Well, are you? I certainly am.

^ Aren't you a communist? Why would you vote for the right?

It will almost certainly be a Democrat that is elected in 2008 (only three years now!!)

No No No No No

yes, especially if Hilary is running. I would love to see Giuliani run.

Well, are you? I certainly am.

Just wanted to know if Bush has a booger on the end of his finger in your avatar?

I would vote for whoever I believe would do better. I am not dedicated to one particular party, because there are handfuls of dumbasses in both parties.

YES, I would over any wacko liberal/socialist. Now if it was a democrat who was a conservative...then I would vote for the democrats. Personally its not about party anymore, its about there political views. I need to real conservative, not some moderate...Still Bush is better then anyone on the left that I know of.

No, even though I can't vote yet...

Are you fucking kidding me.

If it's another Reactionary like Bush, hell no!!

Hey, where's Ross Perot? :D ;)

yes, especially if Hilary is running. I would love to see Giuliani run.

Guliani would be an awsome president. He's one of the Republicans that I would support over most demcrats.... and that isn't a large group of people.

YES, I would over any wacko liberal/socialist. Now if it was a democrat who was a conservative...then I would vote for the democrats. Personally its not about party anymore, its about there political views. I need to real conservative, not some moderate...Still Bush is better then anyone on the left that I know of.

WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH MODERATES?!?!!!? That is the one thing that really pushes me over to support the left more. My whole family is and always has been very moderate ideologicaly, and politicaly. Why the hell is it that the right wingers hate EVERYONE except for FAR RIGHT WINGERS. It makes no sense. Moderates are the only people who should be allowed to run for political office. We don't need ideologs from EITHER side cramming their extreme views down everyone's throat.

BUSH has destroyed the Republican Party...good luck to conservatives in 2006 & 2008.

Yes, I will vote Republican.

Why? Because I am loyal to my party, right through thick and thin. Even the most heinous and evil crimes committed by my party will not change that.

Whether I'm talking about being a "good Christian" while murdering hundreds of thousands of people and keeping black society suppressed, or just giving some enormous financial breaks to billionaires at the expense of nature and the middle-class, I will always be a Republican. Why? Because we are the Grand Ole Party.

In other words, morality is irrelevant. Wearing the mask of morality to deceive the less informed while advancing our agenda to turn the world into an oligarchy of incredibly wealthy white people is our true agenda, morals or not. But we are the GOP, and enacting the policies of Satan is our calling. Oh, and we also have God on our side, since Pat Robertson and other crook evangalists support our brutally sick agenda.

So yes, being a devout Republican I will always vote for my beloved party

^ LOL UrbanPolitician!

BUSH has destroyed the Republican Party...good luck to conservatives in 2006 & 2008.

Except that the Democrats have an even lower approval rating than does Bush. They never miss an opportunity to miss an oportunity. ;)

Yes, I will vote Republican.

Why? Because I am loyal to my party, right through thick and thin. Even the most heinous and evil crimes committed by my party will not change that.

Whether I'm talking about being a "good Christian" while murdering hundreds of thousands of people and keeping black society suppressed, or just giving some enormous financial breaks to billionaires at the expense of nature and the middle-class, I will always be a Republican. Why? Because we are the Grand Ole Party.

In other words, morality is irrelevant. Wearing the mask of morality to deceive the less informed while advancing our agenda to turn the world into an oligarchy of incredibly wealthy white people is our true agenda, morals or not. But we are the GOP, and enacting the policies of Satan is our calling. Oh, and we also have God on our side, since Pat Robertson and other crook evangalists support our brutally sick agenda.

So yes, being a devout Republican I will always vote for my beloved party

Your little tome here is the bomb as regards user-friendliness. One need only insert 'Democrat' where you have 'Republican', add a little tweaking of nomenclature (and the inclusion of soy latte), and Bingo ! Bango ! you've got the Democrat's Creed !

YES, I would over any wacko liberal/socialist. Now if it was a democrat who was a conservative...then I would vote for the democrats. Personally its not about party anymore, its about there political views. I need to real conservative, not some moderate...Still Bush is better then anyone on the left that I know of.
SO you would vote for a republican who claims to be a 'conservative' but instead spend all of the US surplus money and plunging into debt. You got to be kidding me. Democrats spend less than republican.

SO you would vote for a republican who claims to be a 'conservative' but instead spend all of the US surplus money and plunging into debt. You got to be kidding me. Democrats spend less than republican.

True, in some respects Bush has governed like a Dream Democrat.

Given his spending habits, I don't know why the hell you dems wouldn't be hailing him as a second FDR. Sheesh !

This thread digusts me. Really shows how patisan this country is.

Probably not. I'm sure I'll like the candidate a lot more though.

i would never vote for a democrat, most of them are too physically violent. if something doesnt go their way, a fit of rage usually follows.

i would never vote for a democrat, most of them are too physically violent. if something doesnt go their way, a fit of rage usually follows.

tee-hee

Your little tome here is the bomb as regards user-friendliness. One need only insert 'Democrat' where you have 'Republican', add a little tweaking of nomenclature (and the inclusion of soy latte), and Bingo ! Bango ! you've got the Democrat's Creed !

^That's too easy. I don't think so. Do dems have evangelical Christians on their side? Do they give enormous tax breaks for the rich at the expense of the poor and the environment? Is Bush spending like a Democrat? No. Republicans are only big spenders in regards to one thing: war. In every other way Bush has actually tried to cut spending, oh you know, for schools, social services, Amtrak, etc.

Sorry, but that was just too stupid

True, in some respects Bush has governed like a Dream Democrat.

Given his spending habits, I don't know why the hell you dems wouldn't be hailing him as a second FDR. Sheesh !

Yeah, I'm sure democrats dream about a racist criminal as a president who has murdered hundreds and thousands to stabilize the inflow of a vital commodity to the western economy, thus increasing the stock value of American corporations. That sounds like something Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter did. You're so knowledgable!

^That's too easy. I don't think so. Do dems have evangelical Christians on their side? Do they give enormous tax breaks for the rich at the expense of the poor and the environment? Is Bush spending like a Democrat? No. Republicans are only big spenders in regards to one thing: war. In every other way Bush has actually tried to cut spending, oh you know, for schools, social services, Amtrak, etc.

Sorry, but that was just too stupid

My God ! that's a shallow rejoinder. And all too predictable. There is a religious-like fervor, and all sorts of of strategies, which are themselves subject to scrutiny, on the other side of the aisle.

And the same sort of blind partisanship as well.

Yeah, I'm sure democrats dream about a racist criminal as a president who has murdered hundreds and thousands to stabilize the inflow of a vital commodity to the western economy, thus increasing the stock value of American corporations. That sounds like something Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter did. You're so knowledgable!

I genuflect in awe. Never have I seen so many colorful cliches employed in such a brief post.

Yes, I will vote Republican.

Why? Because I am loyal to my party, right through thick and thin. Even the most heinous and evil crimes committed by my party will not change that.

Whether I'm talking about being a "good Christian" while murdering hundreds of thousands of people and keeping black society suppressed, or just giving some enormous financial breaks to billionaires at the expense of nature and the middle-class, I will always be a Republican. Why? Because we are the Grand Ole Party.

