Why is John carry a legitimate candidate for the Presidency?

[Runnin12]

Kerry is Extreme?

I get that the right hates the UN and therefore Kerry's comment about the UN haveing any authority, particularly over their beloved military is unsettling.

Its OUR military. Do you want our sovereignity given to the UN or a one world government? We are giving away our democracy, freedom, and everything this great land has come to accomplish that men have died to protect, preserve, and establish over to the UN?

So, why is John Kerry a legitimate candidate for presidency? I don't know, we could have done better but we did do worse.

Did you read the quote I provided from Kerry? You cant get any worse then that.

[holdie]

My Kerry quote proves everything we are saiyng, and the ultimate agenda of our leaders.

sorry to tell you this, but politicians are out for themselves and the agendas that will get them elected. Though I'm sure there are exceptions out there, the truth is that they won't be elected to any influential position because the ideas that they preach will be too extreme for the american public...

well that a whole lot of stating the obvious and trying to sound important but whatever

[wade1226]

Stupid English , I ask you at this time to point out the difference in pronounciation between "proove" and "prove"

I'm not faulting you at all. I would have posted the same thing if you were guilty of the you're/your error (actually, I would have posted it much sooner, 'cause for some reason that really pisses me off), but, from what I know of you (because of what you've said), English isn't your first language, so I can't fault you for it. My correction was made completely in an effort of constructive criticism, and I sincerely hope you took it as such.

[Stinker]

Its OUR military. Do you want our sovereignity given to the UN or a one world government? We are giving away our democracy, freedom, and everything this great land has come to accomplish that men have died to protect, preserve, and establish over to the UN?

Now who is being extreme? Actually most of the members of the UN contribute military involvement to joint project, those countries havn't given away their democracy and freedom, nor have they given away everything their countries have accomplished nor have they given away everything that their men have dies to protect, preserve and establish... But if you really wanted to be radical and emotive you could have included something about nazis, global terrorism and communists.
Kerry's comment on the UN was a statement of what he would like to see, in context I highly doubt it would be statement of what he was going to do. You can go on about the loss of freedom, you chant about democracy and the values that Americans have dies to protect but reality is very different. As I said, extremism is a matter of perspective.

Did you read the quote I provided from Kerry? You cant get any worse then that.

Yes I did, and I'm a hell of a lot more concearned about the fact that Bush invaded anoter country because he thought God told him to than the fact that Kerry doesn't support military isolationism. I'll say it again; Bush invaded a country because he thought God told him to.

[Stinker]

don't take everything that people say literally...trust me, if Bush was an extremist, the country wouldn't have elected him president, it just doesn't work like that

I agree, but if Kerry was an extremist he wouldn't have come in only 2% below Bush on the popular vote. This whole thread is people blowing things out of proportion. I don't think Bush invaded Iraq only because God told him to, I'd be suprised if he believed it himself but if Runnin12 can take one line of Kerry and freak out then I reserve the right to do the same with Bush.

[Ruhanv]

Runnin12,

I find your comment about Kerry dissappointing. It simply shows a lack of understanding in regards to international politics.

If a UN member want to deploy his troops on international soil then it has to be with the permission of the country it is deployed on (eg. US troops stationed in Germany or the UK) or it has to have a UN mandate (e.g. US troops in Afghanistan). This is to prevent another World War where Germany invaded Poland. When Iraq invaded Kuwait it had no UN mandate. This allowed the UN to approve a coalition based war against Iraq.

What Kerry said was 100% correct and the alternative would be to destabilise the world order. He is not giving the UN control over US troops but he is keeping the international equilibrium in place whereby the UN has to approve all international military action. Without this process the world would be incredibly destabilised and you cannot expect countries like India/Pakistan or Taiwan/China to stick to this process if the US is not.

[Runnin12]

Now who is being extreme? Actually most of the members of the UN contribute military involvement to joint project, those countries havn't given away their democracy and freedom, nor have they given away everything their countries have accomplished nor have they given away everything that their men have dies to protect, preserve and establish... But if you really wanted to be radical and emotive you could have included something about nazis, global terrorism and communists.

