I'd vote for Bush twice if I could

[Rob9874]

I cannot emphasize how much I am supporting Bush/Cheney this election. I'm sure that sounds nuts to some of you kids, who have been brainwashed into thinking it's not "cool" to be a Republican. There seems to be a mindless conformity to Democrats. It's the party for the non-thinkers. It takes risks to do what is right, and to stand up for traditional values. I feel that the democratic party caters to the demographic that doesn't fully understand politics or economics. They say "tax the rich" and it seems to make sense. They say "save the environment at all costs" and it makes us feel good. They say "provide services and income for the unemployed, and make the workforce pay for it" and we say why not.

But Republicans are intelligent enough to understand that while these concepts seem ideal, and make us feel warm and fuzzy, they don't always make sense logically. (Health care for all Americans is a great idea! But who's going to pay for it?) Republicans try to acheive the same results (if not better) using more a logical, intelligent approach. (Instead of giving fish to someone, we prefer to teach him to fish for himself. Instead of giving money to the poor for an instant temporary solution, Republicans might offer a long-term solution that doesn't provide instant gratification, and one that may even benefit the middle and upper classes too!) This is often mistaken by liberals as being uncompassionate, when in reality, it's actually a more compassionate approach.

Democrats know that their constituency is primarily uneducated Americans (blue collar, unemployed, or young kids not through college yet), they play on that perspective, and realize that they can appeal to that point of view. They reach the MTV crowd and tell the kids that Democrats are cooler than the old fuddy-duddy Republicans. Heck, Bill Clinton smoked pot and got hummers. Cool! They know that blue collar society isn't going to understand the intricacies of economics, so they misrepresent Republican economic reform as "taxing the poor, and giving to the wealthy". And at a surface level, that makes sense for most Americans without a background in economics.

Well, I've ranted long enough. Hopefully my words enraged some liberals, or influenced some kid who doesn't know what party he belongs to. My last point is this: Don't follow the party or candidate that your friends or MTV tells you to. Think for yourself.

 

[Crimson]

Vote early vote often like the dems say!

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: Rob9874
I cannot emphasize how much I am supporting Bush/Cheney this election. I'm sure that sounds nuts to some of you kids, who have been brainwashed into thinking it's not "cool" to be a Republican. There seems to be a mindless conformity to Democrats. It's the party for the non-thinkers. It takes risks to do what is right, and to stand up for traditional values. I feel that the democratic party caters to the demographic that doesn't fully understand politics or economics. They say "tax the rich" and it seems to make sense. They say "save the environment at all costs" and it makes us feel good. They say "provide services and income for the unemployed, and make the workforce pay for it" and we say why not.

And then there's the mindless kool-aid drinking republicans who support candidates that increase government in both size and scope.

But Republicans are intelligent enough to understand that while these concepts seem ideal, and make us feel warm and fuzzy, they don't always make sense logically. (Health care for all Americans is a great idea! But who's going to pay for it?) Republicans try to acheive the same results (if not better) using more a logical, intelligent approach. (Instead of giving fish to someone, we prefer to teach him to fish for himself. Instead of giving money to the poor for an instant temporary solution, Republicans might offer a long-term solution that doesn't provide instant gratification, and one that may even benefit the middle and upper classes too!) This is often mistaken by liberals as being uncompassionate, when in reality, it's actually a more compassionate approach.

You're still a statist.

Edit: and how's that bush medicare deal and 'no child left behind' deal working out?

Democrats know that their constituency is primarily uneducated Americans (blue collar, unemployed, or young kids not through college yet), they play on that perspective, and realize that they can appeal to that point of view. They reach the MTV crowd and tell the kids that Democrats are cooler than the old fuddy-duddy Republicans. Heck, Bill Clinton smoked pot and got hummers. Cool! They know that blue collar society isn't going to understand the intricacies of economics, so they misrepresent Republican economic reform as "taxing the poor, and giving to the wealthy". And at a surface level, that makes sense for most Americans without a background in economics.

But you're still a statist

Well, I've ranted long enough. Hopefully my words enraged some liberals, or influenced some kid who doesn't know what party he belongs to. My last point is this: Don't follow the party or candidate that your friends or MTV tells you to. Think for yourself.

But you're a kool-aid drinking republican.

 

[CanOWorms]

you sound pretty indoctrinated. think for yourself.

