Cawacko

Warren said:
Well from the second Bush took office there was a significant portion of the electorate that already hated him. These are the people who will suffer no good to be spoken of George Bush. To them he is either an evil genius bent on dominating America and enslaving the world or an incompetent fool unable to speak a coherent sentence or articulate a simple thought. These are the people I do not trust.

When Bush was running in 2000, he ran on a very good platform which included stepping back as world policeman, no nation building, Social Security reform, and tax cuts. Ignoring that none of this came to pass, this broadly accepted agenda is relatively uncontroversial, yet a large chunk of voters chose to reject Bush in 2000 based on only that information. I don't trust anyone who rejects those ideas so categorically.

I see the smarter voters as the ones who supported Bush initially but quickly realized that his rhetoric did not match his actions and backed away from him. I'm sure many liberals will be quick to claim that they saw Bush for what he was in 2000, but I don't see that as realistic.
Click to expand...

LOL. So the people who were fooled by bush are smarter than the people who weren't?

There was plenty of information out there by the year 2000, about bush and his record in Texas, as well as examinations of his tax claims which proved he was lying, though the msm was too wrapped up in their "gore is a serial exaggerator" narrative to mention it.

All you had to do was look.
 
Darla said:
Hello!

I have just finished watching Naomi Klein kick Greenspan's ass on Democracy Now! which i watch on my computer at night a lot. I'm trying to meet her, I want her for my International Women's Day event, it will be hard for me to settle for anyone else. I might even switch teams, if she happens to be on the other side, which she could be because she is a genius it's hard to believe she'd have much use for men.

Anyway, that's all babble! Sorry, sugar high. My point is, in the course of this debate, Alan Greenspan whom you respect so well, said that he is a Libertarian Republican and Bill Clinton is a moderate Democrat and "there really isn't that much difference between the two" And when pressed to state how often he agreed with Bill Clinton economically, he said "80% of the time"!

Holy shit! Now, what does this do to your opinion of both Greenspan, and Clinton?
Click to expand...

I can't imagine Naomi Klein beating Greenspan in any kind of debate unless Greenspan suffered a stroke midway through, or someone of the most biased viewpoint imaginable was reporting on the incident.
 
cawacko said:
To a degree yes. There were definitely people (on the right) that despised Clinton and everything he did.

Was it the same as today with Bush? Hard to say in the sense I think each person might view that differently based on their personal biases.
Click to expand...

A different set of people that behave differently.
Dems are not known for their hate filled rhetoric and false outrage as well as cons are.

Remember the liberal minds vs the conservative minds...
And also that whiney kids grow up to be Republicans
 
Warren said:
Well from the second Bush took office there was a significant portion of the electorate that already hated him. These are the people who will suffer no good to be spoken of George Bush. To them he is either an evil genius bent on dominating America and enslaving the world or an incompetent fool unable to speak a coherent sentence or articulate a simple thought. These are the people I do not trust.

When Bush was running in 2000, he ran on a very good platform which included stepping back as world policeman, no nation building, Social Security reform, and tax cuts. Ignoring that none of this came to pass, this broadly accepted agenda is relatively uncontroversial, yet a large chunk of voters chose to reject Bush in 2000 based on only that information. I don't trust anyone who rejects those ideas so categorically.

I see the smarter voters as the ones who supported Bush initially but quickly realized that his rhetoric did not match his actions and backed away from him. I'm sure many liberals will be quick to claim that they saw Bush for what he was in 2000, but I don't see that as realistic.
Click to expand...

I think some (many?) of the people you speak of view him as "illigitimate" because he did not win the popular vote and therefore have been against him from day one.

I agree with you that his initial agenda was not real controversial but I think that is in the eye of the beholder.

Many people may be for social security reform however as we have seen how that reform takes place causes people to have very strong and differing opinions.

The tax cuts were probably the one thing he got through but as I'm sure you seen and read they are controversial as well to some as they are 'tax cuts for the rich'.

I think your assesment above was pretty well on target.
 
uscitizen said:
A different set of people that behave differently.
Dems are not known for their hate filled rhetoric and false outrage as well as cons are.

Remember the liberal minds vs the conservative minds...
And also that whiney kids grow up to be Republicans
Click to expand...

Also, on the whole, besides being whiny as kids, they grow up to have fatter asses. I've noticed.
 
Warren said:
Well from the second Bush took office there was a significant portion of the electorate that already hated him. These are the people who will suffer no good to be spoken of George Bush. To them he is either an evil genius bent on dominating America and enslaving the world or an incompetent fool unable to speak a coherent sentence or articulate a simple thought. These are the people I do not trust.

When Bush was running in 2000, he ran on a very good platform which included stepping back as world policeman, no nation building, Social Security reform, and tax cuts. Ignoring that none of this came to pass, this broadly accepted agenda is relatively uncontroversial, yet a large chunk of voters chose to reject Bush in 2000 based on only that information. I don't trust anyone who rejects those ideas so categorically.

I see the smarter voters as the ones who supported Bush initially but quickly realized that his rhetoric did not match his actions and backed away from him. I'm sure many liberals will be quick to claim that they saw Bush for what he was in 2000, but I don't see that as realistic.
Click to expand...

I knew bush was a moron who was helped into office by his daddy's friends on the SCOTUS. I don't know if hate was the right word, but I definetly knew this moron didn't belong in the oval office, right from the very beginning.

I'm honestly suprised bush fooled so many people. Hardly anyone I can think of now is happy with their vote for him.

Except maybe cawacko. :cof1:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top