the Neo-republican

  • 145 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for cruzer167
cruzer167

563

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#1 cruzer167
Member since 2007 • 563 Posts

or just now days conservatives, these people are a dying breed as the usa becomes more educaded it is becoming more liberal and these guys are on their way out.

the goal of the neo rebublican or the "new republican" is to squander and waste everything because they know their on their way out. bush was one and look what a mess he made, 350 billion of your money is unaccounted for and thats just the latest blunder.

conservative state leaders are refusing to take stimilus money which will help rebuild and fix the mess they made they want the us to fail.

we need more than a new administration we need the eradication of these old baby boomers, they were not the greatist generation, they will be rememberd as the generation who ruined and squanderd everything in the last 70 years that took hundreds to build.

well thats my rant, its pretty much the truth if you look at the numbers.

Avatar image for Engrish_Major
Engrish_Major

17373

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#2 Engrish_Major
Member since 2007 • 17373 Posts
At least finally our generation is becoming conscious of many of the things that the boomers took for granted or ignored.
Avatar image for LosDaddie
LosDaddie

10318

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 57

User Lists: 0

#3 LosDaddie
Member since 2006 • 10318 Posts

:lol: I remember conservatives saying something very similar about liberals in 2004

Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
LJS9502_basic

180202

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#4 LJS9502_basic
Member since 2003 • 180202 Posts

Repulicans are less conservative.....being 100% liberal is not the answer either. You need balance.

Avatar image for cruzer167
cruzer167

563

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#5 cruzer167
Member since 2007 • 563 Posts
At least finally our generation is becoming conscious of many of the things that the boomers took for granted or ignored.Engrish_Major
true but who knows? it may be too late..
Avatar image for inoperativeRS
inoperativeRS

8844

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 10

User Lists: 0

#6 inoperativeRS
Member since 2004 • 8844 Posts

Repulicans are less conservative.....being 100% liberal is not the answer either. You need balance.

LJS9502_basic
Exactly.
Avatar image for duxup
duxup

43443

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 5

User Lists: 0

#7 duxup
Member since 2002 • 43443 Posts
There are states that turned down the money?
Avatar image for CripFlag
CripFlag

120

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#8 CripFlag
Member since 2009 • 120 Posts
[QUOTE="inoperativeRS"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

Repulicans are less conservative.....being 100% liberal is not the answer either. You need balance.

Exactly.

but the scale is to lean a bit to the left. socialized healthcare is a must.
Avatar image for CripFlag
CripFlag

120

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#9 CripFlag
Member since 2009 • 120 Posts
There are states that turned down the money?duxup
lol they turned down some of it. like the lousianna gov. was given 1.1 billion and he took the 1 billion and gave the 100 mil... and he went on tv talking about how he rejected the bailout
Avatar image for Engrish_Major
Engrish_Major

17373

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#11 Engrish_Major
Member since 2007 • 17373 Posts
[QUOTE="duxup"]There are states that turned down the money?CripFlag
lol they turned down some of it. like the lousianna gov. was given 1.1 billion and he took the 1 billion and gave the 100 mil... and he went on tv talking about how he rejected the bailout

All done selfishly for political reasons.
Avatar image for duxup
duxup

43443

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 5

User Lists: 0

#12 duxup
Member since 2002 • 43443 Posts
[QUOTE="duxup"]There are states that turned down the money?CripFlag
lol they turned down some of it. like the lousianna gov. was given 1.1 billion and he took the 1 billion and gave the 100 mil... and he went on tv talking about how he rejected the bailout

Yet he took 1 Billion... nice.
Avatar image for KH-mixerX
KH-mixerX

5702

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 12

User Lists: 0

#13 KH-mixerX
Member since 2007 • 5702 Posts

Socialized healthcare is the last thing we need. Look what its done to Canada. Republicans object to the stimulus pack because it creates too much dependancy on the gov't. Thats also the last thing we need. What we need is self-initiative, and the strengthening of small-businesses. It's things like the stimulus pack and welfare that stop the growth of entrepeneurs(Not sure of the spelling on that. lol). If we keep bailing out the big companies that got us into this horrible economic crisis, they'll never learn to take accountability for their actions. It comes down to this: Liberal Democrats wanna throw money at the problem to strengthen the gov't which creates over dependancy. Conservative Republicans wanna create self-initiative by strengthening the individual and small-businesses so we can get out of this depression the natural way.

