George Bush = Democrat!

[GHook93]

Many of the liberals on this board hate Bush, because they see him as a conservative war-monger Republican. However, besides social conservatism, Bush acts very much like a Democrat!
(1) He represents big spending, high taxations (the tax reduction bill was his failed attempted to save face) and big government --> which are all things associated with the Democrats.
(2) Preemptive Wars! Bush arrogantly and erroneously invaded Iraq. Look at the preemptive wars of the past: Spanish American, Korean War, Vietnam, invasion of the Phillippines and the bombing of Kosovo/Serbia (also toss in WWI & WWII) were all started with a Democrat at the helm. When Bush invaded Iraq he acted like a Democrat.
(3) Easy on illegal immigration! While in Texas he was easy on illegal immigration. Then in white house he supported the Kennedy/McCain bill. Being easy on illegal immigration is a Democratic attribute.

Bush has never been a fiscal conservative! His policies more closely represent a Democrat than a Republican (of course minus the social conservative aspect) and that is why he was a failure as a president!

[Technosoul]

Quote by: GHook93 Many of the liberals on this board hate Bush, because they see him as a conservative war-monger Republican. However, besides social conservatism, Bush acts very much like a Democrat! (1) He represents big spending, high taxations (the tax reduction bill was his failed attempted to save face) and big government --> which are all things associated with the Democrats. (2) Preemptive Wars! Bush arrogantly and erroneously invaded Iraq. Look at the preemptive wars of the past: Spanish American, Korean War, Vietnam, invasion of the Phillippines and the bombing of Kosovo/Serbia (also toss in WWI & WWII) were all started with a Democrat at the helm. When Bush invaded Iraq he acted like a Democrat. (3) Easy on illegal immigration! While in Texas he was easy on illegal immigration. Then in white house he supported the Kennedy/McCain bill. Being easy on illegal immigration is a Democratic attribute. Bush has never been a fiscal conservative! His policies more closely represent a Democrat than a Republican (of course minus the social conservative aspect) and that is why he was a failure as a president!

Nice try but your compared notes do not tell the whole story.

Did the Democrats thumb thier nose at Congress when they went to war?

Did he use the taxes for social programs that would be useful to Americans living in this country?

Did he hug any trees lately?

Did any President at any time in history ever get really tuff on unlawful immigration form Mexico? Other then Davy Crockett? (who was not successful). Well, Davy was not a President but could have been one.

[phoenix_fire]

I suppose that's what happens when you try to be a "compassionate conservative".

[GHook93]

Quote by: Technosoul Nice try but your compared notes do not tell the whole story. Did the Democrats thumb thier nose at Congress when they went to war?

YES - in Vietnam and Korea. The Giant Bush got more support from Congress on Iraq than JFK and LBJ did on Vietnam or Truman got on Korea, so who you crappen!

Did he use the taxes for social programs that would be useful to Americans living in this country?

Spending and pork Barrel projects grew 10 fold under the giant, so the answer is YES!

Did he hug any trees lately?

Yet he was not as bad as other Republican Presidents. McCain is much more of a tree hugger than Bush, yet McCain is much more of a fiscal conservative and hence more Republican than Bush.

Did any President at any time in history ever get really tuff on unlawful immigration form Mexico? Other then Davy Crockett? (who was not successful). Well, Davy was not a President but could have been one.

Times have changed!

[Technosoul]

Quote by: GHook93 YES - in Vietnam and Korea. The Giant Bush got more support from Congress on Iraq than JFK and LBJ did on Vietnam or Truman got on Korea, so who you crappen! Spending and pork Barrel projects grew 10 fold under the giant, so the answer is YES! Yet he was not as bad as other Republican Presidents. McCain is much more of a tree hugger than Bush, yet McCain is much more of a fiscal conservative and hence more Republican than Bush. Times have changed!

Well, you might compare Bush with Kennedy, but not me.

You might compare pork barrel projects with federal programs for the poor, but I do not.

You might compare the war with Hilter with the war on Saddam, I do not.

Times have changed? Gee, I did not know that Obama was ever a President, or is he popular because change did not happen in the right way under Bush?

[GHook93]

Quote by: Technosoul Well, you might compare Bush with Kennedy, but not me.

I wasn't doing! Just like you won't compare Jimmey Carter with JFK or Bush with Reagan.

You might compare pork barrel projects with federal programs for the poor, but I do not.

Spending is spending! That is the difference. I haven't seen social programs spending go down in the Giant Bush's presidency.

You might compare the war with Hilter with the war on Saddam, I do not.

LOL, I was just stating the point that Democrats have gotten us into far more wars than Republicans. I believe some wars needed to be fought, such as the Civil War, WW II, The War of 1812, the Mexican American War and Afghanistan War. I am on the fence with WW I and Desert Storm (since we kicked a$$ so easily).

