FacebookTwitter
Hatrack River Forum   
my profile login | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Forum » Active Forums » Books, Films, Food and Culture » Why I've become an anti-Bush-ite

   
Author Topic: Why I've become an anti-Bush-ite
Jacare Sorridente
Member
Member # 1906

 - posted      Profile for Jacare Sorridente   Email Jacare Sorridente         Edit/Delete Post 
I had some high hopes for Bush back when he got elected. He seemed to be sincere in his desire to improve the country. It looked as if he realized that the government is too big and gaining momentum and that he would trim it back a bit.

Yet his policies have consistently seemed to be almost a parody of what people fear from the Republican party: pandering to corporations, government contracts to cronies and supporters, secrecy in the way policies are determined, war, human right's abuses, the repealing of basic freedoms and so on.

And yet he enjoys great popularity. It reinforces my idea that most of us humans are fools (though that doesn't mean much: as Thomas Hobbes said- everyone thinks that only himself and a few others are wise while the rest are all fools)

At any rate, I fear there is no candidate who I can vote for. To be honest the Democratic party frightens me these days almost as much as the Republicans, Howard Dean most of all. The talk of moving further to the left to become "real" Democrats is the last thing I think we need. Where is the moderate who will pare back the patriot act and truly trim government without throwing in socialist programs we can't pay for?

Maybe I'll throw my vote away on the Libertarians.

Posts: 4548 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Storm Saxon
Member
Member # 3101

 - posted      Profile for Storm Saxon           Edit/Delete Post 
*Comforts Jacare*

Truth to tell, among other things, Dean is too fiscally liberal for me. I'm hoping Clarke will run, actually.

Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jacare Sorridente
Member
Member # 1906

 - posted      Profile for Jacare Sorridente   Email Jacare Sorridente         Edit/Delete Post 
I'm not familiar with Clark. Do you have a link to a website?
Posts: 4548 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Erik Slaine
Member
Member # 5583

 - posted      Profile for Erik Slaine           Edit/Delete Post 
I think no one had any idea of the depths of deciept Bush has sunk to. I voted against him, but thought, oh well, another Republican president. He turned out to be worse than I thought, and a real danger to the country.

You are not alone Jacare, many in your position are wondering the same thing as well. And even I have no idea who to back. No party reflects my radical standpoint, and those that approach it, scare the bejeebus out of me!

Posts: 1843 | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Speed
Member
Member # 5162

 - posted      Profile for Speed   Email Speed         Edit/Delete Post 
I'm not an anti-Bush-ite. But I have began noticing some things about him that disturb me. It seems that if a president wants to take financial leadership, he can do one of two things. The first option is to say, "I'm going to cut back the government, trim off the waste, turn it into a lean machine, and give the excess money back to the people that deserve it." The second option is to say, "The government is here to help the people, so I'm going to take some money from our citizens and spend it trying to make our country a better place." Each of these positions is going to make some people upset, and make others happy. Each of these positions has a certain degree of merit, and a certain degree of political risk.

George Bush has come up with a third option. First, he said, "I'm going to give back some of our money to the people that earned it." When I heard this, I was happy, thinking that this implied that he was going to trim down the government waste. But ever since the tax cut came up, the only thing I ever hear from our president is, "I'm going to ask our congress for a few hundred billion for this, and a half a trillion for that." It just doesn't add up. I haven't heard him talk about cutting back on anything. Seems kind of like me saying to my wife, "we need to start putting more money in the bank. But don't worry about your standard of living, because we're also going to buy a huge house and a new car."

Anyway, I haven't done a lot of research into the nuts and bolts of George's economic plan. Perhaps he's doing some trimming that I'm unaware of. But it seems to me that if he's going to give us tax cuts, the money needs to come from somewhere. If he really needs all this money that he's asking for, maybe the tax cuts could wait until later. I have a certain degree of respect for people who take a stand, even if it's for a position that I disagree with. I don't have as much respect for a person that tries to please everyone, as it seems like George is doing.