Avatar image for cruzer167
cruzer167

563

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#14 cruzer167
Member since 2007 • 563 Posts

Socialized healthcare is the last thing we need. Look what its done to Canada. Republicans object to the stimulus pack because it creates too much dependancy on the gov't. Thats also the last thing we need. What we need is self-initiative, and the strengthening of small-businesses. It's things like the stimulus pack and welfare that stop the growth of entrepeneurs(Not sure of the spelling on that. lol). If we keep bailing out the big companies that got us into this horrible economic crisis, they'll never learn to take accountability for their actions. It comes down to this: Liberal Democrats wanna throw money at the problem to strengthen the gov't which creates over dependancy. Conservative Republicans wanna create self-initiative by strengthening the individual and small-businesses so we can get out of this depression the natural way.

KH-mixerX
so explain that first stimulus package of 700 billion of which 350 billion is missing if they don't want to throw money at it
Avatar image for LosDaddie
LosDaddie

10318

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 57

User Lists: 0

#15 LosDaddie
Member since 2006 • 10318 Posts

[QUOTE="CripFlag"][QUOTE="duxup"]There are states that turned down the money?duxup
lol they turned down some of it. like the lousianna gov. was given 1.1 billion and he took the 1 billion and gave the 100 mil... and he went on tv talking about how he rejected the bailout

Yet he took 1 Billion... nice.

Is there a link for that? I couldn't find anything :?

Avatar image for hokies1313
hokies1313

13919

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#16 hokies1313
Member since 2005 • 13919 Posts
The Republican Party as it exists today is a far cry from it's original mission of that of Lincoln and Roosevelt (Teddy) and even from the mission of Reagan. The Republican governors of the states that wanted to refuse money hit the issue on the head. The Republican Party should stand for small government and minimal interference. Instead President Bush ramped up spending and invested the Federal Government where it had no business being, Obama is continuing that trend. The money they rejected was an unwarranted intrusion into State affairs. The Federal Government has no right to tell the states who to give their state welfare to or what to spend money on. The money they were getting was not going to rebuilding or fixing anything. If the true Republican Party comes into being, then it will see a revival. If it continues to follow the lead of Bush and Limbaugh, then it will cease to be a major party in the United States for dozens of elections to come.
Avatar image for redbaron3
redbaron3

984

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#17 redbaron3
Member since 2004 • 984 Posts
Republicans are Evil and we can blame Everything on them RAWR!!!!!
Avatar image for AnObscureName
AnObscureName

2069

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#18 AnObscureName
Member since 2008 • 2069 Posts

Socialized healthcare is the last thing we need. Look what its done to Canada. Republicans object to the stimulus pack because it creates too much dependancy on the gov't. Thats also the last thing we need. What we need is self-initiative, and the strengthening of small-businesses. It's things like the stimulus pack and welfare that stop the growth of entrepeneurs(Not sure of the spelling on that. lol). If we keep bailing out the big companies that got us into this horrible economic crisis, they'll never learn to take accountability for their actions. It comes down to this: Liberal Democrats wanna throw money at the problem to strengthen the gov't which creates over dependancy. Conservative Republicans wanna create self-initiative by strengthening the individual and small-businesses so we can get out of this depression the natural way.

KH-mixerX
What's socialised healthcare done to Canada exactly?
Avatar image for cruzer167
cruzer167

563

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#19 cruzer167
Member since 2007 • 563 Posts
Republicans are Evil and we can blame Everything on them RAWR!!!!!redbaron3
not everything, the government in general is a corrupt giant dying beast republican or democrat, democrats are just trying to reverse the damage now i doubt either party could fix it
Avatar image for CripFlag
CripFlag

120

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#20 CripFlag
Member since 2009 • 120 Posts

[QUOTE="duxup"][QUOTE="CripFlag"] lol they turned down some of it. like the lousianna gov. was given 1.1 billion and he took the 1 billion and gave the 100 mil... and he went on tv talking about how he rejected the bailoutLosDaddie

Yet he took 1 Billion... nice.