Yes, not yet. What do you think they are working towards now? We will lose our freedom because people like everyone replying to this thread.

Kerry's comment on the UN was a statement of what he would like to see, in context I highly doubt it would be statement of what he was going to do.

Uh? Do you honestly believe that? For him to even say something like that just makes me speechless.

You can go on about the loss of freedom, you chant about democracy and the values that Americans have dies to protect but reality is very different. As I said, extremism is a matter of perspective.

I put a radical Kerry quote which tells me exactly his ultimate agenda. Yet you put some Bush quotes not nearly as bad and your jumping all over that. Bush claims to be Christian, however that remains to be seen. Please post the original quote of Bush saying "God told me to do this". If he would of said "I felt God told me to do this" I wouldnt hold anything against him. Anyone who shares his religous faith totally understands. I dont know if he stated it like a fact as you described because that does sound kinda bad. However it was most likely taken out of context to portray bush as a religous nut, which I dont think he is at all. Who is to say he is really Christian? Maybe he is just trying to get support and justification from the religous right for his campaign in the middle east? Think about it.

Yes I did, and I'm a hell of a lot more concearned about the fact that Bush invaded anoter country because he thought God told him to than the fact that Kerry doesn't support military isolationism. I'll say it again; Bush invaded a country because he thought God told him to.

Military isolationism has given America over 200 years of peace. Giving our military away to the UN or a 1 world government is only going to give our freedom away to some corrupt politician from another country.

...? Iraq was complying with the UN resolution...Weapon Inspectors were allowed into Iraq and they were reporting that Iraq was starting to comply with everything that they needed to. As was pointed out, they would have needed more time to conclusively report that Iraq didn't have WMDs, but they were reporting that there was no reason to believe that they did.

Thats simply not true. Bush even gave Saddam a last minute 48 hour ultimatum to comply with the UN inspectors and give them access to everything. Saddam wasnt cooperating.

Example: I let the cops into my house to search for drugs. I only let them into the first 2 rooms and when they start walking towards the closet I say "No, no, no! you can't go in there in right now!" Then I rush them out without giving them authorization to search my garage, bathroom, kitchen, master bedroom, etc. I tell them I will comply next time they come. Police come back to the police department and tell their supervisor "he didnt let us search most of the rooms but he was starting to comply just give him more time" Yeah right, more time to clear out his WMD material. It doesnt work that way in America, and it shouldnt work that way on the UN scale. We would be complete jerks as a nation if we tolerated that. Bush even gave him a 48 hour ultimatum and he still refused to cooperate.

[drstrangepimp]

Yea, but how can anyone in their right mind support such a move? We are openely inviting a one world dictator. Just by that we shouldnt even concieve of the idea of having a one world government. Its way to dangerous. How can people support this? The motives of our politicians are they will be in charge of the 1 world gov, thus more power. Will the people benefit? No.



Yea.



Exactly!!! Damn dude I cant believe how right you are on everything. Your post exactly sums up on how I feel about everything. Terrorism is terrible because we are losing are rights. We have to sacrifice freedom for protection in the name of national security. I will take my chances with terrorists I choose liberity.



Yea.



Man I hope i wont be alive to see it.



We have a one party system. Republican vs left its all bull****. They are the same. Every cries how "conservative" bush is yet he spends like a mofo and we have a big ass government. His policies are more liberal then anything they are just not liberal enough.



EXACTLY. We are moving towards a 1 world gov. That is the big picture.

The fight against terror is an ideal justification for pretty much any outrageous anti-american thing they want to do.



Its scary man. If we lose our indepence, our sovereignity, we will have no choice but to obey a 1 world leader. If he is a dictator we cant join the army and fight against some hostile regime or our enemy from abroad.



Its uncanny how everything is falling into place.