In other words, morality is irrelevant. Wearing the mask of morality to deceive the less informed while advancing our agenda to turn the world into an oligarchy of incredibly wealthy white people is our true agenda, morals or not. But we are the GOP, and enacting the policies of Satan is our calling. Oh, and we also have God on our side, since Pat Robertson and other crook evangalists support our brutally sick agenda.

So yes, being a devout Republican I will always vote for my beloved party

Urban Politician, that was awsome! lol

True, in some respects Bush has governed like a Dream Democrat.

Given his spending habits, I don't know why the hell you dems wouldn't be hailing him as a second FDR. Sheesh !

You DID NOT just diss FDR.... stupid "kool-aid drinker". FDR ENDED the depression, and won WWII. Shut up.

You DID NOT just diss FDR.... stupid "kool-aid drinker". FDR ENDED the depression, and won WWII. Shut up.

Make me, FDR-worshipper.

FDR has been rated the 2nd best president ever behind Lincoln (that puts him ahead of your "savior", Reagan, who I will not deny was also a great president)

I registered as a Dem this year (a moderate at that), but I'm seeing these partisan politics totally disassembling our country. It's right here in this thread, too. If you're a liberal, you're communist; if you're conservative, you're a religioius zealot. Blah.

I'm more interested in having our country turn around then seeing this nonsensical partisanship get in the way of what's real. Bush's administration isn't working for me, but I won't close my doors on Republicans. There are some Repubs who have integrity. But yeah, I'm pretty disgusted right now with the way things are being handled.

I registered as a Dem this year (a moderate at that), but I'm seeing these partisan politics totally disassembling our country. It's right here in this thread, too. If you're a liberal, you're communist; if you're conservative, you're a religioius zealot. Blah.

I'm more interested in having our country turn around then seeing this nonsensical partisanship get in the way of what's real. Bush's administration isn't working for me, but I won't close my doors on Republicans. There are some Repubs who have integrity. But yeah, I'm pretty disgusted right now with the way things are being handled.

You sound pretty even-handed and altogether sensible.

Meaning you're probably on the wrong forum. ;)

Although I myself am untroubled by this notion of emerging divisiveness. We were divided before Bush. We'll be divided after Bush. And I for one do not want the differences obscured in any way.

I registered as a Dem this year (a moderate at that), but I'm seeing these partisan politics totally disassembling our country. It's right here in this thread, too. If you're a liberal, you're communist; if you're conservative, you're a religioius zealot. Blah.

I'm more interested in having our country turn around then seeing this nonsensical partisanship get in the way of what's real. Bush's administration isn't working for me, but I won't close my doors on Republicans. There are some Repubs who have integrity. But yeah, I'm pretty disgusted right now with the way things are being handled.

Oh my God you have said it perfectly. With the way things are going, we are going to one day be the CSA and the LSA. It's very sad. I for one, support people, and not parties. I HATE it when people support a party before a person. Only pussies vote straight ticket.

Although I myself am untroubled by this notion of emerging divisiveness. We were divided before Bush. We'll be divided after Bush. And I for one do not want the differences obscured in any way.

We haven't been this divided since 1860 and you know it.

I genuflect in awe. Never have I seen so many colorful cliches employed in such a brief post.

^While impressed with your brilliant vocabulary, I fail to see how "oh, and you are too" as a valid point. But, whatever.

^While impressed with your brilliant vocabulary, I fail to see how "oh, and you are too" as a valid point. But, whatever.

Just as soon as you dump your torrent-of-cliches, and rise to the level of substantive debate, then I'll go beyond "So's your old man." ;)

Just as soon as you dump your torrent-of-cliches, and rise to the level of substantive debate, then I'll go beyond "So's your old man." ;)

^Granted, they are cliches; but these "themes" have tended to define your favorite party's policies nonetheless. Action speaks louder than words, and I would consider you akin to a God if you were capable of showing us how Republicans' actions aren't very much in line with those "cliches" that I used

and keeping black society suppressed,


Sorry, thats the Democrats jobs. I know many more successful African Americans who tend to be Republican/conservatives than vote Democrat. Remember that the Democratic Party had roots in racism towards the black man and tried to hold him down.

This thread is getting ugly. . . :runaway:

FDR has been rated the 2nd best president ever behind Lincoln (that puts him ahead of your "savior", Reagan, who I will not deny was also a great president)


Just to let you know, Lincoln was Republican.

WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH MODERATES?!?!!!? That is the one thing that really pushes me over to support the left more. My whole family is and always has been very moderate ideologicaly, and politicaly. Why the hell is it that the right wingers hate EVERYONE except for FAR RIGHT WINGERS. It makes no sense. Moderates are the only people who should be allowed to run for political office. We don't need ideologs from EITHER side cramming their extreme views down everyone's throat.

You really need to calm yourself.

SO you would vote for a republican who claims to be a 'conservative' but instead spend all of the US surplus money and plunging into debt. You got to be kidding me. Democrats spend less than republican.

Spend less? Well in recent years that may be true, but at least that money is going to defense and not over bloated social programs that contiue they cylce of poverty and racism. --Please don't debate me on this, I don't want to get into it on SSC.

^ Lincoln was a liberal NewYorker1....anybody who studied his assassination
knows his own party betrayed him simply because he was a moral man who was against slavery.

Just to let you know, Lincoln was Republican.
Yeah, I'm aware of that. I'm pretty sure I made it very clear that I don't tow the party line.

You really need to calm yourself.

You really need to turn of FNC for a little while.

You really need to turn of FNC for a little while.

well Im not going to get into a "well you need to..." argument.

And I don't watch FNC

Sorry, thats the Democrats jobs. I know many more successful African Americans who tend to be Republican/conservatives than vote Democrat. Remember that the Democratic Party had roots in racism towards the black man and tried to hold him down.

^What percentage of blacks vote democrat?

I think that answers everything.

Oh, and democrats were the racist party over half a century ago. You need to catch up with the times. Did Bush go to Rosa Park's funeral, or ANY major black event, any time recently? NAACP has invited him to functions several times--he never went. He's an asshole, just admit it. Republicans have done jack shit for blacks.

^What percentage of blacks vote democrat?

I think that answers everything.

Oh, and democrats were the racist party over half a century ago. You need to catch up with the times. Did Bush go to Rosa Park's funeral, or ANY major black event, any time recently? NAACP has invited him to functions several times--he never went. He's an asshole, just admit it. Republicans have done jack shit for blacks.

First off, yes he should have went to her funeral. However, I will say that Rosa Parks takes the spotlight a bit too much. There were countless African Americans who did the same thing and faced much worse brutality that didnt get a state funeral or recognition.

Democrats havent done anything for blacks either. All they have done is make the black man feel that he needs to rely on the government to make him a success in life.

-Trent Lott, a Republican, was responsibile for a Nissan Plant in Mississippi bringing 6,000 jobs to a great deal of African Americans.

-Blacks votes are huge for the Democratic Party. Yet where are all the blacks in the Democratic Party in the Senate?

-Democrats make the blacks out to be victims, not leaders.

-Democrats fought for slavery, they were a very racist party who supported lynchings, rapes, and mutilations of the African Americans. Yes it was a hundred years ago, yet a KKK member is still a major member.