I'm not saying I hate George as much as most of the people on this forum do, or that I necessarily won't vote for him. I don't have any more faith in the average democrat than I do in George W., and I do at least prefer the theoretical economic position of the Republican party. But I would like to see George get off the terrorism train and come up with a coherent domestic economic plan that I could get behind. Just my amateur two cents.

Posts: 2804 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Cactus Jack
Member
Member # 2671

 - posted      Profile for Cactus Jack           Edit/Delete Post 
Bush's problem is that he's acting like a social fiscal liberal, while acting like an economic fiscal conservative. It blows my mind to see posts like Jacare's because as much as I love the smiling one, Bush's problem is not that he's acting conservative.

Bush has always been too liberal. Whether that was because he felt that was right, or because he was trying to steal democratic issues to give them nothing to argue, his history of domestic programs and policies would have been pretty pleasing to the democrats if they'd have bothered to look at what he was actually doing instead of spouting automatic anti-Bush rhetoric.

In foriegn policy he's all conservative, but here at home? Hardly.

Big, all-intrusive government isn't conservative--it's liberal. He panders to unions every bit as much as he panders to corperations. He advocates big social programs--

I don't know. It really boggles my mind.

Posts: 241 | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Bokonon
Member
Member # 480

 - posted      Profile for Bokonon           Edit/Delete Post 
Jacare, I think you are a bit off on your assessment of Dean. One of his major planks is a balanced budget, even if that means rolling back the tax cuts. He wants to roll back the Patriot Act, he wants to internationalize Iraq (he was against it to begin with, but has said that now that we are in, we can't just leave town). Yes, he wants a form of healthcare, particularly for kids and poor people, and honestly, this is a good thing. Aside from seniors, who get plenty of healthcare pandering, kids and the poor are probably the next 2 big demographics that use healthcare. If they can get it easily and more often, imagine the productivity increases that businesses will see!

Aside from his healthcare plan, Dean isn't much more than a moderate. He uses polarizing speech largely because he sees (and rightly so, in my opinion) that if you try to split hairs with GWB, the people are going to want the real thing, not someone a little different.

-Bok

Posts: 7021 | Registered: Nov 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jacare Sorridente
Member
Member # 1906

 - posted      Profile for Jacare Sorridente   Email Jacare Sorridente         Edit/Delete Post 
Cactus- I agree that George is acting like a Democrat in some arenas, but not the same ones you appear to think.

Big Brother is a conservative position, and one that Bush is moving towards. Big government is a Democratic position, and one that W is moving towards. Screw the world and we'll do what we want (though sometimes I think a reasonable position) is a Republican stance. Tax breaks are a (theoretically) Republican stance, but tax breaks while expanding government (as in Homeland security office) is a crazy mixture.

Posts: 4548 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Bokonon
Member
Member # 480

 - posted      Profile for Bokonon           Edit/Delete Post 
CJ, will you admit that every Repuplican president since Nixon has been liberal then, as none of them have reduced the government (parts of, maybe, but not the government itself as a whole)?

Perhaps what you see as liberal is really more liberal than _you_, and is in fact rather moderate over the spectrum of US citizens.

-Bok

Posts: 7021 | Registered: Nov 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jacare Sorridente
Member
Member # 1906

 - posted      Profile for Jacare Sorridente   Email Jacare Sorridente         Edit/Delete Post 
Bok- where I disagree with Dean is in the fiscal arena. Before we expand healthcare how about if we fix the things that are broken. Has anyone said anything about social security, for example? It is a nearly sure thing that most of us on this board will spend a helluva lot of money paying in to SS while receiving back not so much as a plug nickel.

Note that during the boom years when our economy was expanding so quickly the size and price of our government was expanding even more quickly than the economy. Now that things are in recession, or at most standing still, why can we not pare back the same government programs which expanded? Why is it that when our gov speaks of "making cuts" what they really mean is 2% expansion instead of 5%? I would like to see the government run like a corporation: when times are lean the government slice of my paycheck should not be growing. When times are good the government should not be growing faster than the economy.