They are irresponsible. Instead of working together for the good of the country they label eachother "The republicans are our enemy" and just fight and bicker around. Our gov officials act like they are 12 years old.

My Kerry quote proves everything we are saiyng, and the ultimate agenda of our leaders.

I expected a reaming over that one from a Republican, although I consider myself a libertarian. Interesting.

[Chris Lee]

Wesley Clark... come on down!

[run213]

John Kerry voted against the first gulf war. I think that tells us a little about him. He was unable to face down blatant aggression by SH when almost every one else in the world was for stopping Sadam. I think even France was in on the first Gulf war. But I could be mistaken. The truth is Kerry doesnt have any politcal or moral beliefs he sticks his finger into the air to see which way the wind is blowing, and follows it. He has contradicted himself on almost every major issue there is. That was the main reason he lost the election.

[furuno]

"Corrupt" UN was 100% right on Iraq.
Noble America was 100% WRONG about Iraq.

Smoke that.

No we weren't. SADDAM GASSED ENTIRE KURD CITIES AND IRANIAN TROOPS, THE ONLY REASON HE DIDN'T HAVE WMD'S IS BECAUSE HE RAN OUT!

[AntonToo]

No we weren't. SADDAM GASSED ENTIRE KURD CITIES AND IRANIAN TROOPS, THE ONLY REASON HE DIDN'T HAVE WMD'S IS BECAUSE HE RAN OUT!

So? and we bombed the **** out of them too, and?

Gass sht was 10 years ago and Sadam has paid for it via sanctions.

Since we've gotten into that country 25,000 died as a DIRECT result of the war.

[Vegan]

Thats simply not true. Bush even gave Saddam a last minute 48 hour ultimatum to comply with the UN inspectors and give them access to everything. Saddam wasnt cooperating.

Example: I let the cops into my house to search for drugs. I only let them into the first 2 rooms and when they start walking towards the closet I say "No, no, no! you can't go in there in right now!" Then I rush them out without giving them authorization to search my garage, bathroom, kitchen, master bedroom, etc. I tell them I will comply next time they come. Police come back to the police department and tell their supervisor "he didnt let us search most of the rooms but he was starting to comply just give him more time" Yeah right, more time to clear out his WMD material. It doesnt work that way in America, and it shouldnt work that way on the UN scale. We would be complete jerks as a nation if we tolerated that. Bush even gave him a 48 hour ultimatum and he still refused to cooperate.

*Sigh*, do not pull **** out of your ass and mistake me for an idiot....

U.N. Resolution 1441 was passed November 8, 2002, demanding Iraq to comply with the U.N.'s disarmament requests. Iraq was given until November 15th to agree with Resolution, and a statement of acceptance was issued on November 13th. Under the Resolution weapons inspectors were let back into Iraq, and the inspectors were reporting back that there were no immediate threats, and that they needed more time to finish their inspections...That is why France, Russia, and China(all of which have veto power) wanted to give the inspectors more time in Iraq, instead of passing a second Resolution which would allow military actions...France even went as far as to say that they would veto any resolution which would lead to immediate "war". Besides for a few countries(U.S., Britain, etc.), the rest of the world, after inspectors were let in, no longer thought of Iraq as an immediate thread.

As for the ultimatum, that had NOTHING to do with disarmament, you are completely wrong there. The ultimatum mandated that Saddam, his family, and other Iraq leaders immediately leave the country, or else we were going to attack.

French Ambassador Jean-Marc de La Sabliere said the United States, Britain and Spain "realized that the majority in the council is against and oppose a resolution authorizing the use of force."

"This is a position of the huge majority in the council. ... It would not be legitimate to authorize the use of force now while the inspections set out by resolution are producing results."

http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/me....irq.int.main/

[drstrangepimp]

No we weren't. SADDAM GASSED ENTIRE KURD CITIES AND IRANIAN TROOPS, THE ONLY REASON HE DIDN'T HAVE WMD'S IS BECAUSE HE RAN OUT!