-Democrats have used the black mans votes for many years
(40 plus)--yet only led them down a long, hard path of poverty. What progress have they made?

-Democrats Welfare policies have only made the black man rely on governmental support--leading him towards poverty and lack of independnance


-Under Reagan, black unemployment fell faster than white unemployment. Black teen unemployment fell fast.

-Under Reagan, blacks started their own businesses at a faster pace than whites.

-Reagans term saw a 3 percent drop in poverty. Blacks household median income rose.

-Democrats want Republicans to appologize for racism, yet fail to do it themselves--even though their party has a much longer history of it.

-The NAACP was founded by white men who were opposed to the Democratic Party.

-The Republicans value religion--which is a huge part of the black community. The Democrats have fought against it.

-Blacks actually doubled in support of Bush before last years election.

-
is this enough for you guys? Blacks are being taken for a ride by the Democratic Party.


-
-

This is by far the worst president ever. I just can't see anything he did good the past 5 years. if someone here says he's going a great job, you must be indenial.

This is by far the worst president ever. I just can't see anything he did good the past 5 years. if someone here says he's going a great job, you must be indenial.

I dont think he is the worst president ever. And no, he is not doing the best job. However, he war forced into the war on terror and some unlucky natural disasaters. The economy is picking up now.

-Trent Lott, a Republican, was responsibile for a Nissan Plant in Mississippi bringing 6,000 jobs to a great deal of African Americans.
So what, that's his job as a Senator. Oh yeah, remember what Lott said regarding Strom Thurmond:
I want to say this about my state. When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We're proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years either.

Hmmm....

-Blacks votes are huge for the Democratic Party. Yet where are all the blacks in the Democratic Party in the Senate?
Because they must be elected by the entire state, mostly white. Check the House. Of course, the Senate's rising star and future US President is Barrack Obama, a Democrat.

-Democrats make the blacks out to be victims, not leaders.
Opinion, I could say that white-flight led by people who are/were Republicans isolated Blacks in the inner-city.

-Democrats fought for slavery, they were a very racist party who supported lynchings, rapes, and mutilations of the African Americans. Yes it was a hundred years ago, yet a KKK member is still a major member.
The Civil War Democratic Party reflects the values of today's Republican Party and vice-versa.


-Democrats have used the black mans votes for many years
(40 plus)--yet only led them down a long, hard path of poverty. What progress have they made?
Yeah, and those tax cuts for the rich are helping the poor.


-Democrats Welfare policies have only made the black man rely on governmental support--leading him towards poverty and lack of independnance
Opinion.

-Under Reagan, black unemployment fell faster than white unemployment. Black teen unemployment fell fast.

-Under Reagan, blacks started their own businesses at a faster pace than whites.

-Reagans term saw a 3 percent drop in poverty. Blacks household median income rose.
Due to economic recovery, I'm sure I could find similar stats during Clinton's presidency.

-Democrats want Republicans to appologize for racism, yet fail to do it themselves--even though their party has a much longer history of it.
Opinion.

-The NAACP was founded by white men who were opposed to the Democratic Party.
Dixiecrats don't represent the values of today's Democratic Party.

-The Republicans value religion--which is a huge part of the black community. The Democrats have fought against it.
Of course Republicans support stricter laws, especially when it comes to drugs. Here's a fun fact, in 2020 nearly 63.3% of Black males ages 18-34 would be incarcerated.

Thanks to Republicans strong stance on drugs, it takes only 5 grams of crack cocaine to get 5 years, but for some reason it takes 500 grams of powered cocaine. So what? Well, 75% of users arrested for powered cocaine are white, 90% of users arrested for crack are Black.

Thanks to Republicans strong stance on crime, 13% of all Black men are not eligible to vote.

-The Republicans value religion--which is a huge part of the black community. The Democrats have fought against it.
Fighting religion? I guess keeping personal beliefs out of the government is fighting religion.

-Blacks actually doubled in support of Bush before last years election.
Bush won a whopping 11% of the Black vote in 2004.

I dont think he is the worst president ever. And no, he is not doing the best job. However, he war forced into the war on terror and some unlucky natural disasaters. The economy is picking up now.
Yeah, we were really forced into Iraq, weren't we.

Oh yeah, this should be in the Skybar.

HE WAS NOT FORCED INTO THE WAR ON TERROR!!!! HE WENT INTO THAT ON HIS OWN AND AGAINST EVERYONE HE CONFIDED IN ABOUT IT! That was just an absolute LIE right there. I agree though, this thread is not meant for this website, at least not on this forum.

Yeah, we were really forced into Iraq, weren't we.

Oh yeah, this should be in the Skybar.

did I mention Iraq?

How slick... the war on terror has now become the war in Iraq, don't even try to pull that one.

Since Republicans insists Iraq is part of the War on Terrra, then yes.

Hell, even Rush said something to the exstent of "If you don't support the war in Iraq, then you can't support the War on Terror."

oh Rush.... just keep poppin those pills.

yes, much of that is opinion to you...however do you know who's opinion it is? A black man who wrote about this in his book.

-Democrats have not helped black people....tell me how they have? Democrats have had their vote for over 40 years....yet poverty, crime, and other troubles still plague its community. You keep using the Republicans as basis for the blacks troubles....but we arent talking about the Republicans. We are talking about the Democrats and how they have bettered the black community.

-Why doesnt New England, New York, California, Washington, or Oregon elect blacks to power? They are solid blue states that if liberal, wouldnt consider race a reason not to vote for someone.

Since Republicans insists Iraq is part of the War on Terrra, then yes.

Hell, even Rush said something to the exstent of "If you don't support the war in Iraq, then you can't support the War on Terror."

Who cares what Rush says?

oh Franken, keep stealing the money from the poor black NYC children to fund your dying radio station.

I'd vote for Bush again. I disagree with the President on many issues, but, I'm a supporter of the War on Terror and approve of his approach to this global war.

actually, what I think is funny is how we are talking about the black people as if they are some liability or thing that needs to be taken care of. What a pessimistic view the Democrats have of their people....only want to keep them bound to the party with a leash of lies and overstatements.

True, in some respects Bush has governed like a Dream Democrat.

Given his spending habits, I don't know why the hell you dems wouldn't be hailing him as a second FDR. Sheesh !
Even democrats wouldn't dare to spend that much money. Only you republicans would.

Yeah you saw what happened to Bush in Argentina yesterday. The country protested against him as soon as he went there. News reports said they were mad because he promised to take care of Latin America but he didn't. Im not sure if this is true though; thats what I heard.

yes, much of that is opinion to you...however do you know who's opinion it is? A black man who wrote about this in his book.

-Democrats have not helped black people....tell me how they have? Democrats have had their vote for over 40 years....yet poverty, crime, and other troubles still plague its community. You keep using the Republicans as basis for the blacks troubles....but we arent talking about the Republicans. We are talking about the Democrats and how they have bettered the black community.

-Why doesnt New England, New York, California, Washington, or Oregon elect blacks to power? They are solid blue states that if liberal, wouldnt consider race a reason not to vote for someone.
Well, I wouldn't be surprised if many of the blacks turn to the Democrat side because of the goof the republican and FEMA made in New Orleans where many black victims suffered and believed that help arrived slowly because they were black.

