Conservatives: Why do you support Bush?

[MobBoss]

No, it is legal in several states at this very moment.

Actually, to be accurate, it is legal in only one. Massachusetts.

 

[Immortal Ace]

I love the tax cuts. But I cannot stand how Bush cut taxes but increased spending. This is one reason I dislike Bush (and probably the biggest reason) is that he is as financially irresponsible as a damned Democrat. He cannot, maybe because he is unable to, to wave that magical red pen when the GOP passes some sort of spending bill in the House/Senate.

 

[MobBoss]

Bah, I don't consider Bush or a lot of Senate "Republicans" Conservatives.

They're far too authoritarian and try to implement Christianity as a state religion. The founding fathers would turn in their graves.

Then perhaps you should go read some of their quotes. Why, they even supported prayer in schools! Oh my gosh!!

If I remember correctly, the Republican party was to stand for personal freedom, limited (Or if you will, small) Government, and personal responsibility.

Actually, it grew out of the splintering of another political party just before the civil war with abolishing slavery as its primary goal.

A true conservative would not try to add an amendment to the constitution to block something they do not like or they see to be against their religious beliefs.

Why not? Dont religious people have rights also?

A true Republican would not expand the Government to the to the size the Republican Government and Bush have done so far.

No argument there.

I really dislike Bush, especially since Bush cannot seem to unwrap his lips from Vincente Fox's (The Mexican President) penis.

Reported.

it disgusts me to know our President does not give a damn and supports illegal immigration. Foreign Work Card or whatever the hell he called it?!

He doesnt support illegal immigration, but sure isnt conservative about it either.

 

[Immortal Ace]

Actually, it grew out of the splintering of another political party just before the civil war with abolishing slavery as its primary goal.

Ok, fine. I expressed myself in the wrong way with that statement. Perhaps I should say it's right in the damned party platform?

Why not? Dont religious people have rights also?

Of course they do. Where did I state otherwise? I don't quite see it, perhaps you can show me where I posted that Christians had no rights?

If I remember correctly, there was to be a seperation of church and state, correct? Sure yeah, you can dispute it. Everything can be disputed. But as it stands now, is this not fact? Therefore, why is the State still intervening in a religious matter such as Marriage?

By the way, I don't disagree with Prayer in school. Give kids 5 minutes to pray to whatever god they pray to or not pray to and it's fine. Infact, it should be that way. Why it isn't so is beyond me.

 

[MobBoss]

If I remember correctly, there was to be a seperation of church and state, correct?

But that doesnt mean we only elect atheists to office however. Religious people have as much right to hold office as anyone.

Sure yeah, you can dispute it. Everything can be disputed. But as it stands now, is this not fact? Therefore, why is the State still intervening in a religious matter such as Marriage?

Do you mean the states or the federal government? The state is not intervening as far as I know.

By the way, I don't disagree with Prayer in school. Give kids 5 minutes to pray to whatever god they pray to or not pray to and it's fine. Infact, it should be that way. Why it isn't so is beyond me.

Perhaps its because people tend to misquote the founding fathers and their views on religion...

 

[Immortal Ace]

But that doesnt mean we only elect atheists to office however. Religious people have as much right to hold office as anyone.

Where did I say voting atheists in is the only way? I'm starting to believe you're pulling some quotes out of someone's ass now. I said wheb a politician tries to legislate their religious views, be it Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddism, Hinduism, or Atheism (Whether it is or is not a religion is a whole different subject) is wrong.

Do you mean the states or the federal government? The state is not intervening as far as I know.

The fact that anyone is trying to is a problem. Let the gays marry. How can any politician justify not letting gays marry without bringing religion into the debate?

 

[Taliesin]

But that doesnt mean we only elect atheists to office however. Religious people have as much right to hold office as anyone.

Sure, but it is necessary for the integrity of a secular state system that any religious views of those in power not influence their governance of the secular state. I am fully aware that this makes it difficult for religious people to be members of government. But if you think about it, Christianity is not a religion for governors and politicians, but rather a faith of common folk. The bottom line in my opinion is that in general, good Christians do not make good rulers, and vice versa. It's probably better for both religion and politics if the two of them tangle with each other as little as possible. Render unto Caesar and all that.

 

[MobBoss]

Where did I say voting atheists in is the only way? I'm starting to believe you're pulling some quotes out of someone's ass now. I said wheb a politician tries to legislate their religious views, be it Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddism, Hinduism, or Atheism (Whether it is or is not a religion is a whole different subject) is wrong.

Ok, what religious law/legislation are you talking about...perhaps we can see what you are talking about that way.

The fact that anyone is trying to is a problem. Let the gays marry. How can any politician justify not letting gays marry without bringing religion into the debate?

I can and have repeatedly in this forum. However, there is no lawful provision to LET gays marry...you would have to enact a special law to let them......so you think its ok to cater to a very small group based upon sexual preference, but not on religious preferance?

 

[MobBoss]

But if you think about it, Christianity is not a religion for governors and politicians, but rather a faith of common folk.

So, common folks shouldnt be allowed to run for office?

The bottom line in my opinion is that in general, good Christians do not make good rulers, and vice versa.

Hmmm, I would wager a bet that most of our good Presidents have been good Christians.....

 

[Taliesin]

So, common folks shouldnt be allowed to run for office?