He ran out. Now that's funny. Maybe we should punish him for thinking about WMD.

We gave him that gas for the express purpose of gassing the Iranians and now you're going to complain about it?

And the gassing of the kurds is unproven, it's hearsay. The Iranians used chemical weapons in that war as well. The Kurds were in the crossfire.

[Stinker]

Yes, not yet. What do you think they are working towards now? We will lose our freedom because people like everyone replying to this thread.

Yeah, freak out the end of the world is comming. Come on you are reacting like some scared right wing journalist.

Uh? Do you honestly believe that? For him to even say something like that just makes me speechless.

Do you honestly believe that John Kerry's ambition is to give away full authority of the military? Polititions say a lot of things stop being so reactionry.

I put a radical Kerry quote which tells me exactly his ultimate agenda. Yet you put some Bush quotes not nearly as bad and your jumping all over that. Bush claims to be Christian, however that remains to be seen. Please post the original quote of Bush saying "God told me to do this". If he would of said "I felt God told me to do this" I wouldnt hold anything against him. Anyone who shares his religous faith totally understands. I dont know if he stated it like a fact as you described because that does sound kinda bad. However it was most likely taken out of context to portray bush as a religous nut, which I dont think he is at all. Who is to say he is really Christian? Maybe he is just trying to get support and justification from the religous right for his campaign in the middle east? Think about it.

Oh I see, so when Bush says something crazy it is supposed to be taken in context but a few words from Kerry are obviously some outrageous mandate to destroy the country

The first quote was said to the Palestinian prime minister on the 6.25.03

Bush said he invaded a country because God told him to. Doesn't that stir up anything in you? Isn't there even the slightest hint of a warning light going off somewhere in your brain? I do not see how you can get so worked up over one sentence from John Kerry and not even react when Bush tells another world leader that he invaded a country because God told him to. I keep saying exremism is a matter of perspective and it seems to apply to you as much as anyone. When Kerry says something crazy you freak out, who cares about the context you are speachless anyway, but when Bush says something there is probably a rational explanation for it after all, he is your boy so it's got to be different.

Military isolationism has given America over 200 years of peace. Giving our military away to the UN or a 1 world government is only going to give our freedom away to some corrupt politician from another country.

Sorry, my mistake. Wow, 200 years of peace that is really good... But tell me, which 200 years was that?

[Runnin12]

Yeah, freak out the end of the world is comming. Come on you are reacting like some scared right wing journalist.

You are acting like a liberal groupie of Kerry.

Do you honestly believe that John Kerry's ambition is to give away full authority of the military?

Absolutely. Keep in mind this quote was with a college paper in 1988. He wasn't running for election this is what he truly believes. He freaked out over John Bolton. He doesnt want anyone to mess up his beloved UN.

Oh I see, so when Bush says something crazy it is supposed to be taken in context but a few words from Kerry are obviously some outrageous mandate to destroy the country

Did you just disregard my response to you over this matter? I said please provide a quote of exactly what he said. I said IF he said "I felt God told me to do this" that would be completly understandable. However I did say that Bush does sound bad saying God told me to do this however I have yet to see a quote which you have failed to provide.

The first quote was said to the Palestinian prime minister on the 6.25.03

Thats not what i asked for.

Doesn't that stir up anything in you? Isn't there even the slightest hint of a warning light going off somewhere in your brain? I do not see how you can get so worked up over one sentence from John Kerry and not even react when Bush tells another world leader that he invaded a country because God told him to.

Doesnt that quote from Kerry stir up anything to you? The extremism from Kerry far surpasses your Bush quote. Why do you hate Bush so much? Has it ever occured to you that Bush and Kerry are the same? Bush is just less liberal then Kerry so everyone hates him. Also Bush is religous so that gives people another reason to hate him. Bush supports the New World Order also but even he never flat out said something like that. They are talking about giving away our countries independence and your more concerned about a Bush quote. For our government to move to such a huge venture is just to risky.

