Conservative Vs Liberal Rant

“We need a thread for the crap that clutters up more topical political threads. I'll start:

Published on Monday, December 8, 2003 by the San Diego Union-Tribune
What's Left of Conservative Values?
by James O. Goldsborough

Conservatives take great pride in their label and in angrily attacking those who don't share their beliefs. Thus was I taken aback to see the self-described conservative commentator and New York Times columnist David Brooks defend the idea of gay marriage.

Gay marriage is a hot topic, like civil rights and legal abortion in other times. If a conservative defends such a progressive idea, is he still a conservative? What makes a conservative?

I don't like labels, a convenient though inadequate means of description. Politics, let alone society, is too complex to be reduced to handy either-ors. Howard Dean's surprising prominence in the presidential race can be attributed to the absence of labels for him, or the presence of contradictory ones, indicating he obviously is his own man.

But conservatives exult in their label as though it carried the distinction of something high and mighty, like Mensa membership. Wearing the label normally means accepting the baggage that comes with it, some of which Brooks is trying to unload.

Check the conservative baggage claim area and you find such items as opposing big government, abortion, gun control, environmentalism, affirmative action (a form of civil rights) and homosexuality. It means supporting religion in politics, school prayer, creationism and the military (through spending, not serving).

There is also a club subset called neoconservatives, of which Brooks is a leading member, that believes America should fight Israel's battles.

Hypocrisy won't exclude you from the club. The most angry of the Clinton-haters had their own bimbo problems, and the most righteous of the moral majority have tripped up over the usual sins.

Rush Limbaugh, a radio conservative, claimed the solution to drug use was "to go out and find the ones who are getting away with it, convict them and send them up the river." Then Limbaugh became a drug addict and changed his mind about prison time.

Hypocrisy gets a pass, but what about apostasy? Can Brooks get away with backing something as radical as gay marriage and stay in the club? What is the essence of conservatism? When we boil it down, what's left?

The movement has tried to finesse its existential problem by subdividing into social and economic branches. Abandoning social conservatism, Brooks presumably could claim economic conservatism and still keep his pid.

Check the conservative baggage claim area and you find such items as opposing big government, abortion, gun control, environmentalism, affirmative action (a form of civil rights) and homosexuality. It means supporting religion in politics, school prayer, creationism and the military (through spending, not serving).

There is also a club subset called neoconservatives, of which Brooks is a leading member, that believes America should fight Israel's battles.

Hypocrisy won't exclude you from the club. The most angry of the Clinton-haters had their own bimbo problems, and the most righteous of the moral majority have tripped up over the usual sins.

Rush Limbaugh, a radio conservative, claimed the solution to drug use was "to go out and find the ones who are getting away with it, convict them and send them up the river." Then Limbaugh became a drug addict and changed his mind about prison time.

Hypocrisy gets a pass, but what about apostasy? Can Brooks get away with backing something as radical as gay marriage and stay in the club? What is the essence of conservatism? When we boil it down, what's left?

The movement has tried to finesse its existential problem by subdividing into social and economic branches. Abandoning social conservatism, Brooks presumably could claim economic conservatism and still keep his pin and secret handshake.

The problem is that economic conservatism died under Ronald Reagan, and George W. Bush has now broken all Reagan's budget deficit records. With our all-conservative government wallowing in debt, it's hard to find a practicing economic conservative.

Libertarians and liberals are the economic conservatives today. Libertarians, the people with the Adam Smith ties, are the true defenders of small government, while liberals have rallied to balanced budgets. One of the great political switches of our time – right up there with the South's going Republican in the 1970s – has been liberals replacing conservatives as the champions of fiscal responsibility.

Deprived of economic credibility, conservatives threw themselves into their social agenda. They turned on social enemies with an anger rarely seen in politics. In Bill Clinton, they had their devil, and with impeachment reached their apogee of hatred.

That's what makes Brooks' defense of gay marriage so damaging for them. If they lose their social issues, what's left? Robbed of grand modifiers like "social" and "economic," the club is reduced to mere lobbyist status, like the NRA and AARP. The risk is that conservatism ceases to be a credible club at all, as in Canada and Britain.

Support for gay marriage is a big crack in the facade. Brooks' action not only un and secret handshake.

The problem is that economic conservatism died under Ronald Reagan, and George W. Bush has now broken all Reagan's budget deficit records. With our all-conservative government wallowing in debt, it's hard to find a practicing economic conservative.

