weigh very heavily with him. His faith is absolute that he is doing God's will. Not only WON'T he deviate, he literally CANNOT deviate.

    I saw in this morning's paper what he meant by "reaching out". He means reaching out to those who agree with him. The rest of us, the 49% who don't agree, are arguing for positions contrary to his own and therefore, in his own mind, contrary to God's will. We must be ignored when we can't be suppressed.
     
  7. Guest

    Guest Guest

    And while all you Bush bashers bloviate, the Labor Department announced a job increase of 337,000 jobs when the projection was only 175,000.

    Of course only Christians got these jobs! :rolleyes:

    I guess it's time to stop defending the Bush Administration. We won and that's all that matters. You guys and gals can engage in your criticisms and bitterness for the next four years while the rest of us will simply relax knowing our guy won and holds the office. That's really all the comeback we need to counter your bashing--we're in, you're not! :D :D :D :D
     
  8. DaveHayden

    DaveHayden New Member

    If Kerry had won by the margin Bush did, how would things be different? Don't you think he would be pushing his agenda as much as possible? How much reaching out would he have done?

    I think Bush has a right even a duty to make the changes he ran on. That doesn't mean he can't reach out and, to a degree, build a coalition. If he abandons the ideals he ran on he would be a poor choice as a leader.

    Bush got elected for two reasons. People saw things in Kerry they didn't like, while at the same time seeing Bush as better choice. The Democratic Party put the best candidate forward they could, and lost. Either you believe in the Democratic system or you don't. If you do, you owe a certain respect and a withholding of overly critical judgement to the elected choice. Wouldn't you want the same for any successful Democratic candidate?
     
  9. Guest

    Guest Guest

    This is exactly what my wife and I did in 2000. We did not like Bush and did not vote for him. We thought he was inexperienced, awkward, and kind of simple.

    However, we withheld our judgement when he got elected giving him the opportunity to prove himself. We watched him very closely and came to see a man of great ability, resolve, consistency, constancy, and convictions that stemmed from a core set of values.

    Bush is the first presidential candidate I voted for that won since 1976. I voted Nixon in '72. Nixon, in his second term, let me down and so did Carter.

    I believe Bush will break my streak of voting for presidential winners that let me down.
     
  10. Guest

    Guest Guest

    As a Libertarian this shouldn't bother you at all since the Party opposes military intervention. I would think these men, as well as all draft dodgers, would be your heroes.

    Remember that Clinton received a huge number of GOP votes when he ran for reelection.
     
  11. nosborne48

    nosborne48 Well-Known Member

    I certainly agree that the people chose Mr. Bush, exactly as the people chose Mr. Clinton in consecutive elections. I don't recall any decrease, temporary or otherwise, in the virulent attacks the Clintos suffered at those times.

    Dave Hayden expressed my own view of the Kerry campaign...you can't just be "against". You have to be "for" something, too. We Democrats need to either copme up with a vison for the country or go out of business altogether.
     
  12. gkillion

    gkillion New Member

    Why is it that Bush must "reach out"? He won! He gets to be in charge, along with all the other Republicans who won.

    When you win you get to impliment YOUR ideas, push YOUR agendas, and nominate YOUR judges. That's how the system works. Do you expect Bush to run a platform and then not stick to it once he is elected?

    It's the minority of Democrats who should reach out. Obviously the country does not support their agenda. Maybe they should realize it's time to come up with something new.

    If the Dems want their way, they should try winning once in a while.
     
  13. Guest

    Guest Guest

    Interesting that when Clinton won back to back the Dems didn't talk about reaching out to the GOP.
     

Share This Page