 

[Rob9874]

Originally posted by: Phokus
But you're a kool-aid drinking republican.

Thank you for proving my point!

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: Rob9874

Originally posted by: Phokus
But you're a kool-aid drinking republican.

Thank you for proving my point!

Anyone who believes in limited government would vote libertarian. You're proving how stupid you are by accusing liberals of doing something when your party does the exact same thing, in fact republicans do it WORSE. And btw, i'm a libertarian, not a liberal so i'm not proving your deluded point, mr. kool-aid drinker/statist.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Heck, Bill Clinton smoked pot and got hummers. Cool!

Bush did cocaine, was a horrible student, was involved in drunk driving, and even flew onto an aircraft carrier from a fighter jet!

Don't you think that would appeal more to the younger generation than a hummer and pot?

 

[nageov3t]

I'm pro-states rights. Bush isn't. things Bush's desire to make the Patriot Act a permanent thing and a proposed amendment to the constitution to define a religious institution have turned me against the Republican party.

'nuff said as far as my vote is concerned.

 

[Slick5150]

Originally posted by: Rob9874

Well, I've ranted long enough. Hopefully my words enraged some liberals, or influenced some kid who doesn't know what party he belongs to. My last point is this: Don't follow the party or candidate that your friends or MTV tells you to. Think for yourself.

Your ideas are intriguing and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

As long as you can read the newsletter to me, as I am a liberal minded voter, thus apparently making me uneducated and without an attention span due to MTV (which is funny because I don't remember ever watching anything on MTV)

 

[nageov3t]

On a personal level, what annoys me about Bush is how much he's changed his identity to win the election. The Bushes are practically New England royalty, yet he comes across as a Nascar-lovin', beer-drinkin', down-home Southerner.

I wouldn't trust my next-door neighbor to be in charge of the country. I want a president who's better and more capable than I am, not someone who lowers himself to appeal to my vote.

 

[kage69]

Then you'd be voting twice for corruption, incompetence, hypocrisy, and ignorance. If you can't see this, then it's you who isn't thinking for himself. Only a hopeless idealogue could remain blind to the glaring eyesore that is the Bush Administration. Were it you cared for your country as much as your idealogy :disgust:

No patriot would vote for Bush.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Democrats know that their constituency is primarily uneducated Americans (blue collar, unemployed, or young kids not through college yet)

I'm curious...does anyone have any information relating average income and education to voting for the Democrats or Republicans?

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: Rob9874

Originally posted by: Phokus
But you're a kool-aid drinking republican.

Thank you for proving my point!

Anyone who believes in limited government would vote libertarian. You're proving how stupid you are by accusing liberals of doing something when your party does the exact same thing, in fact republicans do it WORSE. And btw, i'm a libertarian, not a liberal so i'm not proving your deluded point, mr. kool-aid drinker/statist.

While I'm generally a huge fan of the libertarian philosophy, and would vote for it in a heart-beat, I know it'll never fly in this country, where a number of people (probably a majority) look to the government for solutions to any and all problems. See Neil Boortz's column HERE. Therefore, I generally vote Republican, as they at least claim to be for limited government, even if they frequently expand it. I figure it'll take the GOP longer to wreck the country.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: Rob9874

Originally posted by: Phokus
But you're a kool-aid drinking republican.

Thank you for proving my point!

Anyone who believes in limited government would vote libertarian. You're proving how stupid you are by accusing liberals of doing something when your party does the exact same thing, in fact republicans do it WORSE. And btw, i'm a libertarian, not a liberal so i'm not proving your deluded point, mr. kool-aid drinker/statist.

While I'm generally a huge fan of the libertarian philosophy, and would vote for it in a heart-beat, I know it'll never fly in this country, where a number of people (probably a majority) look to the government for solutions to any and all problems. See Neil Boortz's column HERE. Therefore, I generally vote Republican, as they at least claim to be for limited government, even if they frequently expand it. I figure it'll take the GOP longer to wreck the country.

Considering republicans control the whitehouse, senate, and house and government is expanded faster than ever before so i'll have to disagree with you. And claiming that you're for limited government and doing the exact opposite is EVEN WORSE - they're #$(*&ing hypocrites.