Libertarians and liberals are the economic conservatives today. Libertarians, the people with the Adam Smith ties, are the true defenders of small government, while liberals have rallied to balanced budgets. One of the great political switches of our time – right up there with the South's going Republican in the 1970s – has been liberals replacing conservatives as the champions of fiscal responsibility.

Deprived of economic credibility, conservatives threw themselves into their social agenda. They turned on social enemies with an anger rarely seen in politics. In Bill Clinton, they had their devil, and with impeachment reached their apogee of hatred.

That's what makes Brooks' defense of gay marriage so damaging for them. If they lose their social issues, what's left? Robbed of grand modifiers like "social" and "economic," the club is reduced to mere lobbyist status, like the NRA and AARP. The risk is that conservatism ceases to be a credible club at all, as in Canada and Britain.

Support for gay marriage is a big crack in the facade. Brooks' action not only undercuts their social agenda but deprives conservatives of an issue to use in next year's election.

In our quest to understand, to give the word "conservative" meaning, we return to the roots. Edmund Burke is recognized as the first conservative, whose pro-monarchist, anti-democratic views in England would give birth to the Conservative Party. Whigs, by contrast, were progressives who sought to weaken the monarchy.

To be conservative in Burke's time was to defend traditional things – values, institutions, above all the pound sterling, for society's stability was built on bonds. Change was the enemy, which led to unrest, even revolt, the enemy of tradition, of conservatism.

Whatever you may think about homosexual marriage, you have to admit it is not a traditional value. It may be an idea whose time has come, and I suspect it is, though I give way to no one in respecting traditions.

Our distillation of conservatism leaves the vat almost empty. Economic conservatism is gone, and social conservatism under attack. What's left to bind together the fraying brotherhood, to keep government halls filled with dyspeptic fulminators and the airwaves with angry ranters?

Even robbed of doctrine, conservatives have a unique glue to bind them together. It is the thing that identifies them in every setting and separates them from others. It ndercuts their social agenda but deprives conservatives of an issue to use in next year's election.

In our quest to understand, to give the word "conservative" meaning, we return to the roots. Edmund Burke is recognized as the first conservative, whose pro-monarchist, anti-democratic views in England would give birth to the Conservative Party. Whigs, by contrast, were progressives who sought to weaken the monarchy.

To be conservative in Burke's time was to defend traditional things – values, institutions, above all the pound sterling, for society's stability was built on bonds. Change was the enemy, which led to unrest, even revolt, the enemy of tradition, of conservatism.

Whatever you may think about homosexual marriage, you have to admit it is not a traditional value. It may be an idea whose time has come, and I suspect it is, though I give way to no one in respecting traditions.

Our distillation of conservatism leaves the vat almost empty. Economic conservatism is gone, and social conservatism under attack. What's left to bind together the fraying brotherhood, to keep government halls filled with dyspeptic fulminators and the airwaves with angry ranters?

Even robbed of doctrine, conservatives have a unique glue to bind them together. It is the thing that identifies them in every setting and separates them from others. It is the one thing left in the vat when all else is boiled away, disappeared into the ether.

It is their anger, anger at a world that doesn't fit their ideas of it, that will evolve as it sees fit.

© Copyright 2003 Union-Tribune Publishing Co.”

“Cool!”

“GOP's Southern success is a double-edged sword
Wednesday, December 10, 2003
By Providence Journal columnist Froma Harrop

The American North and South have been known to disagree on occasion. One was reminded of that reality when Georgia Sen. Zell Miller, a Southern Democrat, announced that he would vote for Republican George Bush in the next presidential election. The declaration followed the publication of his book, "A National Party No More." The book is a scathing attack on fellow Democrats and has won Miller warm applause in Republican circles.

While Miller was airing his grievances before a national audience, a Republican colleague indicated he, too, might cross party lines in 2004. However, he drew little attention. Asked whether he would vote for Bush's re-election, Rhode Island Sen. Lincoln Chafee said only, "I'm a good Republican." That's not a yes.

In recent years, Southern conservatives have wept loudly about how Northern Democrats — that is, liberals — don't understand the South. Their values are not Southern values, which, the conservatives contend, more reflect the nation's.

As evidence, Miller reminds us that in the 2000 election, Al Gore lost every state in the Old Confederacy, including his home state of Tennessee. Miller argues that the Democrats are finished in the South, and hence, may no longer lay claim to being a national party.