Posts: 4548 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BannaOj
Member
Member # 3206

 - posted      Profile for BannaOj   Email BannaOj         Edit/Delete Post 
Yes, while I would probably characterize myself as a moderate, Bush seems to be going too conservative on the wrong things and too liberal on the wrong things, making for an illogical hodgepodge of rhetoric.

I think the biggest problem is that it all seems so shortsighted. If he could convince me he does anything more than delay the problems so that the axe won't fall on him whether he is in office for one or two terms then I might be able to hold my nose and vote for him in the next election.

But right now IMO he is stinking worse than ever. As I've said before, he isn't even sticking by his conservatism because I feel he is hamstringing the military while at the same time expecting miracles. This irks me to no end.

AJ

Posts: 11265 | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Bokonon
Member
Member # 480

 - posted      Profile for Bokonon           Edit/Delete Post 
Actually, Dean made some rumblings about either raising the SS cap, or raising the retirement age, but the hardcore Dems looked scornfully at that, so he backed up on it.

Of course, he also claims his healthcare plan would be about as much as Bush is asking for Iraq, which Dean would partially defray via UN support (did you know that thanks to Coalition support, the US almost broke even on Gulf War I?), as well as gaining a projected 200+Bil from the tax repeal.

Of course, Dean may also follow some form of Keynesian economics, where you spend in bad times, and restrain yourself in good, as opposed to the current supply-side economics this administration follows.

There are definitely some assumptions being made that have yet to be proven... But I do not think he is as liberal as many (particularly the AM Radio set) think he is.

Now Kucinich, that's your purebred liberal.

-Bok

Posts: 7021 | Registered: Nov 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Cactus Jack
Member
Member # 2671

 - posted      Profile for Cactus Jack           Edit/Delete Post 
Jacare, you are buying into a skewed definiton of right vs. left, where the scale looks like this:

Communism-----------------Middle----------------Facism

Actually, that's more like the Y axis of the far left end of the liberal side of the scale. The acutal X axis would look like this:

Total Goverment Control--Middle----------------Anarchy

Conservatives are anti big government, period. We'd sooner see anarchy than be told what to do or watched while we're doing it.

So this makes the liberals uncomfortable, because it involes no safety nets against hunger, violence, starvation, terrorism, environmental damage, etc. They would rather the goverment get involved and stop them, "sacrificing," in the name of protecting something.

-----------------------

Tax breaks while expanding government during ecomic downturns is acually basic Adam Smith economics. The problem is Smith advocated creating tax surpluses during government upswings to cover yourself in the downturns, and that's the part nobody's bothered to do since Jefferson.

So I don't think that, carte blance, spending = liberal and bad and not spending = conservative and good. And Jacare makes a good point about the difference between REAL growth and REAL cuts and relative growth and relative cuts.

-----------------------------

I'm not discussing the relative liberalness of Bush compared to American Citizens. I'm discussing the liberalness of Bush compared with what I percieve to be the platform of the Republican party. So, while you are right that his moderateness would put him closer to the center on a chart of all americans, I feel that I am also right that he would be further to the left on a chart that consisted of all Republicans.

So while that's probably a good thing, since in times like these, it's Americans that need a leader, and not just one party, my point was, and still is, that it's hilarious to see him called ultra-conservative.

Posts: 241 | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Storm Saxon
Member
Member # 3101

 - posted      Profile for Storm Saxon           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:

Conservatives are anti big government, period.

Except government spending relating to the military and law and order stuff, eh?

The only 'conseratives' who are 'anti big government, period' are Libertarians (please note that big L), and I believe that they are, to be precies, neither 'conservative' or 'liberal' but individualistic.

Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Bokonon
Member
Member # 480

 - posted      Profile for Bokonon           Edit/Delete Post 
Oh I see CJ, that's why the greatest support for Bush and the Patriot act and the like are those red, generally considered "conservative" states. Yup, conservatives don't fear terrorism, nosirree!