 

[Train]

I agree with the OP, the Dems are way to dependent on the "Catch Phrase" (aka short attention span) campaign style, Clinton was highly successful with his "Share the Wealth" campaign (he was elected because he said the words "its time for a change" about 400 times per debate, but never actually changed anything), Its a quick way to get some approval ratings, but they fail to realize that if you take money from the rich guy, hes gonna keep his money, hes just gonna lay someone off to do it, so way to go, you took the rich guys money so now we have someone NOT working and getting paid, and the guy who WAS working gets nothing, way to go Einstiens.

And Ive given up fighting the Bush-bashers, All I want to see is some actual ideas of what should be done different and why it would actually work, or what Kerry can actually DO, instead of complain about Bush over and over and over til we are numb with complaints but hungry for a plan.

 

[gistech1978]

Originally posted by: Rob9874

Well, I've ranted long enough.

thats the only true thing youve said in your whole little tirade there but it was nice effort though.

based on your little 'rant' I could say republicans are the party of 'elitists' not 'thinkers'.

the party of thinkers, that one actually made me laugh.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: kage69
Then you'd be voting twice for corruption, incompetence, hypocrisy, and ignorance. If you can't see this, then it's you who isn't thinking for himself. Only a hopeless idealogue could remain blind to the glaring eyesore that is the Bush Administration. Were it you cared for your country as much as your idealogy :disgust:

No patriot would vote for Bush.

Because Kerry and the Dems are as idealogically pure as the driven snow. Um, sure..... :roll:

Any realist recognizes that the general election is almost always going to be a choice among evils. A lot of conservatives are voting for Bush because he's not as bad as Kerry, but to say they actually support him on his own merits would be incorrect.

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: Rob9874
I cannot emphasize how much I am supporting Bush/Cheney this election. I'm sure that sounds nuts to some of you kids, who have been brainwashed into thinking it's not "cool" to be a Republican. There seems to be a mindless conformity to Democrats. It's the party for the non-thinkers. It takes risks to do what is right, and to stand up for traditional values. I feel that the democratic party caters to the demographic that doesn't fully understand politics or economics. They say "tax the rich" and it seems to make sense. They say "save the environment at all costs" and it makes us feel good. They say "provide services and income for the unemployed, and make the workforce pay for it" and we say why not.

But Republicans are intelligent enough to understand that while these concepts seem ideal, and make us feel warm and fuzzy, they don't always make sense logically. (Health care for all Americans is a great idea! But who's going to pay for it?) Republicans try to acheive the same results (if not better) using more a logical, intelligent approach. (Instead of giving fish to someone, we prefer to teach him to fish for himself. Instead of giving money to the poor for an instant temporary solution, Republicans might offer a long-term solution that doesn't provide instant gratification, and one that may even benefit the middle and upper classes too!) This is often mistaken by liberals as being uncompassionate, when in reality, it's actually a more compassionate approach.

Democrats know that their constituency is primarily uneducated Americans (blue collar, unemployed, or young kids not through college yet), they play on that perspective, and realize that they can appeal to that point of view. They reach the MTV crowd and tell the kids that Democrats are cooler than the old fuddy-duddy Republicans. Heck, Bill Clinton smoked pot and got hummers. Cool! They know that blue collar society isn't going to understand the intricacies of economics, so they misrepresent Republican economic reform as "taxing the poor, and giving to the wealthy". And at a surface level, that makes sense for most Americans without a background in economics.

Well, I've ranted long enough. Hopefully my words enraged some liberals, or influenced some kid who doesn't know what party he belongs to. My last point is this: Don't follow the party or candidate that your friends or MTV tells you to. Think for yourself.

You have just proved beyond a reasonable doubt why I am glad to be a Democrat. Frankly, I am sickened that I live in the same country as someone such as yourself. Vote as many times as you want, Bush will need 2 or 3 of all of your votes to steal this one. Good luck, your guy is going to need it.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: kage69
Then you'd be voting twice for corruption, incompetence, hypocrisy, and ignorance. If you can't see this, then it's you who isn't thinking for himself. Only a hopeless idealogue could remain blind to the glaring eyesore that is the Bush Administration. Were it you cared for your country as much as your idealogy :disgust:

No patriot would vote for Bush.