[quote]I keep saying exremism is a matter of perspective and it seems to apply to you as much as anyone. When Kerry says something crazy you freak out, who cares about the context you are speachless anyway, but when Bush says something there is probably a rational explanation for it after all, he is your boy so it's got to be different.

Sorry, my mistake. Wow, 200 years of peace that is really good... But tell me, which 200 years was that?

You obvously havent learned from history. Didnt we just celebrate the 4th of July? I can bet my left nut that you dont even know what year we gained our independence.

[AntonToo]

Absolutely. Keep in mind this quote was with a college paper in 1988. He wasn't running for election this is what he truly believes. He freaked out over John Bolton. He doesnt want anyone to mess up his beloved UN.

why do the the silly ones use "absolutely" so often.

why don't you quote him on something he said when he was 12.

[Stinker]

Thats not what i asked for.

What are you asking for? The direct quote was in my first post and I gave you who it was to and the date.

Why do you hate Bush so much?

I don't, when I personally read that Bush quote I just rolled my eyes and went on with my life, why don't you do the same with Kerry. I posted the quote to demonstrate that while you were freaking out over a single sentance of something you now reveal Kerry said back in 88 your boy is telling world leaders that God told him to attack countries. On one hand we have a 27 year old quote from the guy who didn't win, on the other we have a 2 year old quote from a guy who was and is the president to another head of state. They are both pretty crazy statements but one of them was made to a college paper 27 years ago the other was made by the president to another head of state. But sure, lets freak out over John Kerry.

I have nothing against Bush being religious I couldn't care less, but what the hell sort of president tells another head of state that he waged an entire war just because God told him to?

You obvously havent learned from history. Didnt we just celebrate the 4th of July? I can bet my left nut that you dont even know what year we gained our independence.

1776, but don't worry you can keep your balls I guess you just weren't aware that any grade school kid could have answered that.

Look, you don't like Kerry I can deal with that, you're a republican you are not expected to like him but don't dredge up a single sentence from 1988 and freak out.

[Ruhanv]

Runnin I tried to PM you back but your mailbox was full.

[Quintis Vindex]

And the argument goes to Stinker.

Not because he is necessarily correct, but because the "Proffesor" is obviously daft.

[Diesel66]

John Kerry voted against the first gulf war. I think that tells us a little about him. He was unable to face down blatant aggression by SH when almost every one else in the world was for stopping Sadam. I think even France was in on the first Gulf war. But I could be mistaken. The truth is Kerry doesnt have any politcal or moral beliefs he sticks his finger into the air to see which way the wind is blowing, and follows it. He has contradicted himself on almost every major issue there is. That was the main reason he lost the election.

France even sent a light armor division. The crazy part is the Gulf War fit his requirements of a war supported by the UN, by the international community and had a set goal. And he still voted no.

[AntonToo]

France even sent a light armor division. The crazy part is the Gulf War fit his requirements of a war supported by the UN, by the international community and had a set goal. And he still voted no.

If you look at anyone's voting record who's been in the senate for 25 years, you can come to ANY conclusions.

[Diesel66]

If you look at anyone's voting record who's been in the senate for 25 years, you can come to ANY conclusions.

That is why Senators make horrible President candidates. Add in misleading bills plus a long track record and the candidate will be defending his votes the entire time instead of concentrating on his message.

[Runnin12]

1776, but don't worry you can keep your balls I guess you just weren't aware that any grade school kid could have answered that.

Are you so sure? I know people over 20 who couldn't answer that and they have a college education. I bet a considerable amount of American citizens would fail a test for citizenship.

you're a republican you are not expected to like him

Woah, someone says he is a republican so he must be republican! If you can't determine that Bush is nowhere near being a republican maybe you should go back to school. The only republican thing about him is that he plays the moral card and is a christian.

Ruhanv - Sry man I cleaned out my box

why don't you quote him on something he said when he was 12.

Kerry was 43 when he said the quote. He still had 2 decades on you 17 years ago....

