I watched Newt, the last Great Conservative Embarrassment yesterday at some Con. Conference and I was stunned to hear him lash out at Bush AND Obama.
He said Bush and Obama are the same!
What do you think of this, seeing as you are a Con. and you think Bush was fab, whereas BHO is a turd?
Or is Newt just talking tadpole stuff?
I just love the variety of opinion (and the freedom to express them) in America.
In my country, if you wrote like this about the president, at the VERY least, you could get a severed donkey head on your doorknocker the next morning!
I see comments all over the web like Denford's. It's a shame that people don't understand the concept of Conservatism. Let's hope someone can step forward and spearhead Reagan Conservatism again.
It's a shame so many on the left have no idea where we come from. The scary part is that they don't even want to try to learn. Many seem happy to simply throw insults and act superior. :(
I continue to be amazed as the left wingers continue to equate Bush with Conservatives. Yes, he was Republican...no, he did not run a conservative platform.
And, as far as cleaning up after Republicans...the Dems have been controlling the House for the last 2+ years. The House, you know, the ones who make the laws and appropriate the funds. Dems made the mortgage situation what it is, starting with Carter. Clinton just continued it, and clowns like Barney Franks pushed to make it worse, and then denied any part in making the mess.
And, yes, I have a background in political science and economics. Do any of the Dem attackers here have one?
Wow. Are the Democrats so deluded to think that Bush was a conservative and that the problems we're facing are simply the result of the past eight years?
First of all, Bush wasn't a conservative. He spent money like a Democrat -- the only difference is that he was a "borrow and spender" rather than a "tax and spender." Conservatives tend to believe in small government, increased liberty for individuals and states, a non-interventionist foreign policy and free markets. Bush embraced almost none of that.
Second, we're in the middle of a mess that started 30 years ago when Carter and his gang of morons started pressuring banks to give out mortgages to people who couldn't pay them back. Sadly, Obama is simply contributing to the problem by allowing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to issue even more mortgage-backed securities -- the very instruments that encourage insane mortgage practices. We're going to be in worse shape under Obama's plans as a large component of it matches up with the classic definition of insanity -- doing the same things over and over again and expecting different results.
What is troublesome about Obama and his lackeys is that they seem more impressed with slogans and the appearance of "doing something" than actually making some hard choices. They seem to have no grasp of economics or, if they do, they're mostly concerned about the short term and could care less about what happens after Obama leaves office and this current recession repeats.
The election is over. It's time for the sloganeering to stop and for some solid policies to be made. Obama and his lads aren't up to the task.
Obama's taking a huge gamble and will probably fall flat on his face. I'm an independent and not a conservative but i tend to think that too much govt interference causes unintended problems down the road.
You may be right on the other stuff about what Cons stand for, but you sure as hell do not stand for non-interventionism in foreign policy.
It was Reagan, after all, who sent planes and commandos into British territoy (Grenada) and killed Prime Minister Bishop without even telling the Grenada Head of State (The Queen of England) what he was about to do.
Every unilateral intervention in foreign lands in the last 50 years has been started by Republicans. Right now, one of your buddies, Pat Robertson, is still calling on the Republican party to assassinate Hugo Chavez .
Non-interventionism in foreign policy? I don't think so.
Know what's interesting to me? Obama's scare tactics, we went out to dinner last night and the place was so crowded that we had to wait for a table for an hour.
I went to Coldwater to shop and women were buying tons of clothes.
Don't see any recession here in Texas. (thank God)
I was writing about classic conservatism. And by non-interventionist foreign policy, I meant that foreign policy which clearly furthers U.S. interests. The war in Iraq does not fall into that category, but I'd argue that Reagan's actions in Grenada may well have done that. Faced with proof that the Cubans were interested in using Grenada as a staging point to send weapons to radicals in central America, the Gipper decided to swat a couple of flies in hopes of protecting U.S. interests in our own hemisphere. Was that playing a bit too close to the line? Perhaps, but it's worth mentioning that the U.S. citizens backed him almost 100 percent.
Further, your statement that Republicans have been behind every unilateral invasion over the past 50 years is plain wrong. Kennedy and Johnson (both bastards) were responsible for those shenanigans in southeast Asia, and what of Clinton's fooling around in Bosnia?
Finally, Pat Robertson is no friend of mine. Chavez will get his if he starts fooling around with our national security. If his own people don't tear him to pieces first, of course.
10 comments:
He actually believes he's doing the right thing. Yep, his day is coming. Shortly I hope.
Have a terrific Friday and weekend. :)
are you a political science major, or even an economics major ?
usually I read your blog and drop, rolling along - but today you touched me in a very special place.