I actually find it interesting that those far away from any of the past attacks, and likely any future ones, are the ones most seemingly paranoid of more terrorism attacks. Or so it seems to me.

Hate to break it to ya, Lawrence, KS, but you don't have too much to worry about.

-Bok

Posts: 7021 | Registered: Nov 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Bokonon
Member
Member # 480

 - posted      Profile for Bokonon           Edit/Delete Post 
About the Bush "Liberalness". The thing is the way you put it did not identify that it was Bush's liberalness vs. the GOP platform. Liberal is a political epithet these days. For instance, Kucinich, a liberal in the stereotypical modern sense, 10, 15 years ago would have been called a Liberal, but merely as a description, not as if he were someone who was nigh traitorous.

Basically, be more careful at your choice of words, and when in doubt, add more context [Smile]

Hmmm, that gives me a great idea for an SNL skit:

"I have a [Hatrack] fever, and the only prescription is MORE CONTEXT!"

-Bok

Posts: 7021 | Registered: Nov 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post 
Cactus, I'm afraid you're defining "conservative" in a way that is no longer used in common political parlance.

In fact, as you describe it, your definition of "conservative" is actually far closer to the original definition of "liberal" (unless, of course, you're going to go from the "conservative interpretation of the Constitution" definition, which is always one way to do it.)

Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kayla
Member
Member # 2403

 - posted      Profile for Kayla   Email Kayla         Edit/Delete Post 
Cactus is from Lawrence KS?
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dan_raven
Member
Member # 3383

 - posted      Profile for Dan_raven   Email Dan_raven         Edit/Delete Post 
Politicians play with definitions until anarchy reigns.

Instead of:
Conservative-----average-----Liberal

my problem with Bush is the spectrums:

Business-------Average-------Worker
Wealthy--------Middle Income------Poor

Bush's policies are favoring the Wealthy and the Business.

His tax cut favored the wealthier Americans. It was to be paid for by cuts in services that favor poorer Americans. (I am not saying that those Wealthier Americans were Not already paying too much. Whether he was resetting the balance, or tipping the balance, it favors the rich more than the poor).

Remember, his Tax Cut was not created to save us from the recession. It had no economic neccesity behind it. He promised it while campaigning for President, a good 9 months before the economy started to slow down. It went from a "Cut Taxes to Deflate the Excess before its spent." ot "Cut Taxes to regain the Excess by improving the economy."

His questionable environmental policies were done not because he wants to rape the planet, but because of individual concerns by individual business concerns.

His build up of the military has gone more into buying and building weapons--the Businesses of war--than in improving the lives and incomes of our soldiers.

His Prescription Coverage for Medicare will be a boon, not for retired elderly, but for the drug companies and for the Insurance Companies, since President Bush has said his goal is to get people to take private coverage over government handouts.

Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Bokonon
Member
Member # 480

 - posted      Profile for Bokonon           Edit/Delete Post 
Kayla, CJ is Lawrence, KS!

*Dum-dum-DUM*

[Wink]

-Bok

[ September 12, 2003, 03:13 PM: Message edited by: Bokonon ]

Posts: 7021 | Registered: Nov 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Silverblue Sun
Member
Member # 1630

 - posted      Profile for The Silverblue Sun   Email The Silverblue Sun         Edit/Delete Post 
I don't hate Bush.

I think it's wrong and bad energy to hate any human beings.

I do think Bush is a lousy president with a rare and platinum-spoonified "vision" for America.

I have many problems with his reign, but one that still disturbs me greatly, and I think is an extremely damaging mindset to the rest of America is his total dedication to the corporations and the billionare boys who run them.

AMERICA HAS 266 BILLIONARES.

In these times of crisis and chaos, it is reckless, irresponsible and wrong to give them more money, things and power.