Hitler wrote mein kampf 10 years before climbing to power. Yet I wouldnt of wanted to quote him on something he said 10 years earlier. Those obvously werent hitlers real beliefs

[AntonToo]

Kerry was 43 when he said the quote. He still had 2 decades on you 17 years ago....

Hitler wrote mein kampf 10 years before to climbing to power. Yet I wouldnt of wanted to quote him on something he said 10 years earlier. Those obvously werent hitlers real beliefs

I misread adn though you said he wrote it in college.

Either way, I'm putting an end to this thread:

John Kerry is a legitamate presidential candidate because he was never a president before and because he was born in this country.

[Stinker]

Are you so sure? I know people over 20 who couldn't answer that and they have a college education. I bet a considerable amount of American citizens would fail a test for citizenship.

You might be right, kids often know more than adults do when it comes to very basic history.

Woah, someone says he is a republican so he must be republican! If you can't determine that Bush is nowhere near being a republican maybe you should go back to school. The only republican thing about him is that he plays the moral card and is a christian.

The republican party has changed. It no longer represents what it used to but they are still called republicans. Perhaps new and old republicans as a way of differentiating. New republicans have been on the rise since Reagan, even neo conservatism has grown up to be classed as republican. The old economic values of the right have gone clean out the window, the new sentiment seems to be "who cares about a wealthy nation as long as we are a nation that fights a lot of wars, waves a lot of flags and chants a lot of 'USA'."

[run213]

And the democratic party is no longer the party they were back in the 40s,50s,or,60s They have moved so far to the left. Men like Truman ,HHH,JFK Scoop Jackson and others would be considered moderate republicans.

[Runnin12]

The republican party has changed. It no longer represents what it used to but they are still called republicans.

I dont classify someones political views by what party they belong to, but by their policies. As Reagen said the democratic party left him, I will say the republican party left me. You must think I am a neo con because I am not anywhere near "conservative" as Bush. Our political system basically shifted towards liberalism. We have a one party system now. I dont find anyone who represents me anymore. Bush could run as a democrat in the 40's - 60's. To put it bluntly I am a big fan of Reagen. I would vote for him in an instant.

New republicans have been on the rise since Reagan

These new "republicans" could all run as democrats in the 40's 50's 60's etc. Get my drift? I think your finally catching on. So this is why I dont understand all of the animosity towards Bush. He is pretty damn liberal in my book yet people yell and scream that he is so republican? I just dont get it. He is just not liberal enough for people even though he is really on the left.

even neo conservatism has grown up to be classed as republican.

How are republicans neo cons? People throw away the term neo con like it actually applies today in America. I consider a neo conn Hitler. If I say to a liberal you support terrorists with your policies i am immediately labeled a neo conn even though I am fairly moderate on a considerable amount of issues.



The old economic values of the right have gone clean out the window[/quote]

[Stinker]

I dont classify someones political views by what party they belong to, but by their policies. As Reagen said the democratic party left him, I will say the republican party left me. You must think I am a neo con because I am not anywhere near "conservative" as Bush. Our political system basically shifted towards liberalism. We have a one party system now. I dont find anyone who represents me anymore. Bush could run as a democrat in the 40's - 60's. To put it bluntly I am a big fan of Reagen. I would vote for him in an instant.

1) I never said you were a neo con.
2) Economicaly I agree both parties are the same but socially there are some differences, this is not a shift toward liberalism this is a shift on the side of the right toward a bigger government.

These new "republicans" could all run as democrats in the 40's 50's 60's etc. Get my drift? I think your finally catching on. So this is why I dont understand all of the animosity towards Bush. He is pretty damn liberal in my book yet people yell and scream that he is so republican? I just dont get it. He is just not liberal enough for people even though he is really on the left.

Bush isn't left wing... It would take too much time to discuss this so I will leave it at "I disagree".
One very ironic thing I see happening in US politics is there are always people who claim that politics is shifting away from their wing. Here you claim that there is a left wing shift and our right wing president is left wing. I see a distinctly right wing shift where our right wing is admittedly not what it used to be and is shifting upward, becoming more authoritarian.