Because Kerry and the Dems are as idealogically pure as the driven snow. Um, sure..... :roll:

Any realist recognizes that the general election is almost always going to be a choice among evils. A lot of conservatives are voting for Bush because he's not as bad as Kerry, but to say they actually support him on his own merits would be incorrect.

Actually a realist (like some of my friends) would be voting for kerry to stop the expansion of government by having gridlock between democrats and republicans (as opposed to an idealist, like me, who is voting libertarian).

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: Rob9874
I cannot emphasize how much I am supporting Bush/Cheney this election. I'm sure that sounds nuts to some of you kids, who have been brainwashed into thinking it's not "cool" to be a Republican. There seems to be a mindless conformity to Democrats. It's the party for the non-thinkers. It takes risks to do what is right, and to stand up for traditional values. I feel that the democratic party caters to the demographic that doesn't fully understand politics or economics. They say "tax the rich" and it seems to make sense. They say "save the environment at all costs" and it makes us feel good. They say "provide services and income for the unemployed, and make the workforce pay for it" and we say why not.

I agree that many young people go for the Democrats, and they are pretty clueless, but you are a pot calling a kettle black. Republicans caters to the demographic that doesn't fully understand politics or economics as well. How many Republicans are speaking out and voting against the IRS or the Federal Reserve? How many are holding true to their word of reducing government? Very very few.

But Republicans are intelligent enough to understand that while these concepts seem ideal, and make us feel warm and fuzzy, they don't always make sense logically. (Health care for all Americans is a great idea! But who's going to pay for it?) Republicans try to acheive the same results (if not better) using more a logical, intelligent approach. (Instead of giving fish to someone, we prefer to teach him to fish for himself. Instead of giving money to the poor for an instant temporary solution, Republicans might offer a long-term solution that doesn't provide instant gratification, and one that may even benefit the middle and upper classes too!) This is often mistaken by liberals as being uncompassionate, when in reality, it's actually a more compassionate approach.

You want to talk about healthcare?! Bush signed into law an ENORMOUS drug benefit bill that is going to cost billions. Furthermore, what is the difference between these handouts and handouts that are given to poor people? None as far as I'm concerned, the only difference is that the drug benefits and social security goes to old people, while the welfare goes to poor people. Who it goes to does not change its status.

Democrats know that their constituency is primarily uneducated Americans (blue collar, unemployed, or young kids not through college yet), they play on that perspective, and realize that they can appeal to that point of view. They reach the MTV crowd and tell the kids that Democrats are cooler than the old fuddy-duddy Republicans. Heck, Bill Clinton smoked pot and got hummers. Cool! They know that blue collar society isn't going to understand the intricacies of economics, so they misrepresent Republican economic reform as "taxing the poor, and giving to the wealthy". And at a surface level, that makes sense for most Americans without a background in economics.

I agree with you here except you are no better than the kids watching MTV. You have latched on to a party that is turning around and spending as much or more than the Democrats. Here you go with the economics once again! This is comedy gold. Republicans know as much about economics as Democrats: very little. If they actually knew something on the subject we wouldn't have the IRS, an unbacked paper currency and enormous deficits. Pray tell if the Republicans are so knowledgable in the area of economics why is Bush running a RECORD deficit?

Well, I've ranted long enough. Hopefully my words enraged some liberals, or influenced some kid who doesn't know what party he belongs to. My last point is this: Don't follow the party or candidate that your friends or MTV tells you to. Think for yourself.

I think you should follow this advice yourself, and go read up on economics.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: kage69
Then you'd be voting twice for corruption, incompetence, hypocrisy, and ignorance. If you can't see this, then it's you who isn't thinking for himself. Only a hopeless idealogue could remain blind to the glaring eyesore that is the Bush Administration. Were it you cared for your country as much as your idealogy :disgust:

No patriot would vote for Bush.

Because Kerry and the Dems are as idealogically pure as the driven snow. Um, sure..... :roll:

Any realist recognizes that the general election is almost always going to be a choice among evils. A lot of conservatives are voting for Bush because he's not as bad as Kerry, but to say they actually support him on his own merits would be incorrect.

Actually a realist (like some of my friends) would be voting for kerry to stop the expansion of government by having gridlock between democrats and republicans (as opposed to an idealist, like me, who is voting libertarian).