Is there a link for that? I couldn't find anything :?

yeah it was bobby jindal. i saw it on the daily show the other day.
Avatar image for LosDaddie
LosDaddie

10318

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 57

User Lists: 0

#21 LosDaddie
Member since 2006 • 10318 Posts

It comes down to this: Liberal Democrats wanna throw money at the problem to strengthen the gov't which creates over dependancy. Conservative Republicans wanna create self-initiative by strengthening the individual and small-businesses so we can get out of this depression the natural way.

KH-mixerX

Actually, both parties want both of those things. They just talk about it in different ways.

Avatar image for KH-mixerX
KH-mixerX

5702

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 12

User Lists: 0

#22 KH-mixerX
Member since 2007 • 5702 Posts

[QUOTE="KH-mixerX"]

Socialized healthcare is the last thing we need. Look what its done to Canada. Republicans object to the stimulus pack because it creates too much dependancy on the gov't. Thats also the last thing we need. What we need is self-initiative, and the strengthening of small-businesses. It's things like the stimulus pack and welfare that stop the growth of entrepeneurs(Not sure of the spelling on that. lol). If we keep bailing out the big companies that got us into this horrible economic crisis, they'll never learn to take accountability for their actions. It comes down to this: Liberal Democrats wanna throw money at the problem to strengthen the gov't which creates over dependancy. Conservative Republicans wanna create self-initiative by strengthening the individual and small-businesses so we can get out of this depression the natural way.

AnObscureName

What's socialised healthcare done to Canada exactly?

If you socialise healthcare and give it to everyone for free, the overall quality of it goes way down. Then you get organ donor waiting lists that are so long, about only a quarter of the people who need organs get them before they die. It should be common sense to everyone. If you give something to everyone for free, the quality and efficiency of the service will drop significantly. And healthcare is the last thing you want the quality and efficienty of to go down.

This thread is an orgy of liberals bashing the other party cause they have nothing better to do. If you wanna start a debate, make sure you have proper representation for both sides.

Avatar image for duxup
duxup

43443

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 5

User Lists: 0

#23 duxup
Member since 2002 • 43443 Posts

[QUOTE="AnObscureName"][QUOTE="KH-mixerX"]

Socialized healthcare is the last thing we need. Look what its done to Canada. Republicans object to the stimulus pack because it creates too much dependancy on the gov't. Thats also the last thing we need. What we need is self-initiative, and the strengthening of small-businesses. It's things like the stimulus pack and welfare that stop the growth of entrepeneurs(Not sure of the spelling on that. lol). If we keep bailing out the big companies that got us into this horrible economic crisis, they'll never learn to take accountability for their actions. It comes down to this: Liberal Democrats wanna throw money at the problem to strengthen the gov't which creates over dependancy. Conservative Republicans wanna create self-initiative by strengthening the individual and small-businesses so we can get out of this depression the natural way.

KH-mixerX

What's socialised healthcare done to Canada exactly?

If you socialise healthcare and give it to everyone for free, the overall quality of it goes way down. Then you get organ donor waiting lists that are so long, about only a quarter of the people who need organs get them before they die. It should be common sense to everyone. If you give something to everyone for free, the quality and efficiency of the service will drop significantly. And healthcare is the last thing you want the quality and efficienty of to go down.

This thread is an orgy of liberals bashing the other party cause they have nothing better to do. If you wanna start a debate, make sure you have proper representation for both sides.

The current system includes people who needs organs who do not get them... and fewer people with health care and less coverage every year.

Avatar image for cruzer167
cruzer167

563

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#24 cruzer167
Member since 2007 • 563 Posts

If you socialise healthcare and give it to everyone for free, the overall quality of it goes way down. Then you get organ donor waiting lists that are so long, about only a quarter of the people who need organs get them before they die. It should be common sense to everyone. If you give something to everyone for free, the quality and efficiency of the service will drop significantly. And healthcare is the last thing you want the quality and efficienty of to go down.

This thread is an orgy of liberals bashing the other party cause they have nothing better to do. If you wanna start a debate, make sure you have proper representation for both sides.