I compare Iraq to the 2 needless wars in Vietnam and Korea to which liberal Democrats started!

Times have changed?

I meant times have changed in which the borders need to be protected and illegal immigration needs to be addressed!

Gee, I did not know that Obama was ever a President,

Comrade Obama probably is the next president!

or is he popular because change did not happen in the right way under Bush?

He is popular because of the profession way he holds himself out,for his amazing speaking ability and for his enormous amount of charisma.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: GHook (2) Preemptive Wars! Bush arrogantly and erroneously invaded Iraq. Look at the preemptive wars of the past: Spanish American, Korean War, Vietnam, invasion of the Phillippines and the bombing of Kosovo/Serbia (also toss in WWI & WWII) were all started with a Democrat at the helm. When Bush invaded Iraq he acted like a Democrat.

Democrats may have indeed been at the helm in each case, but I'd hardly call them pre-emptive (with the possible exception of the Spanish-American war, but that was blamed on what was thought to be an attack on the USS Maine, although in all probability it was an accident) Hostilities were already in progress in each case.

Only in Iraq did we pre-emptively attack a country that was technically at peace, that was not attacking anyone or threatening to attack anyone.

.

[GHook93]

Quote by: Sonart . Democrats may have indeed been at the helm in each case, but I'd hardly call them pre-emptive (with the possible exception of the Spanish-American war, but that was blamed on what was thought to be an attack on the USS Maine, although in all probability it was an accident) Hostilities were already in progress in each case. Only in Iraq did we pre-emptively attack a country that was technically at peace, that was not attacking anyone or threatening to attack anyone. .

Vietnam, Korea, Spanish American, invasion of the Philippines, WW I (which all do respect we were arming German's enemies and the ship they sank was carrying arms - the Zimmerman Telegram was overblown propaganda) and Kosovo were all preemptive moves.

[GHook93]

Is that most of American wars, some justified and some not, have been started by Democrats. War is most a Democratic attribute.

[Roxdog]

He is the most liberal President we've ever had...

[Tycoon]

He is the most liberal President we've ever had...

Socially no. He pushed the ammendment to ban gay marriage.

[Roxdog]

Quote by: Tycoon Socially no. He pushed the ammendment to ban gay marriage.

On all counts, yes. The man attends Bohemian Grove and gets waited on by gay porn stars. His POLITICAL POSTURING should not be mistaken for legitimate political and/or social ideals.

[lsbskins1]

I love this "Liberals are responsible for all wars" stuff. Lets do a little digging, k.

Korean War begins (http://www.korean-war.com/TimeLine/1...o08-03-50.html) -

"June 25, 1950
At approximately 4 a.m. (Korean Standard Time) on a rainy Sunday morning Democratic People's Republic of Korea Army (DPRK - North Korea) artillery and mortars open fire on Republic of Korea (ROK - South Korea) Army positions south of the 38th Parallel, the line then serving as the border between the two countries. The opening barrage is followed shortly by tank/infantry attacks at all points along the Parallel. At 11 a.m. North Korea announced a formal declaration of war and what is now known as "The Korean War" officially began. In this announcement North Korea claimed ROK forces on the Ongjin Peninsula attacked North Korea in the Haeju area (west) and their declaration of war was in response to this attack. This claim was bogus.

U.S. President Harry S. Truman was notified of the invasion and returned from his home in Independence, Missouri, to Washington, D.C., arriving in early afternoon. Meanwhile the U.N. Security Council passed a resolution calling for the immediate cessation of hostilities and the withdrawal of North Korean forces to north of the 38th Parallel."



Seems to me, North Korea started the Korean war, not Truman. But, lets grant the fact that Truman had to be willing to involve the US in this conflict. Why might that be so? Some pre-Korean war history to come (http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/qq/nl9.htm)-

"Meanwhile a new problem had arisen in the Far East, where Chinese Nationalists under Chiang Kai-shek and Communists under Mao Zedong were warring for control. In 1946, Truman had sent General Marshall to China in an effort to negotiate an agreement between the two factions. After more than a year of futile talks, Marshall reported no progress and recommended the termination of his mission. Civil War ensued, and the communists gradually extended their control. This action, together with evidence that certain State Department officials sympathized with the Communists in the belief that they were mere "agrarian reformers," led to Republican charges that the administration was responsible for the loss of China to the Reds.

Associated with this issue were charges by the House Committee on Un-American Activities and by Senator Joseph R. McCarthy of Wisconsin that the administration was "coddling Communists" within the government, especially in the State Department."



So, it seems to me, Truman was reacting to Republican pressure to not allow the Communists to "win", not responding to any liberal predisposition to war... and that leads us to...

