The Conservative Case Against George W. Bush

[Annie]

with all due respect, splitting votes with bush would not be a bad thing in the long run. the more candidates ALLOWED to run, the better off our political system would be. As it stands now, We have far too strict requirements per state to get on a federal ballot. There's something extremely un-american about that.

Actually, more than 2 major parties has always been a rarity in the US. I guess the Bull Moose had some success. Then there was Perot... so it may be 'less democratic', but I would not describe it as 'un-American.'

 

[rtwngAvngr]

with all due respect, splitting votes with bush would not be a bad thing in the long run. the more candidates ALLOWED to run, the better off our political system would be. As it stands now, We have far too strict requirements per state to get on a federal ballot. There's something extremely un-american about that.

Yeah. Well. The thing about the long run is that the short run always comes first. And in the short run, erosion of support for Bush would be disastrous for the nation. IMHO.

 

[tpahl]

To allow you to erode support for Bush during a time of war is something I simply cannot do. Your irresponsible positions and misprioritizations will not go unrebutted. :funnyface

I welcome you to argue against any position or prioritization that I have that you feel is wrong or misdirected. What I do not appreciate is you claiming that I am just out to split Bushs vote and do not really share any conservative veiws and other misrepresentations about me. I have made it very clear and been very honest in where I am coming from.

As for eroding support for Bush in a time of war... I leave you with a quote from Teddy Roosevelt...

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else."

- Teddy Roosevelt in the Kansas City Star", May 7, 1918

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Kerry may be ultra liberal, but Bush is close to it as well. Looking at Bushs record, he is not a conservative. The choice between Bush and Kerry is a choice between liberal and liberal.

Voting for Badnarik may swing it to Kerrys favor and you may find that slightly worse, but in 4 years from now the republicans will not put up a liberal as their candidate again. In the long run we would be better off.

Travis

Here's a better solution. Let's split the liberal vote with this ad:
(we can always pick a more conservative candidate next time)

Vote for the RIGHT liberal! Vote Bush!

 

[Annie]

Here's a better solution. Let's split the liberal vote with this ad:
(we can always pick a more conservative candidate next time)

Vote for the RIGHT liberal! Vote Bush!

 

[5stringJeff]

Badnarik is not going to win, so voting for him does not mean we will see him as president for the next four years.

Which is precisely why I'm not wasting my time on him.

 

[ajwps]

Kerry may be ultra liberal, but Bush is close to it as well. Looking at Bushs record, he is not a conservative. The choice between Bush and Kerry is a choice between liberal and liberal.

Voting for Badnarik may swing it to Kerrys favor and you may find that slightly worse, but in 4 years from now the republicans will not put up a liberal as their candidate again. In the long run we would be better off.
Travis

Travis if you think Bush is not totally ultraliberal but only close to it then instead of wasting your vote on Badnarik, hold your nose and pull the lever for Bush, 04.

Badnarik's states that he is for turning tail and getting out of Iraq and that he is willing to wait until New York and Chicago are blown off the map before thinking about asking for sanctions against the Islamic League of Texas.

 

[tpahl]

Actually, more than 2 major parties has always been a rarity in the US. I guess the Bull Moose had some success. Then there was Perot... so it may be 'less democratic', but I would not describe it as 'un-American.'

But third party candidates have although rarely won, almost always changed policy in some regards. Social security reform was something that only libertarians had discussed and pushed for many years. finally some privitization of that system seems inevitable. Perot pushed a balanced budget and Clinton finally deleivered. the socialist party in the 1930s has over the course of the last centruy got nearly everything it asked for in the 30's just by pushing their platforms into mainstream.

Voting for badnarik and other libertarians will return limited government as teh founders intended it regardless of whether they get elected or not (if people do not fall for the lesser of two evils trap.

 

[tpahl]

Which is precisely why I'm not wasting my time on him.

which is precisely why we continue to get more and more liberal candidates for president from the GOP.

 

[tpahl]

Travis if you think Bush is not totally ultraliberal but only close to it then instead of wasting your vote on Badnarik, hold your nose and pull the lever for Bush, 04.

The lesser of two evils is still evil. I will not waste my vote on any liberal regardless of what party he/she is from. I take that back. If they are a classical liberal then I would gladly pull the lever for them!

Travis

 

[ScreamingEagle]

The lesser of two evils is still evil. I will not waste my vote on any liberal regardless of what party he/she is from. I take that back. If they are a classical liberal then I would gladly pull the lever for them!

Travis

During his first term, Bush was very conservative on two very important and fundamental concerns: protecting our country and taxes.