KH-mixerX

so you still havent answerd question on the first bailouts

Avatar image for Ontain
Ontain

25501

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 7

User Lists: 0

#25 Ontain
Member since 2005 • 25501 Posts

Socialized healthcare is the last thing we need. Look what its done to Canada.

KH-mixerX
longer life expectancy and generally better health statistics than the US population. poor canadians.
Avatar image for KH-mixerX
KH-mixerX

5702

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 12

User Lists: 0

#26 KH-mixerX
Member since 2007 • 5702 Posts

[QUOTE="KH-mixerX"]If you socialise healthcare and give it to everyone for free, the overall quality of it goes way down. Then you get organ donor waiting lists that are so long, about only a quarter of the people who need organs get them before they die. It should be common sense to everyone. If you give something to everyone for free, the quality and efficiency of the service will drop significantly. And healthcare is the last thing you want the quality and efficienty of to go down.

This thread is an orgy of liberals bashing the other party cause they have nothing better to do. If you wanna start a debate, make sure you have proper representation for both sides.

cruzer167

so you still havent answerd question on the first bailouts

Because I don't have the answer. But I do know that bailouts aren't the answer.

Look, I don't have all the answers, but I will try to defend what I believe in with the knowledge I have. I should be the one questioning you since your the ones railing the republicans.

Avatar image for deactivated-5901ac91d8e33
deactivated-5901ac91d8e33

17092

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#27 deactivated-5901ac91d8e33
Member since 2004 • 17092 Posts
American conservatives, in general, annoy me....doesn't matter if they're neo- or old.
Avatar image for cruzer167
cruzer167

563

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#28 cruzer167
Member since 2007 • 563 Posts

Because I don't have the answer. But I do know that bailouts aren't the answer.

Look, I don't have all the answers, but I will try to defend what I believe in with the knowledge I have. I should be the one questioning you since your the ones railing the republicans.

KH-mixerX

we are not railing the republicans if they were what the actual rebublican party stood for they would be a viable option save for their social ideas, but they arent anymore they know it and are trying to take us with them

Avatar image for trix5817
trix5817

12252

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#29 trix5817
Member since 2004 • 12252 Posts

Bush was not a true conservative bud. True conservatism is on it's way back thanks to the failings of Bush and soon to be Obama. Say hello to Goldwater Conservatives/Libertarians.

Avatar image for cametall
cametall

7692

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#30 cametall
Member since 2003 • 7692 Posts
This was said about liberals when Bush was elected. We'll probably have another Republican president within the next 3 elections. Americans get tired of the party in power and then puts the other one in power. I wouldn't be surprised if Republicans take back Congress while Obama is president. Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama Rep, Dem, Rep, Rep, Dem, Rep, Dem
Avatar image for trix5817
trix5817

12252

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#31 trix5817
Member since 2004 • 12252 Posts

American conservatives, in general, annoy me....doesn't matter if they're neo- or old.jointed

Yeah. Those damn freedom lovers. I mean, what the hell did the Founding Fathers (true conservatives/libertarians) know? Asbolutely nothing! :roll:

Avatar image for KH-mixerX
KH-mixerX

5702

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 12

User Lists: 0

#32 KH-mixerX
Member since 2007 • 5702 Posts

[QUOTE="KH-mixerX"]Because I don't have the answer. But I do know that bailouts aren't the answer.

Look, I don't have all the answers, but I will try to defend what I believe in with the knowledge I have. I should be the one questioning you since your the ones railing the republicans.

cruzer167

we are not railing the republicans if they were what the actual rebublican party stood for they would be a viable option save for their social ideas, but they arent anymore they know it and are trying to take us with them

Your unfairly generalizing them. Okay, it my turn. What do the republicans stand for today that is so wrong and different from what they stood for 70 years ago?

Avatar image for KH-mixerX
KH-mixerX

5702

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 12

User Lists: 0

#33 KH-mixerX
Member since 2007 • 5702 Posts

This was said about liberals when Bush was elected. We'll probably have another Republican president within the next 3 elections. Americans get tired of the party in power and then puts the other one in power. I wouldn't be surprised if Republicans take back Congress while Obama is president. Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama Rep, Dem, Rep, Rep, Dem, Rep, Demcametall

What this country needs is another Reagan.