How are republicans neo cons? People throw away the term neo con like it actually applies today in America. I consider a neo conn Hitler. If I say to a liberal you support terrorists with your policies i am immediately labeled a neo conn even though I am fairly moderate on a considerable amount of issues.

Read what I posted. I said "even neo conservatism has grown up to be classed as republican." implying that even something that has a little to do with republicanism as neo conservatism has now become classed under 'republican'. I did not say that the republicans are neo cons as you put it.

Neo conservatism is a movement of 'new conservatism' that supports zionism (so no Hitler was not a neo con), welfare, militarism, anticommunism (but not necesarily pro-capitalism, although they will always refer to themselves as capitalists). Really neo cons should have their own party and get the hell out of the republican party, but, they have found a home within one of the two major parties and they are staying there. The term is often misused to describe all republicans in general. I was not misuseing the term, merely pointing out that the republican party has changed and now incorporates this group.


I hear what you are saying, the republican party is nothing like what it used to be and you do not feel represented. A lot of right wingers on this forum feel the same, and I feel the same about the dems. You say you like Reagan (all righties do) but was he really any better? From my perspective Reagan is where the republicans went ary, not because he did not have republican intentions at heart but because guys like Bush have learned superficialy from Reagan. I think Reagan got a bad rap from the left but he was also missunderstood by those that would follow him which is why we have Bush playing politics the way he is now.

I would like to see, as you would, the false dychotomy of US politics recrafted so that the parties are distincly different. If the republicans could become the libertarians that they should have been then I would be voting their way every time.

EDIT: One question, you bashed Bush pretty bad in your last post, you said he does not represent you and that he is left wing. So why did you defend him in previous posts? Did you vote for him? Why?

[playa hata]

2) Economicaly I agree both parties are the same but socially there are some differences, this is not a shift toward liberalism this is a shift on the side of the right toward a bigger government.

Bigger gov has always been applied to democrats. Gov got really big under clinton. Reagen tried to cut the gov down but democratic congress wouldn't let him.

Bush isn't left wing... It would take too much time to discuss this so I will leave it at "I disagree".

Huge spending, endless programs, big bureaucracy, huge gov *bigger then its ever been. I would definitely call him a democrat. It all increased under Bush. *Note - It would only get worse with someone like Kerry so I am in no means supporting any of em.

I see a distinctly right wing shift where our right wing is admittedly not what it used to be and is shifting upward, becoming more authoritarian.

Are you talking about the patriot act? If you are i would support it without a doubt IF it didnt apply to US citizens. If they are US citizens court should have a warrent just like everyone else. 2/3's of the people apprehended over the patriot act are not US citizens. They may have had visas or green cards to be here which is completely good to get em.

Its believed what Sandy Berger stole from the defense dept was the recentely leaked memo which said that the CIA new way ahead of time Muhhammed Atta as well as all the 911 terrorists where linked to Osama Bin laden when they enterered the US. CIA went to the FBI and "said you should nail these guys we cant because we dont have control in this area its your job." FBI said "ok" but then the liberal defense dept lawyers under clinton said "no no no, its an invasion of rights they have visas you have to treat them like a citizen" BULL**** might I add. That is 1 of the things what the patriot act changed.

Neo conservatism is a movement of 'new conservatism' that supports zionism, welfare, militarism, anticommunism (but not necesarily pro-capitalism, although they will always refer to themselves as capitalists).

You would definitely label me a neo conn if thats your definition. Programs such as welfare would go under socalism, but i believe its necessary in a humane capitalistic society. My best friends Mom was on welfare for a year after a divorce when it drained her assets. It put her back on her feet and she got a good job and now is rich. This is why i support welfare. It needs to be reformed though.