I would never vote for Republicans on the national level (i.e., for President, Senate, House of Representative) but I have no problems joining the dark side, and in fact will do so for the mayor of NYC because the democrat candidate is shit.

If some of the great NYC republcians were to run for office, I'm sure they'd win... Guliani, he'd be a great president I think. He's a libertarian, and not so much of a reactionist.

-Why doesnt New England, New York, California, Washington, or Oregon elect blacks to power? They are solid blue states that if liberal, wouldnt consider race a reason not to vote for someone.

One of the most powerful positions in this country, the mayor of NYC (given that NYC is larger than many countries), was held by a black man who unfortunately did not end up amounting to much as a leader. But we had one nonetheless.

And the Democrat candidate for governor of NY State was black Carl McCall, also another shitty candidate.

Spend less? Well in recent years that may be true, but at least that money is going to defense and not over bloated social programs that contiue they cylce of poverty and racism. --Please don't debate me on this, I don't want to get into it on SSC.
It's funny how you say this when Bush had plunged the US economy and its now in billions of dollar in debt to China. I don't see any democrats doing that. Bush has given tax-cuts to his rich little buddies while the less fortunate aren't getting any relief. He does not care about the people who aren't rich, which is most of the country's population. He doesn't care much about our people. He would put another country before our very own. Iraq was a waste of time and money. It was not necessary. Fight terrorism first.

Funny thing is how the war was supposed to end the rule of Osama Bin Laden and somehow, Saddam was chased down. How did that happen? Saddam had no link to Osama bin Laden. And the funny part is how come we still don't have Osama in our hands. Where is he? Are they still tracking him down? What is the percentage of our effort to find him? Seems like 0 to me since I haven't heard any recent progress of finding the clue where Osama is. If Osama is not capture, extremist and terrorist would still have hope of terrorizing the world. The fact is, Bush decieved as all, killed our surplus and economy, and failed on his main objective. It was so obvious he went to Iraq becuase his father did not capture Saddam during his reign so he decided it was his god-given duty to do so even though it had nothing to involve with our country.

I am a Democrat, but part of the reason why I am a centrist is because I agree with Redd. The Democrat party has not looked towards the minority communities for anything but the almight "#" that gives them power.

The Democrat legacy in NY was a failed school system for minority children, with Democrat Eliot Spitzer arguing that NYS has met its obligation towards NYC if by the time that (predominantly black and hispanic) children in NYC graduate from HIGH SCHOOL with and 8TH grade level of reading and writing that the state has met its burdern.

A lot of liberals look upon minorities not as equals, but as people to pander to. And that angers me.

His approval rating is only 35%, it's not like we don't all know. The people who support Bush now are the simply blind supporters. He could order a nuke to be dropped on American soil and those who support him now still would. It doesn't matter what the other overwhelming majority of us say. The Bush supporters are just going to continue to watch Fox news and believe what they want to.

Well, I wouldn't be surprised if many of the blacks turn to the Democrat side because of the goof the republican and FEMA made in New Orleans where many black victims suffered and believed that help arrived slowly because they were black.



Well blacks have always usually leaned more on the Democrat side than the Republican side from what I seen. I don't think it had nothing to with the victims being black. It just shows how much crap FEMA is. It took them 4 days after Katrina hit for them to respond while people were dying and thousands of people were starving and trapped in their homes on top of their roofs trying to avoid the chest-deep waters that lie beneath them.

His approval rating is only 35%, it's not like we don't all know. The people who support Bush now are the simply blind supporters. He could order a nuke to be dropped on American soil and those who support him now still would. It doesn't matter what the other overwhelming majority of us say. The Bush supporters are just going to continue to watch Fox news and believe what they want to.
:applause: :applause: :applause:

So true.

His approval rating is only 35%, it's not like we don't all know. The people who support Bush now are the simply blind supporters. He could order a nuke to be dropped on American soil and those who support him now still would. It doesn't matter what the other overwhelming majority of us say. The Bush supporters are just going to continue to watch Fox news and believe what they want to.



2000+ soldiers dead and counting. And with that I just don't see how anyone could still support this president, and the Bush supporters saying "he's doing a dang good job" and you got people dying in Iraq at the same time. Now ROCguy think about this, if is 2000+ soldiers are dead now, think about how many soldiers will parish by 2008; I don't even want to think about it.

That's what I just said, they are going to support him no matter what he does. They're ideologs. You worry about the deat toll getting higher? My cousin is over there. I say, when the death toll for the war gets higher than that of 9/11, we put Bush there himself, totally backdorr him, or something (that number is fast apporoaching, about 2300 people died in the 9/11 attacks, and it's the Iraq deathtoll is alreay over 2000. )

That's what I just said, they are going to support him no matter what he does. They're ideologs. You worry about the deat toll getting higher? My cousin is over there. I say, when the death toll for the war gets higher than that of 9/11, we put Bush there himself, totally backdorr him, or something (that number is fast apporoaching, about 2300 people died in the 9/11 attacks, and it's the Iraq deathtoll is alreay over 2000. )
Won't Osama be pissed off when he finds out that Bush killed more than him. :lol:

I don't get the humor of that at all.

His approval rating is at 35%? It should be much lower than that. I really hope the death toll doesn't rise. Maybe if Bush had some sense and realize young men and women are fighting and dying there for nothing (because the "Weapons of Mass Destruction" was complete bullshit to begin with) he'd pull the troops out of Iraq.

George W. Bush will go down in history as our finest president. There is no competiton. The only administration in US history that can compete with the accomplishments of his first administration is possibly his second one. The man should not only be commended for his own accomplishments and his own character, but for the extraordinary group of qualified and caring professionals he has brought to Washington, DC, strictly for the purpose of serving the needs and wants of the people. Integrity in opeation! And he has been able to extend these services not only to the grateful American people, but to the folks in the totally liberated Middle East, as well.

Mr. Bush has delivered on his promises of compassionate conservatism, and fiscal and personal responsiblity. His proactive administration doesn't only solve problems; it anticipates them. I deeply regret the fact that this man will not be able to serve as President as long as FDR; I have no doubt that he could have been elected to a third, fourth, and (if he wanted) even more terms in office.

We need to realize that the media often "spins" results of surveys. I have no doubt that their dyslexic ways results in a "37% popularity rating" for the President, in fact, being 73%.

The Republicans will win both houses of Congress in the 2006 elections and with Bush's popularity will sweep the Presidency and Congress in 2008. Thank God (who inspired it) that the Supreme Court won't be question; we have already managed to get that one where it belongs: safely in the GOP corner.

Thank you, Mr. President, for all you do for us. We know God blesses you and we do, too.

yes, much of that is opinion to you...however do you know who's opinion it is? A black man who wrote about this in his book.

-Democrats have not helped black people....tell me how they have? Democrats have had their vote for over 40 years....yet poverty, crime, and other troubles still plague its community. You keep using the Republicans as basis for the blacks troubles....but we arent talking about the Republicans. We are talking about the Democrats and how they have bettered the black community.