Of course they should. But, practically speaking, they don't. Anyway, that's not really the point, because the people who generally do run for office are just as able to lead Christian lives as common folk. What is important is that those who actually do run, and gain power, find Christianity ill-suited as a religion for governors. I'm not saying it's impossible to be a Christian, and a good legislator--there are plenty of those-- but it is pretty damn hard to be a good Christian legislator. Christianity is anti-state, though it can easily coexist with a state, and anti-capitalist as we know it. Both of our countries would become unrecognisable if they were to be organised along Christian lines.

Hmmm, I would wager a bet that most of our good Presidents have been good Christians.....

They may have been, in their personal lives and when they retired the office; however, the fact of the matter is that they have not ruled or governed consistently as Christians. Have any of them fed America's hungry? or restructured the economy according to Christian spirit? No, because they have been Presidents of a certain kind of Republic, and couldn't have it both ways. The Republic and its mythos demand military adventure, wage slavery, and a pro-corporate economy, and maybe that's fine-- I certainly don't want to bother arguing whether those are good things or not. But they are most certainly not Christian things, and to date no President has set aside his republican duties to meet his Christian ones.

 

[AL_DA_GREAT]

I was a Clinton supporter, and I still am. But I was very critical of some of the things he did as President. For instance, I thought he handled the Lewinsky affair all wrong, and he didnt recognize the threat of militant Islam.

Basket, could you list for me some of the mistakes you feel Bush has made?

militant Islam!!! you mean millitant warmongering Americans trying to colonize the world!!!

 

[MobBoss]

militant Islam!!! you mean millitant warmongering Americans trying to colonize the world!!!

Sigh. And may I ask Mr. Troll...just exactly how many American colonists have settled into Afghanistan or Iraq now hmmmmm?

 

[covok48]

God I'm starting to hate these kind of threads. I don't even know why I reply to them...

Here's how the format goes:

1) Liberal asks conservatives why they support [insert politician/policy/idea/ theology here].

2) Conservatives respond to question with strait answer.

3) This offends/ upsets leftests and they proceed to flame, troll, namecall conservatives.

4) Thread goes into a bash America, bash Bush fest.

5) Repeat.

 

[IglooDame]

George Bush is socially liberal? His administration has a conservative position on abortion, gay marriage, stem cell research, the death penalty, and the war on drugs.

Bush has basically no positions on those issues. He gives a few speeches against abortion and same-sex "marriage" on election year when he needs blind conservative votes, but he has done absolutely nothing in his five years of presidency to address any of the issues you are mentioning. The man who turned the federal government into an absolutely omnipotent behemoth is suddenly a supporter of "state's rights" on important social issues which many Americans would like to see resolved. Indifference is not the "conservative" position at all.

Supporting a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage is "basically no position"? Threatening a veto at legislation overriding his existing restriction of federal money to existing stem cell lines is "basically no position"? Halting US financial aid to UN programs that include abortion rights is "basically no position", nor is finding SCOTUS nominees that could overturn Roe V Wade? He hasn't done anything to support death penalty in his five years because he doesn't need to, surely if he was moderate on it he could have made a difference in Texas' executions while he was governor. As to the War on Drugs, his Attorney General repeatedly sought Federal prosecution for drug usage that states had determined to be legal. Hardly a "state's rights" position there.

And if these can still amount to "basically no position", then so does his support of the conservative interpretation of the Second Amendment - He said he'd sign the Assault Weapons Ban if it hit his desk.

I'm truly surprised almost to disbelief that a politically aware US citizen could consider George Bush' administration to be in any way "socially liberal". And "states' rights" IS a socially and economically conservative position - look up federalism while you're reviewing all the other items.

 

[Phlegmak]

Oh, like he was AWOL, he went to war for oil, he is a liar, he is a murderer, he rigged the elections, etc, etc, etc,.

He's a liar.

I never said that!

We may never know the true reasons he invaded Iraq. It sure as hell wasn't WMD or freeing the Iraqi people.

 

[kingjoshi]

He's a liar.

I never said that!

We may never know the true reasons he invaded Iraq. It sure as hell wasn't WMD or freeing the Iraqi people.

Don't attribute to malice what can be explained through incompetence. He's definitely a liar. But I'm not sure he didn't believe the stuff about WMD and liberating Iraq.

 

[Phlegmak]

Don't attribute to malice what can be explained through incompetence. He's definitely a liar. But I'm not sure he didn't believe the stuff about WMD and liberating Iraq.

There's no doubt that it wasn't about liberating Iraqis. The administration started focusing on that only after WMD couldn't be found.

 

[kingjoshi]

There's no doubt that it wasn't about liberating Iraqis. The administration started focusing on that only after WMD couldn't be found.

But many of the neocons trumped this from the start. They claimed that it would usher in a new era. I don't know if they believed it or not. I don't know of evidence (not saying it hasn't been shown) that doesn't prevent them from just having delusions of grandeur.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Igloo, so in your opinion Bush is a pretty good representative of conservative values? Socially I guess you could say he is (IMO its just going through the motions and lip service for the religious right, I dont think he really cares about it) , but certainly not in the economic sphere, right?

 

[El_Machinae]

I'm often torn, because I had long associated the Republicans with Libertarian values - but it seems I was mistaken - I guess Libertarian is not solely in the domain of the "Right". But fiscal prudence was supposed to be.