Let it be said that Miller makes some valid points. Northerners persist in employing ignorant stereotypes about the South. And it was something of a feat for a Southerner like Gore to do so badly in the region of his birth.

But now let's run a reality check. Bush lost every single state in the Northeast from Maryland on up, with the exception of New Hampshire. He won New Hampshire in a squeaker and would have lost decisively had it not been for the Nader vote.

Bush also lost the entire West Coast, from California through Washington, and five states in the Upper Great Lakes. And so by Miller's mode of reasoning, the Republican Party is no longer a national party, either.

My purpose is not to rehash the 2000 election but to suggest that national Republicans are losing large parts of the North and the West. They're especially vulnerable in New England, which still sends five GOP senators to Washington.

New England Republicans can barely recognize their party. They base their tradition on the old-fashioned Republican virtues of limited government, moderation on social issues, balancevery state in the Old Confederacy, including his home state of Tennessee. Miller argues that the Democrats are finished in the South, and hence, may no longer lay claim to being a national party.

Let it be said that Miller makes some valid points. Northerners persist in employing ignorant stereotypes about the South. And it was something of a feat for a Southerner like Gore to do so badly in the region of his birth.

But now let's run a reality check. Bush lost every single state in the Northeast from Maryland on up, with the exception of New Hampshire. He won New Hampshire in a squeaker and would have lost decisively had it not been for the Nader vote.

Bush also lost the entire West Coast, from California through Washington, and five states in the Upper Great Lakes. And so by Miller's mode of reasoning, the Republican Party is no longer a national party, either.

My purpose is not to rehash the 2000 election but to suggest that national Republicans are losing large parts of the North and the West. They're especially vulnerable in New England, which still sends five GOP senators to Washington.

New England Republicans can barely recognize their party. They base their tradition on the old-fashioned Republican virtues of limited government, moderation on social issues, balanced budgets and concern for the environment. Under Southern management, the national GOP offers none of the above.

Consider recent legislation. Chafee and both of New Hampshire's Republican senators, Judd Gregg and John Sununu, voted against the Medicare bill. And they did so as fiscal conservatives. They argued that adding a $400 billion drug benefit while slashing taxes would explode the deficit even further. Deficit hawks often gag when tax-cutting, but big-spending Southerners call themselves "conservative."

All five Yankee Republicans — Chafee, Gregg, Sununu and Maine's Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe — opposed their party's energy bill mostly on environmental grounds. A sixth Republican, John McCain of Arizona, joined them, calling the bill a "Thanksgiving turkey" stuffed with goodies for special interests.

The example of Vermont Sen. Jim Jeffords continues to fire imaginations in New England. Jeffords left the party in 2001, briefly sending the Senate into Democratic control. His had been the longest continually held Republican seat in history.

Jeffords' big beef against the Republican leadership was its fiscal irresponsibility. He wanted to trim Bush's proposed tax cut from $1.6 trillion to $1.25 trillion, a number he later voted for. (Miller, on the ed budgets and concern for the environment. Under Southern management, the national GOP offers none of the above.

Consider recent legislation. Chafee and both of New Hampshire's Republican senators, Judd Gregg and John Sununu, voted against the Medicare bill. And they did so as fiscal conservatives. They argued that adding a $400 billion drug benefit while slashing taxes would explode the deficit even further. Deficit hawks often gag when tax-cutting, but big-spending Southerners call themselves "conservative."

All five Yankee Republicans — Chafee, Gregg, Sununu and Maine's Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe — opposed their party's energy bill mostly on environmental grounds. A sixth Republican, John McCain of Arizona, joined them, calling the bill a "Thanksgiving turkey" stuffed with goodies for special interests.

The example of Vermont Sen. Jim Jeffords continues to fire imaginations in New England. Jeffords left the party in 2001, briefly sending the Senate into Democratic control. His had been the longest continually held Republican seat in history.

Jeffords' big beef against the Republican leadership was its fiscal irresponsibility. He wanted to trim Bush's proposed tax cut from $1.6 trillion to $1.25 trillion, a number he later voted for. (Miller, on the other hand, figured sky's-the-limit and had supported the entire tax cut.)

The Republican leadership decided to retaliate, using the conservative punditry as its voice. The White House had a one- or two-year plan to punish Jeffords, said a senior Republican who preferred to remain anonymous. The Wall Street Journal editorial page insisted that helping Vermont dairy farmers with price supports had become a national outrage. When Jeffords actually left the Republican Party, he received death threats and was assigned FBI protection.