Zionism - Isreal is independent. They really contribute to the world. They are the world leaders in many fields such as some parts of medicine. If i was president, I would definitely support isreal but I wouldnt give them any money because they are explioting us and we gave them enough. As for palestineans, these are the terrorists. They are the ones causing the problems. They follow a religion telling them to kill infidels which are americans. They cause drama in what ever nation they go to. Thats their mindset. France they burn synagogues, terrorist attacks in isreal, they invaded bosnia by becoming the majority and tried to over power them and take over the country. Which will happen in america if they ever become the majority.

Militarism - 1 of the main ingredients to keeping independce and freedom is overpowering everyone so nobody will mess with you. We can all sit here in assurance knowing our military kicks and wed over power any military that fights us. We had the biggest military buildup under Reagen and it has given us the best military in the world. Clinton cut it way down and we started to get weak but since reagen and bush senior took it up so high he was still sitting with a powerful military. Democrats are pro giving away Americas sovereignity to some crappy 1 world gov. Reagen was all about American indepenence and freedom.

Anti communism - My parents were from a communist country in europe. Its a nightmare. Anti God, anti freedom, everyone is at the bottom. You cant say what you truly feel or they will deny you of a college education and make you get a **** job. Only people who benefit are the people at the top which is the gov and people who take handouts.

Really neo cons should have their own party and get the hell out of the republican party

The traditionally republican party has always been the home for true republicans which are as you put it neo cons. It changed right after Reagen with Bush Sr.

I hear what you are saying, the republican party is nothing like what it used to be and you do not feel represented. A lot of right wingers on this forum feel the same, and I feel the same about the dems.

Sry man but for you to say you do not feel represented by the dems either means 2 things. You are really a moderate republican or your are a ****ing communist. No pun intended. Please point out someone who most closely represents your views.

You say you like Reagan (all righties do) but was he really any better? From my perspective Reagan is where the republicans went ary, not because he did not have republican intentions at heart but because guys like Bush have learned superficialy from Reagan.

Reagen tried to cut down the huge government and useless programs. That was his #1 goal the whole time while in office. He couldnt however because he had a democratic congress which refused to go along with his cuts.

Reagen brought down the USSR and freed eastern europe from 40 years of communist oppression with help of the pope. I can bet my left nut clinton or some dem replacement wouldnt of been able to do that.

We had the biggest military buildup under Reagen which made America really respectful and independent. The bomb ass military was under reagen and no1 messed with us. If they did reagen would strike back unlike clinton.

He didnt waste money he wouldnt really give money to the UN - he knew it was corrupt and crappy and wasnt worth the ammount of money we give them

1 thing I really liked about reagen was he addressed the people once a week and let everyone know what he was up 2. Unlike bush was never talks to the public unless its mandatory like the state of the union address. When people where getting their heads cut off in iraq he was just chilling in camp david and didnt say jack ****. Plus reagen was smarter then to start a war with a radicall islamic country he wouldnt go in like bush did Iraq. He didnt want to start armaggedon and wrote many memos saying he wouldnt want to get involved in the middle east.

Bush is nothing like reagen at all. You definitely need to re evalute your views on reagen because he was an awesome president. He followed the views of the founding fathers and lincoln. Those are the views that represent me. Reagen was pro American power he wouldnt of brought **** up like NAFTA, CAFTA, and didnt support the UN like all the liberal presidents. He definitely didnt support the new world order like Bush does.

think Reagan got a bad rap from the left

Democrats just blame **** on everyone else they do not take responsiblity for what they do wrong. And keep in mind almost everything that was wrong under reagen was due to democrats. Such as kicking retarded people out of institutions and letting them on the street. He caved into the democrats after a while because they said "retarded people have rights" and would be better off sleeping in the streets, harrasing people for money, and pissing all over the place. If you dont live in a city just go to sanfrancisco. I cant walk to blocks without some homeless asking me for a dallor so they can buy some booze. We can never let these people back into hospitals because democrats would rather have them on the street. This is just some of the **** they would rather blame on reagen they take accountability for.