Avatar image for trix5817
trix5817

12252

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#34 trix5817
Member since 2004 • 12252 Posts

[QUOTE="cruzer167"]

[QUOTE="KH-mixerX"]Because I don't have the answer. But I do know that bailouts aren't the answer.

Look, I don't have all the answers, but I will try to defend what I believe in with the knowledge I have. I should be the one questioning you since your the ones railing the republicans.

KH-mixerX

we are not railing the republicans if they were what the actual rebublican party stood for they would be a viable option save for their social ideas, but they arent anymore they know it and are trying to take us with them

Your unfairly generalizing them. Okay, it my turn. What do the republicans stand for today that is so wrong and different from what they stood for 70 years ago?

A lot of them aren't true conservatives. They are RINOs (Republican In Name Only).

Avatar image for deactivated-5901ac91d8e33
deactivated-5901ac91d8e33

17092

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#35 deactivated-5901ac91d8e33
Member since 2004 • 17092 Posts

[QUOTE="jointed"]American conservatives, in general, annoy me....doesn't matter if they're neo- or old.trix5817

Yeah. Those damn freedom lovers. I mean, what the hell did the Founding Fathers (true conservatives/libertarians) know? Asbolutely nothing! :roll:

Ehm, the founding fathers were true liberals and the US was the first liberal state in the world.
Avatar image for KH-mixerX
KH-mixerX

5702

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 12

User Lists: 0

#36 KH-mixerX
Member since 2007 • 5702 Posts

[QUOTE="trix5817"]

[QUOTE="jointed"]American conservatives, in general, annoy me....doesn't matter if they're neo- or old.jointed

Yeah. Those damn freedom lovers. I mean, what the hell did the Founding Fathers (true conservatives/libertarians) know? Asbolutely nothing! :roll:

Ehm, the founding fathers were true liberals and the US was the first liberal state in the world.

Actually, they were niether. They were Federalists.

Avatar image for deactivated-5901ac91d8e33
deactivated-5901ac91d8e33

17092

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#37 deactivated-5901ac91d8e33
Member since 2004 • 17092 Posts

[QUOTE="jointed"][QUOTE="trix5817"]

Yeah. Those damn freedom lovers. I mean, what the hell did the Founding Fathers (true conservatives/libertarians) know? Asbolutely nothing! :roll:

KH-mixerX

Ehm, the founding fathers were true liberals and the US was the first liberal state in the world.

Actually, they were niether. They were Federalists.

Actually, they were liberals. "The first modern liberal state was the United States of America[13], founded on the principle that "all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to insure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism
Avatar image for LosDaddie
LosDaddie

10318

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 57

User Lists: 0

#38 LosDaddie
Member since 2006 • 10318 Posts

Say hello to Goldwater Conservatives/Libertarians.

trix5817

That's my hope as well :)

Avatar image for LosDaddie
LosDaddie

10318

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 57

User Lists: 0

#39 LosDaddie
Member since 2006 • 10318 Posts

EDIT: GlitchSpot FTL :x

Avatar image for KH-mixerX
KH-mixerX

5702

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 12

User Lists: 0

#40 KH-mixerX
Member since 2007 • 5702 Posts

[QUOTE="KH-mixerX"]

[QUOTE="jointed"] Ehm, the founding fathers were true liberals and the US was the first liberal state in the world.jointed

Actually, they were niether. They were Federalists.

Actually, they were liberals. "The first modern liberal state was the United States of America[13], founded on the principle that "all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to insure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism

Just a little advice from now on: Don't use Wikipedia as a source, ever. And they, in fact, were Federalists. Look it up. Just not on Wiki. lol

Avatar image for Guybrush_3
Guybrush_3

8308

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#41 Guybrush_3
Member since 2008 • 8308 Posts

[QUOTE="duxup"]There are states that turned down the money?CripFlag
lol they turned down some of it. like the lousianna gov. was given 1.1 billion and he took the 1 billion and gave the 100 mil... and he went on tv talking about how he rejected the bailout

Jindal and the current leggistation are killing Louisiana.