The 2000 election sent the Senate back to Republican control, but it remains so evenly divided that an angry electorate in New England could change everything. So could some Yankee Republicans who conclude they've taken enough abuse and decide to switch sides.

Zell Miller should know that he's not the only one holding a wet hankie.

© Copyright 2003 Providence Journal”

“yea, and they eat babies, too! s'true!”

“Your thread's a failure Phaed. Your posts are trashing up this part of the board too.

>”

“Conservative & Liberal is so black and white. Almost nobody is going to completely fall into this catagorical label of "Conservative". The guy who wrote this first article is a jack a$$, he probably was out of material and was against a deadline. The U/T is well known for printing garbage like this. I have very many very conservative values, but Im also a surfer and a backpacker which makes me to some degree environmentally mindful. I dont drive a friggin' Prius, but I dont trash the place either. Does this "disqualify" me from being a "Conservative"?

You're a smart dude Phaed, Im surprised you posted this piece of crap.”

“ok c bat, now that we know your stance, we can safely assume you wont be making blanket statements about liberals this or liberals that?”

“Although, I'm a conservative, I do believe there should be a balance of power. I'd hate to see this country swing to far either way!”

“Storm, I've never complained about blanket statements. Rather if someone wrongfully assumes my position on a matter I clarify it for them. Blanket statements are to be expected in partisan politics.

But this guy is saying that if you're not full bore 100% coservative on all issues then you're not a "true conservative". That's ludicrous. Very few if any people are competely right or completely left.”

“I'm completely befuddled. I think I will have to start my own party.”

“Observation:

How many trolls do the Liberals have?


How many trolls do the Republicans have?

be honest......”

“So with Republican control of both houses, the Whitehouse and the judiciary, the only real chance of restoring balance is in the upcoming Presidential election, I assume you’ll be voting for Howard Dean, stilllost.”

“Yea, This is the thread we were missing.

Good Grief.”

“Screw you, bacpac, you nazi scum.”

“The nazi scum protest that remark!”

“let's just call for an all out jihad on president bush......


ohhhhhh....waaaaiiiiiiiiiiiiit a minuuuuuuuuuuuuute......you already have! my bad, sorry. i missed the secret meeting.



bush is a moderate. why do ya'll hate him so bad? i'll tell you why. he is sucessful. he has stolen the dem's issues, much like clinton did. he is a regular guy with common scense and the voters will trust him with the new issue, national security. no dem will defend us the way bush will and people will choose him handily because of that. face it boys, 9-11 lost ya'll the next 3 elections. repubs will gain seats in both houses as well. it's one man's opinion.

c bat is right. kindof.... i could go on but i got a life to live....have a great day!”

“bush is a moderate.

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAH!


HAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAA!

Good one.”

“IMHO Bush is a moderate in his actions but tends to appear like a conservative in his speeches. His father was a liberal republican put on Reagan's ticket as VP to attract more Republican votes.”

“As I recall, Bush campaigned as a Moderate in the general election and some people fell for it. After taking the oath, he swerved back onto the path he took during the primaries: hard right on social issues and Twilight Zone fiscally.

Populating the regulatory agencies with the lobbyists whose bread & butter had been fighting all forms of regulation tooth and nail... What do you call that? (besides irresponsible and probably criminal?) I guess that's neither 'left' nor 'right' --- It's just 'selling out to the highest biddder'.


On the Superior Ethics Front, I've been hearing more about the attempted arm-twisting (read 'blackmail and threats') that went on during the Medicare vote. Pelosi and a few others are calling for an investigation.

How many would that make? The Senate is supposed to investigate how intelligence was misused to instigate war and the FBI is still looking for the person(s) who leaked the 'employment status' of Joe Wilson's wife.... I'm starting to lose count.”

“Darn. I thought this was a thread bashing "Conservative vs Liberal" arguments.”

“If Bush is doing sucha great job, why is he down in the polls?

If he's this great person, why does most of the world hate us right now (former friends included)? Are people that blind that they can't see that, or is it VAST LEFT CONSPERICY?

If he's a moderate, why did he sign into law that abortion bill?

If he's a Repubilcan, why does he spend like a drunken sailor?

If you remember, that "tax cut" you all got, was really an advance on following years return (the first 600.00 bones). The only real tax cut I got was because I had one child (Child Care cut) and that was 400.00. Weren't we suppose to get an income tax bracket drop? Maybe it my employer, but my gross paycheck did not reflect that.”