<T>

[ September 12, 2003, 02:16 PM: Message edited by: The Silverblue Sun ]

Posts: 2752 | Registered: Feb 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Maccabeus
Member
Member # 3051

 - posted      Profile for Maccabeus   Email Maccabeus         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
It is a nearly sure thing that most of us on this board will spend a helluva lot of money paying in to SS while receiving back not so much as a plug nickel.
Sadly, the way SS was put together guaranteed that it would come apart one day. It was based on the presumption that the population would keep expanding, so that each generation would give enough money to pay for the last one and still have some left over. Now that the population is not expanding anymore, someone is going to lose out--it's inevitable.
Posts: 1041 | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kayla
Member
Member # 2403

 - posted      Profile for Kayla   Email Kayla         Edit/Delete Post 
Who said pyramid schemes were illegal. [Wink]

(I got mine out already. Suckas.)

Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
docmagik
Member
Member # 1131

 - posted      Profile for docmagik   Email docmagik         Edit/Delete Post 
Okay, first of all, I'm Cactus Jack. I had changed personas because CJ would be more likely to whistle at the skirts of Hatrack than I would, and I think he has a secret crush on Pixie, which I, being happily married, do not.

I forgot to change back, and didn't bother to for my next couple of posts, so now that I'm home from work, I'm switching back.

--------------------------------------------

If my definition of conservatism is dwindling, that's only because the places people are getting thier definitions from (the news media and the schools) are so liberal.

My definition of conservatism IS still the one preached in conservative magazines and blogs and on talk-radio.

Honestly, whose defintition of conservative are you going to buy into, a honest-to-goodness conservative, or someone who feels conservatism is wrong?

Would you want Rush Limbaugh and William Buckley what liberals stand for, or would you maybe ask some real ones?

-------------------------------

Yeah, yeah, liberterians are great. Penn Jillete wrote the best editorial on airline security ever in How to Play in Traffic and I still believe every word of it, even two years after 9/11. And Dave Barry is the wisest man ever to conjugate "to fart."

But since libertarians are usually dismissed as "too far right" doesn't that just prove my point?

-----------------------

Finally, on the wealthy vs. poor issue--while Bush may be helping businesses, I don't understand why that means he's anti-poor. It doesn't. It's just a knee-jerk, pre-programmed reaction, that if somebody is helping a business they're automatically hurting a poor person.

See, here's another of my reasons why, despite my desire to help the poor, I would never be a Democrat. Because Republicans, despite thier opponents efforts to prove otherwise, really aren't anti-poor. They just feel different things really help the poor than what liberals think.

However, there are plenty of liberals who will openly admit to being anti-business. They have no problem showing their absolute and complete contempt for anyone who has any form of success.

Thor's a great example of this breed.

But this is unreasonable. To paraphrase Larry Elder's father, I never got a job from a poor man.

To be openly hostile to the institutions that provide more for the people of this country than the government could ever do on its own doesn't make any sense at all to me.

Dan's observations about who benefit from policies include ALL government policies. Remember, somebody had to have enough motivation to pay for lobbyists to spend day and night fighting to get legislation through, so most laws that get made are for SOMEBODY'S benifit, no matter what the arguement that's prersented to the public is.

Money doesn't dissapear. It goes to somebody. And chances are, the person who got it was pretty keen on the legislation going through.

You think the Enfamil guys don't count their blessings for the WIC program? Do you think the carseat people sat back and crossed thier fingers when carseats were mandated? Insurance companied didn't have an extra couple of bucks lying around to send some guys to your state capital to make insurance mandatory?

Posts: 1894 | Registered: Aug 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Storm Saxon
Member
Member # 3101

 - posted      Profile for Storm Saxon           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:

But since libertarians are usually dismissed as "too far right" doesn't that just prove my point?

It depends on who you ask, Doc. From the liberals and conservatives and Libertarians that I've known, I firmly believe that Libertarians--real Libertarians, and not the small 'l', washed down poop you see people proclaiming themselves as so often, are much closer in thought to liberals. But then, I guess your mileage may vary, if you just go on people that you know, so what do I know? I just get really annoyed when people claim that 'liberals are for big government' and conservatives aren't when it's so provably untrue, it's just silly. They both use government for their own ends.

