steve, I wouldnt call that the republican way. Usually the republicans are for smaller govt and more self responsibility. I personally, dont think of bush as a republican. The tax cuts helped the economy esp after 9/11. But the medicare drug plan is a financial disaster. This nut tells us for years that SS is going bankrupt...then adds this BS?? Amazing. Not to mention ignoring the border.

4/22/2007 9:21:23 PM

So that's your excuse for raising taxes? The Democrats controlled Congress for 40 years until 1996, what was your excuse then? "We gots ta raise dem thar taxes cuz those gol dern Republicans was in power all dem years ago."

I'm a Conservative 1st and foremost, I believe in controlling spending as well as cutting taxes. Say what you will, but Bush isn't a Conservative, fiscally or otherwise.

4/22/2007 9:23:09 PM

I'm actually encouraged that I can find some conservatives who realize that this administration is not conservative.

4/22/2007 9:24:24 PM

Quote :

"Where does it end? 200k?"

200k is not rich, anyway.


and McCain is still the best candidate for my vote, but I'm not the fan of him I was before he started pandering to the base for this campaign.

^and yeah, there's nothing conservative about GWB or most of the other members of the GOP right now, in terms of limiting government and exercising fiscal restraint. they're just as bad as the Democrats...they just want to fuck everything in different ways. At least they're down with tax cuts.

[Edited on April 22, 2007 at 9:26 PM. Reason : asdf]

4/22/2007 9:24:32 PM

^duke, I agree 200k for a family isnt RICH by any means. That is the "cutoff" that the dems are proposing, which seems fine to the liberals on here.

I also agree with you on mccain. He seems like more of a weasle saying anything to get elected this election. I just dont think mccain can beat any of the 3 dems being mentioned.

I think Rudy will get some dems to vote for him, but alot of the repubs will stay at home. His personality is alot more likeable than mccains, thompson, or the dems...with the exception of obama.

Thompson seems like a reagan throwback. Id love to see edwards against thompson in a debate. It would look like a chiwawa barking at a rotty.

[Edited on April 22, 2007 at 9:33 PM. Reason : .]

4/22/2007 9:28:13 PM

Quote :

"eyedrb doesn't read a god damned thing he quotes. "

Maybe he needs his prescription adjusted

4/22/2007 9:29:15 PM

^clever. Gold star for you.

I think its more accurate to say he doesnt understand a GD thing I quote.

[Edited on April 22, 2007 at 9:52 PM. Reason : .]

4/22/2007 9:34:41 PM

hmm... a former trial lawyer used to thinking on his feet vs a guy who has spent the last 5 years reading from a script written by other people.

it would be like a chihuahua and a rottie, but not how you meant it.

4/22/2007 10:00:02 PM

Hmmm...somebody who steals for a living vs. somebody who makes a living?

4/22/2007 10:04:09 PM

who is stealing?

4/22/2007 10:19:50 PM

Well its safe to say Fred Thompson doesnt spend 400 on a haircut.

4/22/2007 11:10:10 PM

^^i think the implication is that companies that knowingly kill people should be allowed to do so with impunity.

[Edited on April 22, 2007 at 11:10 PM. Reason : up]

4/22/2007 11:10:17 PM

yep all those doctors who got sued for CP. Now research supports that birth trauma isnt really a factor. Do you think he sent them their money back?

Companies KNOWINGLY killed people?

4/22/2007 11:13:19 PM

oh you mean that single case where he used medical data available in the 80s and then 15 years later reports showed that the original data was wrong. that is stealing?

no, i was talking about the case of the little girl who was killed in a swimming pool by a faulty drain that the company knew was faulty and still sold to thousands of people anyway.

4/22/2007 11:17:33 PM

stick to discussing the party.

4/23/2007 1:09:17 AM

Quote :

"This thread is first class trolling at its finest."

I agree.

I nominate Amsterdam718 for Soap Box Troll of the Year.

the subtlety in which he works is brilliant. so many complex undertones, it even continues to fool me.

4/23/2007 1:43:05 AM

Quote :

"Fred Thompson is the only chance the GOP has at the moment"

Yes, the guy whose chief asset, according to Bob Novak, is his eight-year tenure as district attorney Arthur Branch on NBC's "Law & Order." Ha!

4/23/2007 3:47:50 AM

^ Are you joking? He was a Senator for 8 years (longer than Edwards), he was a federal prosecutor, and so on.

Yeah, being on Law and Order might be his chief asset, but that is because of the national exposure and name/face recognition it brings. Novak didn't mean that he had no experience or didn't hold the credentials/experience needed to be President.

Reagan and Schwarzenegger, a fairly moderate Republican actor should scare the shit out of Democrats.

4/23/2007 4:29:35 AM

apparently he has a hot wife 25 years younger than him.

nice

4/23/2007 10:04:46 AM

he does scare the shit out of me. mostly because following on the heels of bush another "reagan" would probably lead to the end of this country.

4/23/2007 11:17:30 AM

^how so?

4/23/2007 11:18:53 AM

Quote :

" Schwarzenegger"

Can't be president therefore no fear.