“Now again, I say:

How many trolls do the Liberals have on this board?


How many trolls do the Republicans have on this board?”

“These days, the "conservatives" don't look very conservative and the liberals don't seem so liberal.

The fiscal conservatives (moderate and right) are freaking out over how liberal the spending is now that the "conservatives" are in control.

I vote for pragmatism.

(either that or anarcho-absurdist retro-pagan pseudo-neo-post-retro-modernist incoherence)”

“LMFAO!”

“lolz peddy!


laq;
If Bush is doing sucha great job, why is he down in the polls?

the bush jihad has been very effective. most people won't even think about it seriously for months anyway.

why does most of the world hate us right now (former friends included)? Are people that blind that they can't see that, or is it VAST LEFT CONSPERICY?

yes, the countries in question are very left leaning(socialist and communist)


If he's a moderate, why did he sign into law that abortion bill?

since when is killing a viable fetus a mainstream idea?

that "tax cut" you all got, was really an advance on following years return (the first 600.00 bones). The only real tax cut I got was because I had one child (Child Care cut) and that was 400.00. Weren't we suppose to get an income tax bracket drop? Maybe it my employer, but my gross paycheck did not reflect that."


well, if you'll remember he first gave a refund(before 9-11). secondly, are you complaining that you didn't get enough? did you send your $400 back? you talk out of both sides of your mouth proving that your only real interest is to jihad bush.


If he's a Repubilcan, why does he spend like a drunken sailor?


again, now you argue that he's not conservative enough, while before you argue that he's too conservative. this statement proves my point, that bush is a moderate. glad we can agree on something.


have a great day”

“he is a regular guy with common scense

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAH!


HAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAA!

Good one.”

“What do you say to a drunken sailor?
Early in the morning?
Good morning Mr. President.”

“whoa...you really burned me on that one[eyeroll]”

“"the bush jihad has been very effective. most people won't even think about it seriously for months anyway........"

dissmissive, as usual. If I were were you then, I'd woried 'bout those big, bad Jihadist ruining your buddy. Too bad people like you cannot stand up fer him and only cause more damage.


"yes, the countries in question are very left leaning(socialist and communist)........."

name one of those countires that's communist! Ahhhh, Ahhhh, there is none! China, N. Korea and Cuba are te only remaining Commie homelands. I'd really be interested in seeing you sourses for your "information". Again, you say anyone not with Bush is a Commie or Socialist. HA!


"well, if you'll remember he first gave a refund(before 9-11). secondly, are you complaining that you didn't get enough? did you send your $400 back? you talk out of both sides of your mouth proving that your only real interest is to jihad bush......."

Know what, your right, it wasn't a tax cut, it was an ADVANCE on the following years refund. You had to take that 600 off the top. If you paid taxes, you would know this.


"again, now you argue that he's not conservative enough, while before you argue that he's too conservative. this statement proves my point, that bush is a moderate. glad we can agree on something.........."


I'm pointing out his inconsistances, his flippant behavior. Too bad your kids and mine are going to be paying for this chit when there grandparents, or can you see that far ahead? ice try, again, at avoiding the question.

"since when is killing a viable fetus a mainstream idea?......."

Ahhh, though I do agree with the action he took (I feel that this is far as it should go. It should be the compramise that ends this debate, but will not. As I feared, this is not good enough for the Christian Radical Right. As always, give'em an inch, they'll take a mile), the "killing a viable fetus", as you put it, as been a mainstream idea since Roe v Wade. You seem comfortable wth the idea that a governing body can tell a women what to do with there body. How would you feel if the Government told you that after 35, you had to get your balls chopped off? Not so easy is it? Actually, sounds a little socialist, maybe even Communist.....hmmmmm.....like popualtion control.......like China? I hope you're not implying that women are incapable of making decisions on there own. Besides, what business is it of yours WHAT some women do witht here bodies? Are you as outraged about women who smoke while pregant? How about using drugs while pregos?

Lot's o' question point, that bush is a moderate. glad we can agree on something.........."


I'm pointing out his inconsistances, his flippant behavior. Too bad your kids and mine are going to be paying for this chit when there grandparents, or can you see that far ahead? ice try, again, at avoiding the question.

"since when is killing a viable fetus a mainstream idea?......."