Avatar image for deactivated-5901ac91d8e33
deactivated-5901ac91d8e33

17092

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#42 deactivated-5901ac91d8e33
Member since 2004 • 17092 Posts

Just a little advice from now on: Don't use Wikipedia as a source, ever. And they, in fact, were Federalists. Look it up. Just not on Wiki. lol

KH-mixerX

The source is completely irrelevant., since the quote is self-explanatory. Argue the point or don't bother responding.

Avatar image for jehuty12
jehuty12

409

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#43 jehuty12
Member since 2005 • 409 Posts

Just a little advice from now on: Don't use Wikipedia as a source, ever. And they, in fact, were Federalists. Look it up. Just not on Wiki. lol

KH-mixerX

Federalists are people who supported the passing of the constitution put forth by the Philadelphia Convention as it stood. Anti-Federalists argued that the constitution did not gaurantee individual liberties and worked to promote the upper classes. Our founding fathers included both Federalists and Anti-Federalists (Alexander Hamilton-Fed., Thomas Jefferson-Anti.). The terms only really apply to support of the constitution and members of both "parties" could be described as both liberal and conservative.

Avatar image for SatanAntichrist
SatanAntichrist

355

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#44 SatanAntichrist
Member since 2009 • 355 Posts

or just now days conservatives, these people are a dying breed as the usa becomes more educaded it is becoming more liberal and these guys are on their way out.

the goal of the neo rebublican or the "new republican" is to squander and waste everything because they know their on their way out. bush was one and look what a mess he made, 350 billion of your money is unaccounted for and thats just the latest blunder.

conservative state leaders are refusing to take stimilus money which will help rebuild and fix the mess they made they want the us to fail.

we need more than a new administration we need the eradication of these old baby boomers, they were not the greatist generation, they will be rememberd as the generation who ruined and squanderd everything in the last 70 years that took hundreds to build.

well thats my rant, its pretty much the truth if you look at the numbers.

cruzer167

Wow, cruzer. That's not right at all.

Bush was not just trying to "spend a bunch of money," he actually had a mission in mind and one of the major reasons people dislike him is because he did his own thing and didn't let many people in on many of his agendas, especially his foreign policies.

When it came to Iraq, he had "something" in mind, you could tell, but he wasn't really ready to fully disclose to the American people just what it was he was thinking of. He wanted to keep it kind of secret so that it the rest of the country couldn't look over his shoulder and invade his agenda. Some people are just like that.

That's why he kept to himself and the center of his administration about his plans with Iraq.

Bush was kind of a lone wolf ruler who wanted to micromanage everything from secret/private.

If you think he invaded Iraq "just for the Hell of it," you are quite mislead. The reasoning behind his actions could be quite complex and perhaps only Bush's subconcious knows the reasons he was such an advocate about it.

I bet if he were to be correctly psychoanalyzed in relation to his Iraq agenda, I bet many of the pieces could fall into place.

Some people are very complex and I have no doubt in my mind George Bush is someone like that.

Complex people always get a lot of flack for doing the things they do because to them, why they do things makes sense, but to everyone else who can't get inside their head, they see the things a complex person does and are puzzled as to "why it makes sense."

I bet there is a VERY GOOD REASONING as to why Bush invaded Iraq, and that answer no doubt lies within the subconcious of his mind.

My theory is that Bush has a high level of intuition, and the problem with that is when intuitive people act, they go with their gut and may ignore outside reasoning, others may be quite puzzled as to why they do something. The intuitive "knows" what they are doing, but others cannot see the logic because they cannot read the mind of the intuitive person to understand the logic behind it.

Avatar image for fidosim
fidosim

12901

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 15

User Lists: 0

#45 fidosim
Member since 2003 • 12901 Posts
Are you blaming conservatives or the Republican party? Either way you don't reall ymake sense.
Avatar image for rockon1215
rockon1215

1665

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#46 rockon1215
Member since 2007 • 1665 Posts

[QUOTE="cruzer167"]

or just now days conservatives, these people are a dying breed as the usa becomes more educaded it is becoming more liberal and these guys are on their way out.

the goal of the neo rebublican or the "new republican" is to squander and waste everything because they know their on their way out. bush was one and look what a mess he made, 350 billion of your money is unaccounted for and thats just the latest blunder.

conservative state leaders are refusing to take stimilus money which will help rebuild and fix the mess they made they want the us to fail.

we need more than a new administration we need the eradication of these old baby boomers, they were not the greatist generation, they will be rememberd as the generation who ruined and squanderd everything in the last 70 years that took hundreds to build.

well thats my rant, its pretty much the truth if you look at the numbers.