-Why doesnt New England, New York, California, Washington, or Oregon elect blacks to power? They are solid blue states that if liberal, wouldnt consider race a reason not to vote for someone.

^First of all, as Naptown said, it is ludicrous to claim that the Democratic Party of the Civil War era is the same party as the modern Democratic Party. Ideologically, Democrats have become the liberal party whereas the Democrats of the Civil War truly are the idealogical equivalent of today's Republican Party.

Also, your logic that Democrats don't have blacks in power doesn't justify supporting an even MORE anti-black party. I'm not saying that Democrats are perfect or even near perfect--I have a lot of criticisms about them. But I see them as a lesser of 2 evils (for black people)--you either take the people who at least stand up for a economic class that incorporates a large number of blacks, or you (as a Republican) stand up for an economic class that incorporates a relatively small number of black people.

It is impossible to represent EVERYBODY in a 2 party system--both still have majority white voters supporting them, thus I'm not suprised that there aren't that many black Democrats in power. But if you took most genuine black leaders and forced them to choose 1 party, it's safe to say that they would choose to support the Democrats.

i never did vote for the republicans so nothing's changed for me.

I don't get the humor of that at all.

I agree, that's nothing to laugh about.

George W. Bush will go down in history as our finest president. There is no competiton. The only administration in US history that can compete with the accomplishments of his first administration is possibly his second one. The man should not only be commended for his own accomplishments and his own character, but for the extraordinary group of qualified and caring professionals he has brought to Washington, DC, strictly for the purpose of serving the needs and wants of the people. Integrity in opeation! And he has been able to extend these services not only to the grateful American people, but to the folks in the totally liberated Middle East, as well.

Mr. Bush has delivered on his promises of compassionate conservatism, and fiscal and personal responsiblity. His proactive administration doesn't only solve problems; it anticipates them. I deeply regret the fact that this man will not be able to serve as President as long as FDR; I have no doubt that he could have been elected to a third, fourth, and (if he wanted) even more terms in office.

We need to realize that the media often "spins" results of surveys. I have no doubt that their dyslexic ways results in a "37% popularity rating" for the President, in fact, being 73%.

The Republicans will win both houses of Congress in the 2006 elections and with Bush's popularity will sweep the Presidency and Congress in 2008. Thank God (who inspired it) that the Supreme Court won't be question; we have already managed to get that one where it belongs: safely in the GOP corner.

Thank you, Mr. President, for all you do for us. We know God blesses you and we do, too.

lol, that really does sound like something a major Bush backer would argue.

lol, that really does sound like something a major Bush backer would argue.
Maybe it is sarcasm? I don't know but if it isn't, it is obvious that everything he said was the opposite of reality.

First of all, as Naptown said, it is ludicrous to claim that the Democratic Party of the Civil War era is the same party as the modern Democratic Party. Ideologically, Democrats have become the liberal party whereas the Democrats of the Civil War truly are the idealogical equivalent of today's Republican Party.

That is truly an unfair statement. The Democratic Party hated the blacks, wanted them back in the cotton fields, tortured, lynched, raped, and made their lives a living hell. While the Republicans arent the best at catering towards the minority, they are far from that.

Also, your logic that Democrats don't have blacks in power doesn't justify supporting an even MORE anti-black party. I'm not saying that Democrats are perfect or even near perfect--I have a lot of criticisms about them. But I see them as a lesser of 2 evils (for black people)--you either take the people who at least stand up for a economic class that incorporates a large number of blacks, or you (as a Republican) stand up for an economic class that incorporates a relatively small number of black people.

Thats the thing. Both parties arent exactly stellar with the black community in my opinion. Democrats have for many years relied on the black vote to get a rich, white man into office---yet have not made the black community stronger. They make themselves out to be the black mans friend--yet really are using them for votes. From giving cigarettes away for votes to cheating by going into inner cities, taking names and using them illegally for votes---the Democratic Party has always been a questionable one. I really have doubts about any blue blood New Englander that says he's always been there for the black community.

It is impossible to represent EVERYBODY in a 2 party system--both still have majority white voters supporting them, thus I'm not suprised that there aren't that many black Democrats in power. But if you took most genuine black leaders and forced them to choose 1 party, it's safe to say that they would choose to support the Democrats

Of course they would....mainly because the Democrats endless blast them and tell them that they (Republicans) are at fault for all their problems. Many blacks who actually think for themselves find that the Democrats are just as full of shit as the Republicans can be.

WHACK A BUSH :)

George W. Bush will go down in history as our finest president. There is no competiton. The only administration in US history that can compete with the accomplishments of his first administration is possibly his second one. The man should not only be commended for his own accomplishments and his own character, but for the extraordinary group of qualified and caring professionals he has brought to Washington, DC, strictly for the purpose of serving the needs and wants of the people. Integrity in opeation! And he has been able to extend these services not only to the grateful American people, but to the folks in the totally liberated Middle East, as well.

Mr. Bush has delivered on his promises of compassionate conservatism, and fiscal and personal responsiblity. His proactive administration doesn't only solve problems; it anticipates them. I deeply regret the fact that this man will not be able to serve as President as long as FDR; I have no doubt that he could have been elected to a third, fourth, and (if he wanted) even more terms in office.

We need to realize that the media often "spins" results of surveys. I have no doubt that their dyslexic ways results in a "37% popularity rating" for the President, in fact, being 73%.

The Republicans will win both houses of Congress in the 2006 elections and with Bush's popularity will sweep the Presidency and Congress in 2008. Thank God (who inspired it) that the Supreme Court won't be question; we have already managed to get that one where it belongs: safely in the GOP corner.

Thank you, Mr. President, for all you do for us. We know God blesses you and we do, too.

pure genius

George W. Bush will go down in history as our finest president. There is no competiton. The only administration in US history that can compete with the accomplishments of his first administration is possibly his second one. The man should not only be commended for his own accomplishments and his own character, but for the extraordinary group of qualified and caring professionals he has brought to Washington, DC, strictly for the purpose of serving the needs and wants of the people. Integrity in opeation! And he has been able to extend these services not only to the grateful American people, but to the folks in the totally liberated Middle East, as well.

Man, what a biased attitude. Pure opinion, with false facts and everything.
Character? Don't get me started. Mediocre at best.


Mr. Bush has delivered on his promises of compassionate conservatism, and fiscal and personal responsiblity. His proactive administration doesn't only solve problems; it anticipates them. I deeply regret the fact that this man will not be able to serve as President as long as FDR; I have no doubt that he could have been elected to a third, fourth, and (if he wanted) even more terms in office.



Proactive? Again, pure opinion, while I believe most Americans as of late 2005 view the Bush administration as an immense failure, embarrasing at that.


We need to realize that the media often "spins" results of surveys. I have no doubt that their dyslexic ways results in a "37% popularity rating" for the President, in fact, being 73%.

:weirdo:


You know it's amazing how some people are seeming with ignorance. It's people like you that make the rest of the world hate America. Maybe you're in denial. My advice: Check the polls.

The Republicans will win both houses of Congress in the 2006 elections and with Bush's popularity will sweep the Presidency and Congress in 2008. Thank God (who inspired it) that the Supreme Court won't be question; we have already managed to get that one where it belongs: safely in the GOP corner.