Ahhh, though I do agree with the action he took (I feel that this is far as it should go. It should be the compramise that ends this debate, but will not. As I feared, this is not good enough for the Christian Radical Right. As always, give'em an inch, they'll take a mile), the "killing a viable fetus", as you put it, as been a mainstream idea since Roe v Wade. You seem comfortable wth the idea that a governing body can tell a women what to do with there body. How would you feel if the Government told you that after 35, you had to get your balls chopped off? Not so easy is it? Actually, sounds a little socialist, maybe even Communist.....hmmmmm.....like popualtion control.......like China? I hope you're not implying that women are incapable of making decisions on there own. Besides, what business is it of yours WHAT some women do witht here bodies? Are you as outraged about women who smoke while pregant? How about using drugs while pregos?

Lot's o' questions fer ya here. Take yer time.....”

“Whoa!! The post is weird at the end! Must be that "update" from yesterday....”

“I got a Christmas card from George and Laura Bush. It's on my frigde. Man I love that guy.”

“Although I believe there should be a balance of power, in response to your question, my answer is "not a chance in hell"”

““Edmund Burke is recognized as the first conservative”

The very first? Wow! Who recognizes him as such? Seems highly unlikely to me.



“The problem is that economic conservatism died under Ronald Reagan,…”

What? Do tell. Ronny Raygun the “liberal” boogey-man. Economic conservatism has died huh? Better tell that to Alan Greenspan and a few Nobel Prize winning "conservative" economists who are apparently hanging on for dear life.



“…while liberals have rallied to balanced budgets. One of the great political switches of our time – right up there with the South's going Republican in the 1970s – has been liberals replacing conservatives as the champions of fiscal responsibility.”

“Libertarians and liberals are the economic conservatives today.”

Libertarians, you betcha. “Liberals”? This guy is on crack. If he means Democrats when he says “liberal” on what does he base his statement of “economic conservatives”? The Democratic bills for Homeland Security and the prescription drug plan entailed far more government spending than the Republican bills.



“It is their anger, anger at a world that doesn't fit their ideas of it, that will evolve as it sees fit.”

I have heard it said, by psychologists and psychiatrists, that what you don’t like about someone else, are those things you see in yourself. The left is angry and has always been angry. Witness their violent protests and social movements.”

“Well, I was about to feel sorry for stratdewd seeing as how he is getting pounded.

But as long as arclite shows up to absorb a few punches, I guess there is no need for me to worry anymore.

When is the last time any of you can remember a conservative changing their mind?”

“A lot of people who consider themselves conservatives seem to have changed their mind about budget deficits.”

“Bush is the Man except on the Enviroment. Kill all the Arab terrorsts”

“I haven't heard any Republicans complaining recently about how Democratic-controlled congresses irresponsibly spent the taxpayers' money... That's a definite change.

Perhaps they are Republican In Name Only.”

“geesh tilt, i say it all the fugging time.

BUSH IS MODERATE! there, i said it again.

i say it all the time. just like laq, you're switch hitting.

that's why he'll win.”

“Hey Arclite nice to see you're still around. Haven't much from you lately.”

“These days, it seems that "conservative" means the favoring of large corporate interests over those of the common man. We are supposed to trust that big business and the wealthy will have our best interests in mind and let something, maybe a job or two, trickle down to us.”

“ever had a job working for poor people?”

“"When is the last time any of you can remember a conservative changing their mind?........."


When I voted for Gore in the last election.



That was a:

Anti-Bush II vote,

and

A no way in hell I was going to vote for Nader vote.

I have never voted for a Bush since I was able to vote, though I support what happened in the world and at home during Bush I. Yes, Bush was not Conservative enough for me, that's why I voted Perot. Back then, Isolationist views and ways might have worked, but now the way the world is now, we can not afford that.”

“BTW - arclite: quit being a f'ing stranger. Your missed.”

“bush is no isolationist. look up the definition.”

“To answer your question, Strat, yes I have worked for "poor" people on quite a few occasions. They sometimes have to take longer to pay me, but they have as good a track record of paying as rich people.
How many times have rich people stiffed me? Let me count the times......”

“It is becoming and has been a vote for the lesser of two or four evils. I don't see that changing anytime soon. We need a real working man to make it to the top. A person who may be stupid in the ways of the international world but smart in getting this place in order.”

“I vote for Johnny Paycheck, with Merle Haggard as VP.”

“JR BROWN FOR SEC STATE!”

“dan, most people work for non-poor people. my poin being, rich people serve a purpose. who knows, you might be rich some day...”