SatanAntichrist

Wow, cruzer. That's not right at all.

Bush was not just trying to "spend a bunch of money," he actually had a mission in mind and one of the major reasons people dislike him is because he did his own thing and didn't let many people in on many of his agendas, especially his foreign policies.

When it came to Iraq, he had "something" in mind, you could tell, but he wasn't really ready to fully disclose to the American people just what it was he was thinking of. He wanted to keep it kind of secret so that it the rest of the country couldn't look over his shoulder and invade his agenda. Some people are just like that.

That's why he kept to himself and the center of his administration about his plans with Iraq.

Bush was kind of a lone wolf ruler who wanted to micromanage everything from secret/private.

If you think he invaded Iraq "just for the Hell of it," you are quite mislead. The reasoning behind his actions could be quite complex and perhaps only Bush's subconcious knows the reasons he was such an advocate about it.

I bet if he were to be correctly psychoanalyzed in relation to his Iraq agenda, I bet many of the pieces could fall into place.

Some people are very complex and I have no doubt in my mind George Bush is someone like that.

Complex people always get a lot of flack for doing the things they do because to them, why they do things makes sense, but to everyone else who can't get inside their head, they see the things a complex person does and are puzzled as to "why it makes sense."

I bet there is a VERY GOOD REASONING as to why Bush invaded Iraq, and that answer no doubt lies within the subconcious of his mind.

My theory is that Bush has a high level of intuition, and the problem with that is when intuitive people act, they go with their gut and may ignore outside reasoning, others may be quite puzzled as to why they do something. The intuitive "knows" what they are doing, but others cannot see the logic because they cannot read the mind of the intuitive person to understand the logic behind it.

So your theory is Bush had an amazing reason to invade Iraq but didn't tell anyone? That's messed up
Avatar image for duxup
duxup

43443

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 5

User Lists: 0

#47 duxup
Member since 2002 • 43443 Posts

So your theory is Bush had an amazing reason to invade Iraq but didn't tell anyone? That's messed uprockon1215
Well it would sound more sensible than invading based on crap sources related to WMDs that didn't exist.... while the neighboring country develops nukes.

Avatar image for rockon1215
rockon1215

1665

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#48 rockon1215
Member since 2007 • 1665 Posts
[QUOTE="KH-mixerX"]

[QUOTE="jointed"] Ehm, the founding fathers were true liberals and the US was the first liberal state in the world.jointed

Actually, they were niether. They were Federalists.

Actually, they were liberals. "The first modern liberal state was the United States of America[13], founded on the principle that "all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to insure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism

The meaning of "liberal" in the late 18th century is different from what it is today. It used to mean more civil rights and the removal of a monarchical power to be replaced with an elected body
Avatar image for rockon1215
rockon1215

1665

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#49 rockon1215
Member since 2007 • 1665 Posts

[QUOTE="rockon1215"] So your theory is Bush had an amazing reason to invade Iraq but didn't tell anyone? That's messed upduxup

Well it would sound more sensible than invading based on crap sources related to WMDs that didn't exist.... while the neighboring country develops nukes.

I find it easier to believe that someone is stupid/ misguided/ acted poorly than someone having a secret amazing reason to enter a war which is now seen as a mistake/failure because of a poor reason to enter.
Avatar image for fidosim
fidosim

12901

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 15

User Lists: 0

#50 fidosim
Member since 2003 • 12901 Posts
[QUOTE="rockon1215"][QUOTE="duxup"]

So your theory is Bush had an amazing reason to invade Iraq but didn't tell anyone? That's messed uprockon1215
Well it would sound more sensible than invading based on crap sources related to WMDs that didn't exist.... while the neighboring country develops nukes.

I find it easier to believe that someone is stupid/ misguided/ acted poorly than someone having a secret amazing reason to enter a war which is now seen as a mistake/failure because of a poor reason to enter.

I just think it was a long-standing agenda that the Bush admin. tried to tie in with the war in Afghanistan.