Like President Obama, I'm Tired.
you have so much to learn, about having to clean up after Yourself.
that's what he's doing - Cleaning Up After Republicans Like You ..
Thank God someone is doing it, because if we left it to you all to do we'd still be waist deep in Elephant poo.
Republicans - when will you get a clue .. GO Shopping.
I watched Newt, the last Great Conservative Embarrassment yesterday at some Con. Conference and I was stunned to hear him lash out at Bush AND Obama.
He said Bush and Obama are the same!
What do you think of this, seeing as you are a Con. and you think Bush was fab, whereas BHO is a turd?
Or is Newt just talking tadpole stuff?
I just love the variety of opinion (and the freedom to express them) in America.
In my country, if you wrote like this about the president, at the VERY least, you could get a severed donkey head on your doorknocker the next morning!
I see comments all over the web like Denford's. It's a shame that people don't understand the concept of Conservatism. Let's hope someone can step forward and spearhead Reagan Conservatism again.
It's a shame so many on the left have no idea where we come from. The scary part is that they don't even want to try to learn. Many seem happy to simply throw insults and act superior. :(
I continue to be amazed as the left wingers continue to equate Bush with Conservatives.
Yes, he was Republican...no, he did not run a conservative platform.
And, as far as cleaning up after Republicans...the Dems have been controlling the House for the last 2+ years. The House, you know, the ones who make the laws and appropriate the funds. Dems made the mortgage situation what it is, starting with Carter. Clinton just continued it, and clowns like Barney Franks pushed to make it worse, and then denied any part in making the mess.
And, yes, I have a background in political science and economics. Do any of the Dem attackers here have one?
Wow. Are the Democrats so deluded to think that Bush was a conservative and that the problems we're facing are simply the result of the past eight years?
First of all, Bush wasn't a conservative. He spent money like a Democrat -- the only difference is that he was a "borrow and spender" rather than a "tax and spender." Conservatives tend to believe in small government, increased liberty for individuals and states, a non-interventionist foreign policy and free markets. Bush embraced almost none of that.
Second, we're in the middle of a mess that started 30 years ago when Carter and his gang of morons started pressuring banks to give out mortgages to people who couldn't pay them back. Sadly, Obama is simply contributing to the problem by allowing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to issue even more mortgage-backed securities -- the very instruments that encourage insane mortgage practices. We're going to be in worse shape under Obama's plans as a large component of it matches up with the classic definition of insanity -- doing the same things over and over again and expecting different results.
What is troublesome about Obama and his lackeys is that they seem more impressed with slogans and the appearance of "doing something" than actually making some hard choices. They seem to have no grasp of economics or, if they do, they're mostly concerned about the short term and could care less about what happens after Obama leaves office and this current recession repeats.
The election is over. It's time for the sloganeering to stop and for some solid policies to be made. Obama and his lads aren't up to the task.
Obama's taking a huge gamble and will probably fall flat on his face. I'm an independent and not a conservative but i tend to think that too much govt interference causes unintended problems down the road.
http://politicalanimal.today.com/
Hawg,
You may be right on the other stuff about what Cons stand for, but you sure as hell do not stand for non-interventionism in foreign policy.
It was Reagan, after all, who sent planes and commandos into British territoy (Grenada) and killed Prime Minister Bishop without even telling the Grenada Head of State (The Queen of England) what he was about to do.
Every unilateral intervention in foreign lands in the last 50 years has been started by Republicans.
Right now, one of your buddies, Pat Robertson, is still calling on the Republican party to assassinate Hugo Chavez .
Non-interventionism in foreign policy? I don't think so.
Denford
Know what's interesting to me? Obama's scare tactics, we went out to dinner last night and the place was so crowded that we had to wait for a table for an hour.
I went to Coldwater to shop and women were buying tons of clothes.
Don't see any recession here in Texas. (thank God)
Denford:
I was writing about classic conservatism. And by non-interventionist foreign policy, I meant that foreign policy which clearly furthers U.S. interests. The war in Iraq does not fall into that category, but I'd argue that Reagan's actions in Grenada may well have done that. Faced with proof that the Cubans were interested in using Grenada as a staging point to send weapons to radicals in central America, the Gipper decided to swat a couple of flies in hopes of protecting U.S. interests in our own hemisphere. Was that playing a bit too close to the line? Perhaps, but it's worth mentioning that the U.S. citizens backed him almost 100 percent.
Further, your statement that Republicans have been behind every unilateral invasion over the past 50 years is plain wrong. Kennedy and Johnson (both bastards) were responsible for those shenanigans in southeast Asia, and what of Clinton's fooling around in Bosnia?
Finally, Pat Robertson is no friend of mine. Chavez will get his if he starts fooling around with our national security. If his own people don't tear him to pieces first, of course.
Post a Comment