Hmmm...no. Americans won't vote for Republicans in the future because of how badly they've fucked up right now.


Thank you, Mr. President, for all you do for us. We know God blesses you and we do, too.

I guess when you say everybody, you refer to just yourself and a handful of those partisan cabinet puppets of his.

Goddamn, get off Bush's dick.

Everybody knows that bush is the absolute worst president in American history and those who dont acknowledge his failures are his asslicking buddies who would still suppport him even if he killed every single soldier in this country. Just look at his shit-poor approval ratings.


And by the way, I believe Clinton was among our best presidents but i would never fabricate lies or spin the truth around like the way you did to get my point across. Seems kinda desparate, don't cha think? Thank God presidents are only limited to two terms, huh?

bro i'm guessing you don't know edsg, i think he was being sarcastic

I think he has succeeded in riling up a few tempers.

"George W. Bush will go down in history as our finest president. There is no competiton."

HA! Sarcasm at its best. .

Anyone who would say something like that couldnt possibly be sarcastic, unless they just didnt give a fuck.

On that note, Al Sharpton in '08

I wouldn't have thought he was being sarcastic until he got into that "... it's probably really 73% and the media just switched it aroun"... then it became obviouse. It was still great and funny though lol

lol, that really does sound like something a major Bush backer would argue.

what can I say, ROC. I became a born again Republican and a groupie for the Bushies at the same time. I even told my cable operator to drop everything but Fox from my t.v. service. The misses and I have decided to home school the children, all 21 of them; little Luke, Issac, Issaih, Ruth, Rebecca, and Miriam are working on their intelligent design science experiment at this moment; the misses and I are headed for the bedroom to assist God in brining us number 22. Even got myself a "Rove Rocks" And "Pull their Chenney, Dick" t-shirts.

Rotten timing though. Just when I was seeing the light go on, everybody else seems to be seeing go off!

My job is done here: MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!
:)

Man, what a biased attitude. Pure opinion, with false facts and everything.
Character? Don't get me started. Mediocre at best.

Next time I'll try to make it more subtle.


Naptown, at any point did you realize that I'm actually on
your side?

It's funny how you say this when Bush had plunged the US economy and its now in billions of dollar in debt to China. I don't see any democrats doing that. Bush has given tax-cuts to his rich little buddies while the less fortunate aren't getting any relief. He does not care about the people who aren't rich, which is most of the country's population. He doesn't care much about our people. He would put another country before our very own. Iraq was a waste of time and money. It was not necessary. Fight terrorism first.

Funny thing is how the war was supposed to end the rule of Osama Bin Laden and somehow, Saddam was chased down. How did that happen? Saddam had no link to Osama bin Laden. And the funny part is how come we still don't have Osama in our hands. Where is he? Are they still tracking him down? What is the percentage of our effort to find him? Seems like 0 to me since I haven't heard any recent progress of finding the clue where Osama is. If Osama is not capture, extremist and terrorist would still have hope of terrorizing the world. The fact is, Bush decieved as all, killed our surplus and economy, and failed on his main objective. It was so obvious he went to Iraq becuase his father did not capture Saddam during his reign so he decided it was his god-given duty to do so even though it had nothing to involve with our country.

None of this is funny. Also, like you know that he doesn't care about this country or his people for that matter. Did he tell you this? Or are you just twisting his actions to make an argument? Yes and of course it seems like zero to you since your not out in afganistan hunting down a man that could be in an area near the size of Germany with extremist supporters protecting him at every point. How can you also say it is "so obvious he went to Iraq because of his father...". What an idiotic claim from someone who is either 12 or is very ignorant.

I don't know the exact reason why went to Iraq, but now that were there I don't see why we should leave it a mess. 2000 lives is tragic and terrible, but what if we had said that during world war II? What if we pull out and the Iraqi government collapses? Then were blamed. The if we were to stay and it is a sucsess, what will you be saying? Thats right, you would have your mouth shut. The anti war movment is so fast to say "we need to get out!" that they don't look at anything in the long run. We pull out now and I can see Iraq going back to the days of Saddam. We stay and we have a better chance of creating a new democracy in the middle east.

I really don't want to get any furthur into this. Please do not take any of this as a threat to your intellagence. Please do not debate me on this, I find it repetative and a waste of my time since everyone is going to say the same things over and over and over again, Im done.

:goodbye:

AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH IM GOING TO "COME" FOR THE FIRST TIME

I am a fiscal conservative, so I wouldn't vote for Busch or his posse.

I am a fiscal conservative, so I wouldn't vote for Busch or his posse.

posse? aren't the vowels in this word actually u and y?

Anyone who would say something like that couldnt possibly be sarcastic, unless they just didnt give a fuck.

On that note, Al Sharpton in '08

Over. my. dead. body.

:puke:

Over. my. dead. body.

:puke:

Yeah I agree. Sharpton is a pain in the ass and has never held any political office. :sleepy:

I wouldn't have voted for Bush in the first place, approval rating or not.

None of this is funny. Also, like you know that he doesn't care about this country or his people for that matter. Did he tell you this? Or are you just twisting his actions to make an argument? Yes and of course it seems like zero to you since your not out in afganistan hunting down a man that could be in an area near the size of Germany with extremist supporters protecting him at every point. How can you also say it is "so obvious he went to Iraq because of his father...". What an idiotic claim from someone who is either 12 or is very ignorant.

I don't know the exact reason why went to Iraq, but now that were there I don't see why we should leave it a mess. 2000 lives is tragic and terrible, but what if we had said that during world war II? What if we pull out and the Iraqi government collapses? Then were blamed. The if we were to stay and it is a sucsess, what will you be saying? Thats right, you would have your mouth shut. The anti war movment is so fast to say "we need to get out!" that they don't look at anything in the long run. We pull out now and I can see Iraq going back to the days of Saddam. We stay and we have a better chance of creating a new democracy in the middle east.

I really don't want to get any furthur into this. Please do not take any of this as a threat to your intellagence. Please do not debate me on this, I find it repetative and a waste of my time since everyone is going to say the same things over and over and over again, Im done.

:goodbye:
Is he really hunting Osama? I have heard absolutely no news about the whereabouts of Osama bin Laden or clues about where he has gone ever since he started looking for Saddam. Ok, maybe I exagerated the part with him not caring about his people but he starting to act somewhat like that because he is focusing way more on Iraq then the US. I felt somewhat betrayed by my own president when he lied to the whole country about going into war to search for WMDs and claiming that Saddam has links to the Al Qaeda when in reality, he sought for his own personal ambition to overthrow Saddam (not a bad reason but that wasn't the objective is it?) and complete his father's mission. Now he left a gaping hole of power in the middle east and until Iraq can finally stand on its own (maybe 5-10 or more years), the US will not pull out of Iraq. So now what? The US is fated for billions and billions of more dollars in deficit and the death toll will continue to rise. This is caused by one man and his own personal ambition.

