This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
I get the sense from your postings its not Bush's issues you have a problem with, its his decision making. Maybe you feel that gives you enough distance from him, but for us its 6 of one half dozen of the other. You're trying to split hairs there, my friend. I opposed Bush on major things, yet that doesn't fit your easy narrative, so you try to explain away my opposition to Bush. Nice try again, but it doesn't hold water. Issues vs. decision making? What kind of nonsense is that?Sure it does Bob and here's why. Bush was the worst President in most people's memory. Yes, some people may remember Hoover (including my grandfather, I'll have to ask him next time I call him), but for the rest of us, he's an unmitigated disaster. The American people need a constant reminder of how bad his policies were, so we don't elect another one like him. And to reiterate, both McCain and Romney ran essentually on his same issues.
When both conservatism and the Republican party move away from what I'll call The Bush Doctrine (tax cuts for the rich financed by deficit spending, massive increases in military budget, unending wars on flimsy evidence, scapegoating certain classes of Americans for political gain, laissez faire approach to the economy, etc) then give me a call. However, do you truly believe we won't another clone on these issues in 2016 just dressed up in a different package?
Why should we be giving a break on people who will take that money and invest in China with it? Where exactly is the benefit of that?
First, where did you lift this post from?
Next, why is Paris Hilton and her ilk deserving of tax cuts? Or LeBron James? Or Kim Kardashian? Are you hopeful Fishy that more tax cuts for the 1% and the E Channel can make another show about her?
<insert some fancy Latin words for one of the logical fallacies here> argument. It implies that our two options are give the rich all the break or we live without advances in technology. First, where did you lift this post from?
Next, why is Paris Hilton and her ilk deserving of tax cuts? Or LeBron James? Or Kim Kardashian? Are you hopeful Fishy that more tax cuts for the 1% and the E Channel can make another show about her?
I didn't realize the electorate was even aware of me?Your issue isn't with me Bob. Its with the electorate! Good luck getting out from under the Cloud of Doom that is W. As I said, I give it 32 years give or take.
Whereas you are, at least at some level.I didn't realize the electorate was even aware of me?
Ah, stereotyping. I thought only we did that! Our little guy would enjoy seeing the black helicopters, so please send them more often!As you guys are by and large all the same, we're very aware of you. Besides, didn't you see the black helicopters hovering above your house?
It's a silly post because it's a
Look, I probably don't agree with a lot of the policies that Rover, Priceless, and Kepler would like to see implemented (and for that matter, Bob and FF as well), but I also see the need for keeping the rich in check. I think the left overreaches quite a bit when it comes to that but at least I recognize the fact that there is a middle ground that would continue to allow the rich in the country to accumulate more wealth than they and their next two generations could possible spend and helping out the middle class.
Actually the shoe doesn't fit so well. You must be one of those pesky shoe salesman that tried to get a person to buy that ugly pair on clearance that doesn't fit, but they try to convince you they do. But, I know such stereotyping is convenient, and there are few things Americans like more than convenience.Its not stereotyping if its true Bob, and since just about every con is an older while male Bush worshipin' lets-go-back-to-Iraq nutter, I think the shoe fits!