How do you know that Bush won't become even more conservative after being elected for a second term? You DO realize that his liberal stance is to garner more votes? I would rather see the Dem party go into shock from losing again - it should be fun to watch.

ps: then let the Dems vote in Badarik (I believe you will see a swing back to the middle by the Dems after losing this election) - that of course would also push the Reps further to the right.

 

[Merlin1047]

This thread is not about isolationism or appeasement. Badnarik is not going to win, so voting for him does not mean we will see him as president for the next four years. It would instead throw the election to Kerry who will keep the PATRIOT act, keep the war in Iraq and in fact send more troops, keep the war in afghanistan, etc... I would not be surprised if he did not continue the whole thing and invade another country in the next four years. His policy is not much different from Bush now and once he is in power it will be nearly identical, so you do not need to worry about not being here in 4 years, if you are not worried if Bush is elected.

Voting for Badnarik will give us Kerry in all likelyhood but will send a strong message to the GOP.

Why don't you fess up and admit you're working for kerry?

Who but a kerrymite would come up with the "logic" that Bush is insufficiently conservative, so vote for Banarik and end up electing kerry, the most liberal member of the Senate.

My philosophy is to vote for the most rightward leaning VIABLE candidate running. Badnarik does not qualify in the VIABLE department and no amount of huffing and puffing on your part will change that. I'm not going to help throw this election to kerry, an ultra left idiot, simply to "make a statement".

How many "statements" were you able to make during eight years of Clinton?

 

[tpahl]

During his first term, Bush was very conservative on two very important and fundamental concerns: protecting our country and taxes.

protecting the country... yes he did the modern typical conservative response with the war. I grant you that. However the PATRIOT act is not conservative in my opinion nor the authors. Conservatives traditionally have always wanted to err on the side of not giving the government more power.

As for Taxes, Bush gave us a very small tax cut of approximately 1% spread out over 10 years. Meanwhile he has increased spending dramatically. To ignore spending when discussing taxes, is to avoid looking at the whole picture.

How do you know that Bush won't become even more conservative after being elected for a second term? You DO realize that his liberal stance is to garner more votes? I would rather see the Dem party go into shock from losing again - it should be fun to watch.

I have seen so little conservativism in him that I do not have any faith that it will ever return.

ps: then let the Dems vote in Badarik (I believe you will see a swing back to the middle by the Dems after losing this election) - that of course would also push the Reps further to the right.

The democrats gave such a liberal candidate because of naders influence last election. They realize that they can not put out middle of the road candidates and expect to continue to get those liberal votes. The GOP should have learned the lesson as well but did not. Bush swung more and more to the left and there is no way that I could support him unless he actually had cut spending, elliminated gun laws, or did SOMETHING, AANYTHING to reduce government. he did not.

 

[tpahl]

Why don't you fess up and admit you're working for kerry?

Who but a kerrymite would come up with the "logic" that Bush is insufficiently conservative, so vote for Banarik and end up electing kerry, the most liberal member of the Senate.

Because I am not. I can not stand kerry. I hate the guy more than I hate Bush.

My philosophy is to vote for the most rightward leaning VIABLE candidate running. Badnarik does not qualify in the VIABLE department and no amount of huffing and puffing on your part will change that.

I have not said that he is viable.

I'm not going to help throw this election to kerry, an ultra left idiot, simply to "make a statement".

Instead you will vote in Bush, an not quite so liberal idiot. and you think you are not making a statement by voting for Bush? You are. It is saying, I do not care how liberal you and others in the GOP become, I will vote for you no matter what. Go ahead and implement the democrats platform, i will still stand by for you and support you.

Until you stand up for what you beleive (I assume you beleive in limited ogvernment) you will be left with worse and worse choices each year. Go ahead and throw away your vote on Bush even though you know he is not what you want in the white house.

How many "statements" were you able to make during eight years of Clinton?

Perot made a statement to both parties that they need to balance the budget or else they will lose huge voting blocks.

 

[Merlin1047]

Perot made a statement to both parties that they need to balance the budget or else they will lose huge voting blocks.

Yes, indeed he did. And that caused Pres. Bush Sr. to be defeated and gave us eight years of a corrupt, immoral, unethical and cynical government.

I don't know about you, but I learned something from that.

 

[ajwps]

Because I am not. I can not stand kerry. I hate the guy more than I hate Bush.



I have not said that he is viable.



Instead you will vote in Bush, an not quite so liberal idiot. and you think you are not making a statement by voting for Bush? You are. It is saying, I do not care how liberal you and others in the GOP become, I will vote for you no matter what. Go ahead and implement the democrats platform, i will still stand by for you and support you.

Until you stand up for what you beleive (I assume you beleive in limited ogvernment) you will be left with worse and worse choices each year. Go ahead and throw away your vote on Bush even though you know he is not what you want in the white house.