Consider the Alabama monument, for instance, and prayer in schools. The vast majority of people who call themselves conservatives would be more than happy to see government step in and put the Bible at the center of government. They would love to see a student body educated with the Bible as the basis of their moral character, regardless of what their families thought. Where's the non-intrusive government that lets everyone do their thing? Take a look at drug laws. Or the defense of marriage act. Or the proposed amendment to the constitution for same. Where's non-intrusive government? Look at pork barrel spending and the differences between Democrats and Republicans aren't even noticeable. Look at all the Republican governers raising taxes to get their states out of debt. Look at the a Patriot Act, I or II, or faith based initiatives, for the love of pete!

That's why I say that you can't say that conservatives are for 'small government'. I'm sorry, but that's false in practice, regardless of what the ideal might be. The only people who try to follow that ideal anymore are, as I said, the Libertarians.

Just so we're clear, I realize there are shades of gray. I'm not saying all conservatives are a certain way. I'm just giving what I see as my feelings on their general behavior when push comes down to shove.

By the way

quote:

To be openly hostile to the institutions that provide more for the people of this country than the government could ever do on its own doesn't make any sense at all to me.

I don't necessarilly agree that there aren't things that government shouldnt' do, but I do agree that being hostile to business is pretty silly and nonsensical.

quote:

Dan's observations about who benefit from policies include ALL government policies. Remember, somebody had to have enough motivation to pay for lobbyists to spend day and night fighting to get legislation through, so most laws that get made are for SOMEBODY'S benifit, no matter what the arguement that's prersented to the public is.

Money doesn't dissapear. It goes to somebody. And chances are, the person who got it was pretty keen on the legislation going through.

You think the Enfamil guys don't count their blessings for the WIC program? Do you think the carseat people sat back and crossed thier fingers when carseats were mandated? Insurance companied didn't have an extra couple of bucks lying around to send some guys to your state capital to make insurance mandatory?


I think we pretty much agree. I think we're both arguing for the same thing--argue from reality and not pie in the sky idealism about where the parties and the ideologies stand.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Chris Bridges
Member
Member # 1138

 - posted      Profile for Chris Bridges   Email Chris Bridges         Edit/Delete Post 
Conservatives believe that by providing breaks for the wealthy and powerful they can help the rest of the nation as Good Things Trickle Down. This only works when the wealthy and powerful allow any Good Things to trickle anywhere.

Liberals believe that by providing breaks for the poor and powerless they can help the rest of the nation as the lower classes Pull Themselves Up the Economic Ladder and become Productive Citizens. This only works when the poor and powerless actually use the breaks, and don't just spend their time finding ways to get more breaks without actually working.

Helping businesses is not anti-poor. Helping businesses duck their responsibilities without requiring any accountability is anti-everybody-except-the-heads-of-the-businesses.

Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post 
Doc/CJ, it's only possible to believe in conservatives as libertarians if you believe that economic policy is the most important element of political theory.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Beren One Hand
Member
Member # 3403

 - posted      Profile for Beren One Hand           Edit/Delete Post 
Both Democrats and Republicans believe in big government, they merely differ in which part of the government they are most interested in supporting.

It makes me laugh when Republican politicians tell me that they want "fiscal responsibility" and then turn around and ask for a couple of billion dollars to develop new weapons. To rub sand in the wound, these politicians sell our weapons to our enemies, thereby artificially create the "need" for us to upgrade our own weapons once more.

Posts: 4116 | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
docmagik
Member
Member # 1131

 - posted      Profile for docmagik   Email docmagik         Edit/Delete Post 
Yeah, I understand that, but that's really parsing hairs in a way that wouldn't make sense to everybody.

I attended the graduation party when a Liberterian friend of mine graduaded from law school at Chapman. He spent a while trying to convince a couple of his Liberterian professors that the Liberterians should shanghai the term "Liberal" back from the Democrats. Neither of them really seemed to agree with him, although they understood his premise.

---------------------------

So as not to shanghai this thread, which technically is about George W., I'm going to start a new thread.

Posts: 1894 | Registered: Aug 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
   

   Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2