Taking for example that prescription drug bill passed last year, wouldn't you agree as a libertarian that it was yet another massive expansion of gov't, and you'd oppose it? So how would it be more true to the libertarian ideology to support the Democrats, who claimed it was not big enough?!?! (See CNN interview with Sen. Kennedy Here). A National Taxpayer's Union study of Kerry's campaign proposals (Here) found they amount to $276.8 Billion in new spending. How exactly is Kerry going to stop the expansion of government?!?!
It's time for a Balanced Budget Amendment - people will stop supporting big government when they actually have to pay for it, and when they can no longer pass the costs off to future generations via deficits. On the deficit issue, both parties are thoroughly corrupted.

 

[Kerouactivist]

Originally posted by: CanOWorms
you sound pretty indoctrinated. think for yourself.

agreed.....

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: kage69
Then you'd be voting twice for corruption, incompetence, hypocrisy, and ignorance. If you can't see this, then it's you who isn't thinking for himself. Only a hopeless idealogue could remain blind to the glaring eyesore that is the Bush Administration. Were it you cared for your country as much as your idealogy :disgust:

No patriot would vote for Bush.

Because Kerry and the Dems are as idealogically pure as the driven snow. Um, sure..... :roll:

Any realist recognizes that the general election is almost always going to be a choice among evils. A lot of conservatives are voting for Bush because he's not as bad as Kerry, but to say they actually support him on his own merits would be incorrect.

Actually a realist (like some of my friends) would be voting for kerry to stop the expansion of government by having gridlock between democrats and republicans (as opposed to an idealist, like me, who is voting libertarian).

Taking for example that prescription drug bill passed last year, wouldn't you agree as a libertarian that it was yet another massive expansion of gov't, and you'd oppose it? So how would it be more true to the libertarian ideology to support the Democrats, who claimed it was not big enough?!?! (See CNN interview with Sen. Kennedy Here). A National Taxpayer's Union study of Kerry's campaign proposals (Here) found they amount to $276.8 Billion in new spending. How exactly is Kerry going to stop the expansion of government?!?!
It's time for a Balanced Budget Amendment - people will stop supporting big government when they actually have to pay for it, and when they can no longer pass the costs off to future generations via deficits. On the deficit issue, both parties are thoroughly corrupted.

You're completely twisting what i said. I didn't say SUPPORT democrats. Some libertarians are taking a pragmatic approach and supporting GRIDLOCK. If you look at what happened during the clinton years, you'll know what i'm talking about.

 

[Spamela]

plenty of people don't understand the intricacies of economics,
but they know when they've been screwed over & they know
elitist crap when they hear (or read) it.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: kage69
Then you'd be voting twice for corruption, incompetence, hypocrisy, and ignorance. If you can't see this, then it's you who isn't thinking for himself. Only a hopeless idealogue could remain blind to the glaring eyesore that is the Bush Administration. Were it you cared for your country as much as your idealogy :disgust:

No patriot would vote for Bush.

Because Kerry and the Dems are as idealogically pure as the driven snow. Um, sure..... :roll:

Any realist recognizes that the general election is almost always going to be a choice among evils. A lot of conservatives are voting for Bush because he's not as bad as Kerry, but to say they actually support him on his own merits would be incorrect.

Actually a realist (like some of my friends) would be voting for kerry to stop the expansion of government by having gridlock between democrats and republicans (as opposed to an idealist, like me, who is voting libertarian).

Taking for example that prescription drug bill passed last year, wouldn't you agree as a libertarian that it was yet another massive expansion of gov't, and you'd oppose it? So how would it be more true to the libertarian ideology to support the Democrats, who claimed it was not big enough?!?! (See CNN interview with Sen. Kennedy Here). A National Taxpayer's Union study of Kerry's campaign proposals (Here) found they amount to $276.8 Billion in new spending. How exactly is Kerry going to stop the expansion of government?!?!
It's time for a Balanced Budget Amendment - people will stop supporting big government when they actually have to pay for it, and when they can no longer pass the costs off to future generations via deficits. On the deficit issue, both parties are thoroughly corrupted.

You're completely twisting what i said. I didn't say SUPPORT democrats. Some libertarians are taking a pragmatic approach and supporting GRIDLOCK. If you look at what happened during the clinton years, you'll know what i'm talking about.

Here's what happened to the Public Debt during the Clinton years - it got bigger every year, at least in constant terms. And this is good how?