Is he really hunting Osama? I have heard absolutely no news about the whereabouts of Osama bin Laden or clues about where he has gone ever since he started looking for Saddam. Ok, maybe I exagerated the part with him not caring about his people but he starting to act somewhat like that because he is focusing way more on Iraq then the US. I felt somewhat betrayed by my own president when he lied to the whole country about going into war to search for WMDs and claiming that Saddam has links to the Al Qaeda when in reality, he sought for his own personal ambition to overthrow Saddam (not a bad reason but that wasn't the objective is it?) and complete his father's mission. Now he left a gaping hole of power in the middle east and until Iraq can finally stand on its own (maybe 5-10 or more years), the US will not pull out of Iraq. So now what? The US is fated for billions and billions of more dollars in deficit and the death toll will continue to rise. This is caused by one man and his own personal ambition.

I respect your opinion, and we can never agree or compromise.

It will almost certainly be a Democrat that is elected in 2008 (only three years now!!)

And you're so sure about that because? Is it because you live in New York State? Without the South, it's going to be hard, and I don't see us in the south ever supporting the Democrat Party, enmasse, ever again. At least not in its current socialist order.

Now, I'm not going to say that the Republican Party is great, it's not. However, compared to the alternative, it is a little better.

My philosophy is to not vote for the party, but rather for the candidate that best expresses your views. It is the reason I voted for Michael Peroutka, Constitution Party candidate, for president in 2004.

Yes, I will vote Republican.

Why? Because I am loyal to my party, right through thick and thin. Even the most heinous and evil crimes committed by my party will not change that.

Whether I'm talking about being a "good Christian" while murdering hundreds of thousands of people and keeping black society suppressed, or just giving some enormous financial breaks to billionaires at the expense of nature and the middle-class, I will always be a Republican. Why? Because we are the Grand Ole Party.

In other words, morality is irrelevant. Wearing the mask of morality to deceive the less informed while advancing our agenda to turn the world into an oligarchy of incredibly wealthy white people is our true agenda, morals or not. But we are the GOP, and enacting the policies of Satan is our calling. Oh, and we also have God on our side, since Pat Robertson and other crook evangalists support our brutally sick agenda.

So yes, being a devout Republican I will always vote for my beloved party

You know, your satirical piece is not funny. You apparently like to promote the same lies. Oh well.

And you're so sure about that because? Is it because you live in New York State? Without the South, it's going to be hard, and I don't see us in the south ever supporting the Democrat Party, enmasse, ever again. At least not in its current socialist order.

Now, I'm not going to say that the Republican Party is great, it's not. However, compared to the alternative, it is a little better.

My philosophy is to not vote for the party, but rather for the candidate that best expresses your views. It is the reason I voted for Michael Peroutka, Constitution Party candidate, for president in 2004.

I don't live in New York State. I live in North Carolina, a "red state". The South supported Clinton, at least some states did. Arkansas, Florida, Louisiana, Tennesee. People use the word socialist without knowing what it is. Technicaly, every country is a socialist nation. The definition of socialist is any point in between the two extremes of absolute communism and absolute capitolism, with a complete free market economy. No country on Earth has either. Socialism has come to mean, in the minds of many, wealth redistribution. That happens anyways, taxes paid by the rich, no matter who is in power, pay for benefits for the middle class and poor. But Bush gave the rich a tax break... go figure. (benefits small businesses my foot)

I do however agree with you that it's wrong to vote for parties, and better to vote for candidates.

these tax cuts may sound like evil Bush, but you would be very suprised how much damn money these rich fat cats pay in taxes.

These tax cuts will help business in the next few years, providing jobs. We will see how it works out.

On a serious note, I do feel sorry for Bush supporters right now. The shit has hit the fan (as it inevitably was going to do) and the smoke and mirrors aren't working any more (as was also inevitable).

There is a cult of personality that follows Bush that is incomparable to anything that could compare to Democratic support for Bill Clinton. Unfortunately for many of Bush's supporters, there appears to be a sense that his failures must equate to their failures; thus the compulsion to support him with such defensive fervor.

I'd like to take a different perspective. For SDFan and others who post here, I don't, for a minute, believe your values are worse than mine. And while I'm liberal in persuasion and have generally supported the Democratic party my whole life, I see nothing enately more virtuous in liberalism than in conservatism (they are just two beliefs that anyone is entitled to have). Nor do I think there is something historically greater in the Democratic Party than in the GOP.

What I feel these folks sometimes miss is the fact that they are not under attack, their ideas are not under attack, their party is not under attack. A continually rising number of the US electorate now believes that we have an insidious, inept, and corrupt cabal leading our nation with the Bush administration. I do not expect SDFan or others to agree. But from my perspective (and, I'm sure, from many others), the blame for what has happened during this administration belongs to George W. Bush and the horrendous group of people that he has assembled to work for him.

Personal responsiblity. It belongs to Bush. No blanket indictment of the GOP (which, in sadly too many ways, has been no more irresponsible than the Democrats too frightened to challenge the administration or to come up with a counter vision for this nation). No attack on conservatism (conservatives like Eisenhower and Goldwater are turning over in their graves over what this administration is doing).

Bush is not the GOP's responsiblity. Not conservative's responsibility. Not SDFan's responsiblity. Bush is Bush's responsiblity....and he is doing the shittiest job of taking care of his own business. Bush doesn't invalidate anything.....other than Bush himself. Personality does not equal political philosophy....and an individual's flaws (in Bush's case, endless flaws) does not invalidate his supporters' political beliefs. Personal responsiblity. that's what it's about

why cant the bush supporters just accept bush for who he is


seriously though, bayh in '08


A wise woman once said: "The only Bush I trust is my own."

When will the Emperor's supporters admit he is wearing no clothes?

----

----

What does that mean?

That is truly an unfair statement. The Democratic Party hated the blacks, wanted them back in the cotton fields, tortured, lynched, raped, and made their lives a living hell. While the Republicans arent the best at catering towards the minority, they are far from that.

^.....ummm....ReddAlert.....what is this?

The statement of mine that you quoted says exactly that. Did you read it?

The Democratic party of old was the conservative, racist party; ideologically, however, the Democratic party TODAY is the liberal party while the Republicans have become the conservatives TODAY. Obviously in the modern world nobody's going to go around lynching black people--but the ideologies between these parties have essentially turned tables since the Civil War

Although in purpose, I am Libertarian (I'm rated near Nelson Mandella on the political compass), I will always vote Democrat as long as there is a two-party majority. The Republicans are a dangerous group.

By absentee ballot, of course.

^.....ummm....ReddAlert.....what is this?

The statement of mine that you quoted says exactly that. Did you read it?

The Democratic party of old was the conservative, racist party; ideologically, however, the Democratic party TODAY is the liberal party while the Republicans have become the conservatives TODAY. Obviously in the modern world nobody's going to go around lynching black people--but the ideologies between these parties have essentially turned tables since the Civil War

I dont buy it. The Democrats really havent proven anything.

No that actually is true. Lincoln, the first Republican president, was very liberal for his time. Look at how the electoral map has TOTALY flipped, it used to be that the South was the srongest supporter of the Democratic party, and the Northeast the strongest supporters of republicans. The people didn't switch their ideological standpoint; the parties did.

On a serious note, I do feel sorry for Bush supporters right now. The shit has hit the fan (as it inevitably was going to do) and the smoke and mirrors aren't working any more (as was also inevitable).