Perot made a statement to both parties that they need to balance the budget or else they will lose huge voting blocks.

Compared to Bush your friend Badnarik is a flaming liberal.

Bush took the attack against America on 09/11 to their homeground instead of Badnarik wanting to fight it out here after another major attack, Your Badnarik is not only a stupid isolationist but a coward who wants to run away from Iraq and Iran with his tail between his legs. What a moron.

Since you admit Badnarik is NOT VIABLE you try to entice American citizens to waste their vote for a non-viable candidate. Then you count on Conservative wasted votes to put a 4 month Vietnam socialist pretender to lead the US to disaster.

You are way to obvious...

 

[tpahl]

Yes, indeed he did. And that caused Pres. Bush Sr. to be defeated and gave us eight years of a corrupt, immoral, unethical and cynical government.

Considering Bush was increasing spending and taxes, I do not see that it was that big of a deal that we got Clinton. The more important thing that we got was a renew focus on balancing the budget from both parties.

I don't know about you, but I learned something from that.

yeah, I learned that thrid parties can influence policy in america, and that the major two parties are not much different.

 

[tpahl]

Compared to Bush your friend Badnarik is a flaming liberal.

A flaming classical liberal perhaps. You know, like our founding fathers.

Bush took the attack against America on 09/11 to their homeground instead of Badnarik wanting to fight it out here after another major attack, Your Badnarik is not only a stupid isolationist but a coward who wants to run away from Iraq and Iran with his tail between his legs. What a moron.

No, badnarik wants to end the fighting between americans and islam alltoghether. If they want to keep fighting amongst themselves, that is fine. Badnarik would remove most incentives for terrorists to attack us. You may disagree with that strategy, but it is not what 'stupid' or 'cowardly'.

Since you admit Badnarik is NOT VIABLE you try to entice American citizens to waste their vote for a non-viable candidate.

Just because the candidate might now win, doees not mean your vote is wasted. The only wasted vote is a vote placed on a candidate that you do not share common beleifs in. If you value limited government, you are wasting your vote on Bush. Sure you might have voted for the candidate thta won, but you certainly did not win if you do not like big government spending.

Then you count on Conservative wasted votes to put a 4 month Vietnam socialist pretender to lead the US to disaster.

That will send a stronger message to the GOP that they need to return to being a party for limited government. Surely you do not think that it would not be a good thing for the GOP to favor limited government again do you?

You are way to obvious...

I am. I come straight out and say exactly what policies that I want to see, who i want people to vote for, and why, and yet surprisingly you insist that I am for policies i claim to be against and am rooting for a candidate I abhor. If I proved that I ran for office as a libertarian against liberal NYC politicians, would you perhaps then stop saying that I am really a Kerry supporter trying to trick you?

Travis

 

[Annie]

Actually, from what I can tell, he is at the least flirting with the idea that the problems in the ME are US fault:

First, allow me to dispel a myth. People in the Middle East do not hate us for our freedom. They do not hate us for our lifestyle. They hate us because we have spent many years attempting to force them to emulate our lifestyle.

The U.S. government has meddled in the affairs of the Middle East far too long, always with horrendous results. It overthrew the democratically elected leader of Iran and replaced him with the Shah. After making Iranians the enemies of Americans, the U.S. government gave weapons, intelligence and money to Iran's mortal adversary, Saddam Hussein. The U.S. government also helped Libyan Col. Qaddafi come to power, propped up the Saudi monarchy and the Egyptian regime, and gave assistance to Osama bin Laden.

Most Americans have forgotten these events. But the people of the Middle East will always remember.

Seems to me the conclusion makes the rest, irrelevant?

http://www.badnarik.org/Issues/IraqWar.php

 

[tpahl]

Actually, from what I can tell, he is at the least flirting with the idea that the problems in the ME are US fault:

yes, he admits that the US has not without some blame for terrorists hating us. That btw is not the same as saying the US is at fault for the terrorists attacks. But to ignore that what we have done is part of the problem and to continue with the same tactics is not a solution either. Is badnariks solution perfect? No problably not, but I do think it has merit. Bush (and Kerry) are too hesitant to look at our policies with any criticism.

Seems to me the conclusion makes the rest, irrelevant?
http://www.badnarik.org/Issues/IraqWar.php

Not neccesarily. They are people with a deep hatred of us, but they are still human like you or I. Their attacks are predominately to draw attention to certain injustices, not necessarily revenge. By changing our policies to stop intervening in all the governments of the middle east, they may not forget what we have done, but they also will not forget that we have corrected our mistakes. Bush however is not correcting mistakes, but rather continueing to do the same things his predecesors have done.

In other words, they may not forget, but even though they are not christians, they do forgive. But they will not forgive if we continue to mess with their region.

Travis