Viet Nam -

"Some American historians have theorized that the loss of mainland China to the Communists enabled Joseph McCarthy to purge the China Hands from the U.S. State Department.[citation needed] In turn, it is possible that John F. Kennedy lacked the advice of any real experts on East Asia when he was trying to formulate a policy on Vietnam, which would imply that the Chinese Civil War can be linked causally to the Vietnam War. In addition, Lyndon Johnson's belief that the loss of China cost Truman and the Democratic Party its political support made Johnson determined to uphold South Vietnam at all costs."



So, yet again, it is not really liberal predisposition that leads to conflict, it is much more the result of Conservative, anti-communist fear mongering and blunderbust that gets us into these nasty wars.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: GHook Vietnam, Korea, Spanish American, invasion of the Philippines, WW I (which all do respect we were arming German's enemies and the ship they sank was carrying arms - the Zimmerman Telegram was overblown propaganda) and Kosovo were all preemptive moves.

With all due respect, you're full of crap.


-- Europe had been fully engaged in the bloodiest conflict in human history, WWI, three years before the Lusitania sailed from New York.

-- North Korea invaded South Korea in June of 1950 in an attempt at forced unification.

-- North and South Vietnam had been fighting each other for years before we sent unarmed advisors to help the South Vietnamese defend themselves from rebels and North Vietnamese aggression, which we did before we sent troops.

-- Slovenia, Croatia and Bosnia were all actively rebelling against Serbia before we ever fired a shot, and the Serbians were actively fighting Kosovar rebels and murdering civilians before we did a thing in Kosovo.

-- While the Spanish-American War was as close as we've come to a pre-emptive war, the Cubans and Phillipinos were already in revolt when we decided to step in on their behalf. Once we officially declared war on Spain in April of 1898, we spread it to the Phillipines, because that's where the Spanish were.

ONLY in Iraq did we initiate a war where none existed, before there were any sort of hostilities.

Look up the meaning of pre-emptive.

Quote by: GHook War is most a Democratic attribute.

And yet, oddly enough, Republicans are the ones who see themselves as "Strong on Defense".

Quote by: Roxdog He is the most liberal President we've ever had...

LOLOL!!! Yeah, yeah, sure he was.


.

[Clarence]

yeah yeah, he says one thing does another. He's neither compassionate nor conservative. He's not even the one who makes decisions on his team.

[GHook93]

Quote by: Tycoon Socially no. He pushed the ammendment to ban gay marriage.

I think Rox was being sarcastic. But I stated right there in the beginning that he is a social conservative!

[Technosoul]

I think this is some sort of Republican plot to link Bush and Democrats so that McCain can win the elections.

No one likes Bush and they want a change, so to distance the Republican party from Bush and to move Bush closer to being a Democrat would suggest that "change" can only be offered by the Republican party. (or a 3rd party).

Well, you cannot trick me, I'm still going to vote Democratic and I think Bush is still a Republican.

[darth sylar]

ur soo right. george bush is a freakin liberal. he has embarrased the republican party. thanks to him, people have lost faith in the republican party. his stupid amnesty package was stupid. we should have sent those f**kers back over the border.

[ShadowFox]

Darth, please read the rules for this forum.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: GHook93 Is that most of American wars, some justified and some not, have been started by Democrats. War is most a Democratic attribute.

You do make a valid point I must admit.

The data (as you present it) is correct and cannot be ignored.

Never once have the Democratic voters nominated or elected a anti-war President.

Hillary and Obama never stated they are anti-war conidates, only that they could conduct military operations in a better way, and that they would make more efforts via holding peace talks, which Bush did not care to do very much.

The Democrats did perform the duty of "protecting the Consitution from all forien threats" (as perceaved at the time). Bush might have been the first Republican in recent times to do that. (I loved his hard hat speech following the 9-11 attack).

It is clear that the Democratic party is our best line of defence and the for the most part the Republican party is our weakest line of defense.

The Democrats have produced the strongest Commander and Chiefs of the two parties.

Thanks for pointing this out.

Bush Sr. also conducted wars (Panama -etc) but they were so quick that we hardly view them as wars anymore. Hillary Clinton said she wants to team up Bill Clinton with Bush Sr. and send them both out together to talk to those forien leaders. They both have agreed to that plan. Nether were peace-niks when in office.

Combining together the Bush-Clinton dynesty (spell check?) would make for a powerful force.

Are you ready for that?

I would imagine that over 50 percent of the world's population are females, combining male power with the potential of global female power can also be a powerful force. Who holds the purse when it comes to having buying power in the the market. Women.

Men work so that their women can buy stuff. Bush was not all that stupid for sending out his best female - Miss Rice - on those political missions.

Ha. The world has seen nothin' yet. Wait til they they have to deal with the Clinton/Bush Dynesty and wait until they have to deal with the female lib movement as it becomes empowered and is let loose on the world at large. Ha. What a superpower steamroller that will be.

It is your choice America, the time is now, do it or retreat into a nation of weakness and unpredictable economical insecurity. Vote Hillary!