There is a cult of personality that follows Bush that is incomparable to anything that could compare to Democratic support for Bill Clinton. Unfortunately for many of Bush's supporters, there appears to be a sense that his failures must equate to their failures; thus the compulsion to support him with such defensive fervor.

I'd like to take a different perspective. For SDFan and others who post here, I don't, for a minute, believe your values are worse than mine. And while I'm liberal in persuasion and have generally supported the Democratic party my whole life, I see nothing enately more virtuous in liberalism than in conservatism (they are just two beliefs that anyone is entitled to have). Nor do I think there is something historically greater in the Democratic Party than in the GOP.

What I feel these folks sometimes miss is the fact that they are not under attack, their ideas are not under attack, their party is not under attack. A continually rising number of the US electorate now believes that we have an insidious, inept, and corrupt cabal leading our nation with the Bush administration. I do not expect SDFan or others to agree. But from my perspective (and, I'm sure, from many others), the blame for what has happened during this administration belongs to George W. Bush and the horrendous group of people that he has assembled to work for him.

Personal responsiblity. It belongs to Bush. No blanket indictment of the GOP (which, in sadly too many ways, has been no more irresponsible than the Democrats too frightened to challenge the administration or to come up with a counter vision for this nation). No attack on conservatism (conservatives like Eisenhower and Goldwater are turning over in their graves over what this administration is doing).

Bush is not the GOP's responsiblity. Not conservative's responsibility. Not SDFan's responsiblity. Bush is Bush's responsiblity....and he is doing the shittiest job of taking care of his own business. Bush doesn't invalidate anything.....other than Bush himself. Personality does not equal political philosophy....and an individual's flaws (in Bush's case, endless flaws) does not invalidate his supporters' political beliefs. Personal responsiblity. that's what it's about

In a strange and weird way I agree with you. Im not going to go say I hate the guy or that I disagree with all of his actions. I will say that he has made some very dumb moves. Like his Supreme Court picks. Allowing Mr.Rove to take over his agenda. Even not confronting that Cindy joke at his ranch. He has made a lot of conservative's question his conservativism (national debt). So I do have to say he is NOT my first choice for president. But, hes not a Clinton or Carter. Hes not Shummer, or Biden or the Hillary C.

Now when it comes to calling him an idiot, a racist, bigot, homophobe, liar, Nazi, anti-islamic, or satans son....well I guess I see it as an idiotic way of say "I disagree with the president". Now an attack against Bush isn't a personal attack against me. I just find it rediculous for someone to make claims so bad as to say he doesn't care about the American people or so on. Now if you wish to apply this to us, well then I guess I can apply it to liberals and people on the anti-war band wagon. Don't take such words to heart, there not against you or your beliefs. Its against the media storm, the democratic senators and congressmen, the european anti-Americans. The Hate Speech.

I think Im coming to a point were Im about to rant so I'll end this now.

No that actually is true. Lincoln, the first Republican president, was very liberal for his time. Look at how the electoral map has TOTALY flipped, it used to be that the South was the srongest supporter of the Democratic party, and the Northeast the strongest supporters of republicans. The people didn't switch their ideological standpoint; the parties did.
I think that is more attributed to FDR's policies than anyone else.

I dont buy it. The Democrats really havent proven anything.

ReddAlert, go read up on the Republicans' Southern Strategy, the Dixiecrats, and in general the whole political shifts of 1948 to 1968. That should clear things up about where the parties stand.

[Hint: Even if Republicans love black people, it is an unrequited love, and for good reason.]

"No that actually is true. Lincoln, the first Republican president, was very liberal for his time. Look at how the electoral map has TOTALY flipped, it used to be that the South was the srongest supporter of the Democratic party, and the Northeast the strongest supporters of republicans. The people didn't switch their ideological standpoint; the parties did."

Both the people and the parties have changed their stances.

I believe Lewis Black said it best:

1. "Republicans are the party of bad ideas and Democrats are the party of no ideas..."

2. "In my lifetime, we've gone from Eisenhower to George W. Bush. We've gone from John F. Kennedy to Al Gore. If this is evolution, I believe that in twelve years, we'll be voting for plants. "

There are some extremely moronic people here throwing around words and phrases they don't know the definitions of.

Case in Point: "I'd vote for Bush over anyone on the left that I know of".

First of all, what the fuck is wrong with you and how bad a case of 'beaten wife syndrome' do you have to have to think this way?

Second of all, who do you know on the left and how is George Bush better than them?

Thirdly, where the hell do you get your ideas about the left wing? Alot of sheepish right wingers love to moan and groan about how much they hate liberals...but few can tell you why, and when they do, their "reasons" are either based entirely on Limbaugh fed stereotypes or shit they just made up.

So, in conclusion: Anyone that still has faith in the legislators that support Bush are idiots and are suffering from the same psychological trauma as a wife who is beaten by her husband everyday but still convinces herself that he loves her.

I dont buy it. The Democrats really havent proven anything.

^Ummmm.....so you're going to become a Republican instead? Yeah that's good reasoning

I believe Lewis Black said it best:

1. "Republicans are the party of bad ideas and Democrats are the party of no ideas..."

2. "In my lifetime, we've gone from Eisenhower to George W. Bush. We've gone from John F. Kennedy to Al Gore. If this is evolution, I believe that in twelve years, we'll be voting for plants. "

A very smart man.

yes. but then again, it all depends on the candidate

I am not so partisan to just vote for a candidate by what party they are in. If they share similar views with me, and I think they can handle running the country. I would vote for that person regardless of whether they are Right or Left.

i hate conservitists and leftists who try to force their views down our throats. i am a middle of the road kind of guy, i admit i fall more to the left, but this country could accomplish a lot more and we would have better leaders if we werent so (1) busy trying to blame others (2) pick fights and (3) biased "oh, the left is so blah blah blah blah" and "ah, those damn conservative blah blah blah"
if we dont do something it will only get worse and there will be two americas literally

OH MY GOD BREAKING NEWS BUSH JUST SWITCHED PARTIES AND BECAME A LEFTIST DEMOCRAT ABANDONING HIS COLLEAGUES :shocked:

just kidding, errbody

i hate conservitists and leftists who try to force their views down our throats. i am a middle of the road kind of guy, i admit i fall more to the left, but this country could accomplish a lot more and we would have better leaders if we werent so (1) busy trying to blame others (2) pick fights and (3) biased "oh, the left is so blah blah blah blah" and "ah, those damn conservative blah blah blah"
if we dont do something it will only get worse and there will be two americas literally

I'm scared now, you are like, my political clone. lol

I would vote for whoever I believe would do better. I am not dedicated to one particular party, because there are handfuls of dumbasses in both parties.

This is one of the best points I've ever seen on this forum. :applause: I completely agree with you. On the opposite side of that there are qualified people on both sides. The party system was a mistake, people vote along party lines instead of really looking into the qualifications and character of a canidate.

Depends on if I feel the candidate is worth my vote. I vote for the person, not the party.

sure, if its a better candidate.

I think you could call me a Zell Miller Democrat.

As a few before me have said, though, I try to vote for who I think will do the best. Too many jackasses in the parties for me to align myself with either, though I am a little more on the conservative side.

In short, I would vote him back in, though I'd much rather have the likes of, say McCain or Giuliani running the country.