4/23/2007 11:20:15 AM

other than the fact that reagans policies single handedly destroyed every positive gain made by LBJ in fighting poverty?

4/23/2007 11:21:34 AM

Could you give me some examples? I always hear how bad reagan was, but no one ever backs it with any facts. Reagan actually seemed to be one of our better presidents.

4/23/2007 11:38:28 AM

Quote :

"Can't be president therefore no fear"

Sorry, I was talking about two successful Republican actors, not that they could be Pres.

Quote :

"other than the fact that reagans policies single handedly destroyed every positive gain made by LBJ in fighting poverty?"

Yet Reagen is one of the most popular Presidents of all time, and LBJ one of the least popular...

4/23/2007 12:48:51 PM

Right now I think I'll be supporting Guiliani. McCain is another headliner, but I don't agree with a lot of his stances. Other than those two I don't think the other guys have a chance. I don't agree with Guiliani but if voting for him keeps any of the Dem candidates out then thank God.

4/23/2007 1:18:57 PM

Quote :

"Are you joking? He was a Senator for 8 years (longer than Edwards), he was a federal prosecutor, and so on. "

I was quoting Bob Novak...whose column basically amounted to "Thompson's our best shot at matching the Democrats' star power," which isn't exactly a vote of confidence. By all accounts, his 8 years in the Senate was pretty undistinguished.

4/23/2007 1:19:03 PM

As opposed to Obama, Edwards, and Clinton whose years in the Senate were what? Distinguished?


If Guiliani ran, and could win New York... game over.

4/23/2007 1:38:29 PM

Quote :

"I don't agree with Guiliani but if voting for him keeps any of the Dem candidates out then thank God.]"

Yes, 8 more years of compassionate conservatism!

4/23/2007 1:39:04 PM

^you're telling me Guiliani would run things the same as GW? I'm confused.

4/23/2007 1:43:06 PM

Quote :

"As opposed to Obama, Edwards, and Clinton whose years in the Senate were what? Distinguished? "

Yes, comparatively speaking



[Edited on April 23, 2007 at 2:14 PM. Reason : add]

4/23/2007 2:09:40 PM

^ Care to explain how? What has Obama done? What did Edwards do? Clinton has done a little more, but that is just because of her husband being President, thus she wasn't a normal freshman Senator.

4/23/2007 2:17:35 PM

With remarks related to upholding civil liberties, fiscal responsibility and smaller government, why is there no mention of Ron Paul? Has the Republican party forgotten they are supposed to be for individual rights and a limited federal government?

4/23/2007 4:13:59 PM

Ron Paul made a big mistake. He voted against the party. See, everyone on the right is making this big deal about returning to their core conservative values, but not supporting Bush, even as they shit talk his policies and administration, is a huge black mark for most people.

You can talk about having core conservative values, and you can hate people like Delay once they leave office, but you arent allowed to vote against them while they are still in charge.

4/23/2007 5:19:49 PM

Quote :

"but you arent allowed to vote against them while they are still in charge"

that goes against common sense and all popular notions about political accountability

4/23/2007 5:37:45 PM

^^ If that's the case, we might as well eliminate the Presidency and just have a parliamentary style of democracy where the person running the country is the Speaker of the House.

4/23/2007 6:18:41 PM

Quote :

"other than the fact that reagans policies single handedly destroyed every positive gain made by LBJ in fighting poverty?"

this is total bullsh!t. poverty was an 80's problem. there are too many factors. ppl just didn't become poor because Reagan was in office.

4/23/2007 7:05:04 PM

Quote :

"If that's the case, we might as well eliminate the Presidency and just have a parliamentary style of democracy where the person running the country is the Speaker of the House. "

I was using Delay just as an example. Its pretty clear that most of these people would rather we not have Congress, since voting against the President is tantamount to treason.

4/23/2007 9:07:36 PM

Wow, did this thread just turn into a liberal circle jerk right before my eyes?

4/23/2007 9:12:32 PM

I suggest not supporting the illegals.

4/23/2007 9:26:55 PM

The Liberals are so fucked up and contradictory. Bottom Line is we have to keep the Nation moving. Listen, B. I understand why ppl support the DEMS and ideally it's cool, but realistically it can't happen. they're a threat to the Nation with their ideals.


I smoke wild weed, I'm okay with banging a whore, etc . . . and a few other things that are against the Conservative Right, but fundamentally the Republican Party answers the needs of the people as a whole. It's going to take strategy to continue our legacy.

4/23/2007 9:31:59 PM

Quote :

"Wow, did this thread just turn into a liberal circle jerk festering cesspool of retardation right before my eyes?"

yup. right when you and the rest of the Fox News Sunday crowd showed up.

....

but you know. I'm confused.

either Amsterdam718 is the best troll ever -- which i thought he was, with the goal of making conservatives look stupid by employing their own arguments ad absurdum ...

or he actually believes the shit he says.

im starting to rethink this, and now I'm leaning towards the latter





[Edited on April 24, 2007 at 1:55 AM. Reason : ]

4/24/2007 1:55:21 AM