Who OUGHT to be President!

[quote]bigflamer wrote:
tme wrote:
I even have a great campaign slogan for him:

“Elect Newt, 'cause Bush weren’t near stupid enough”

tme,

What do you think of Bush’s Medicare Part D
prescription drug program. It’s been a huge success, too bad it never gets talked about huh.
[/quote]

Has it? I don’t know much about the practical effects of the program, but do you have any idea what it’s done to the deficit? And it benefits a constituency that is already disproportionately wealthy (but happens to vote in large numbers).

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
jlesk68 wrote:
It’s worth it if even one person wakes up.

Wake up white people. The Jew is using the black man for muscle.

I think that is what the neo-nazi said in Blues Brothers.[/quote]

And was the deus ex machina in Independence Day.


I would feel like I was in good hands with Dennis Haysbert as president. Let’s face it, the most important quality for a president to have is leadership, and leadership is largely based on gravitas, something Haysbert has in abundance. The president himself doesn’t need brilliance or experience, that’s why he has a cabinet and advisers.

Reagan was one of the most hands off presidents of our era and he was hardly the most brilliant man to hold the position, yet he is revered as a demi-god by the right. Why? He was a charismatic leader and he appointed people whom conservatives could get behind.

With the right people behind him, Haysbert would be a perfect candidate to lead this country into the future.

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
JD430 wrote:
I too would like to see a man with rock-solid conservative principles elected(Im not sold on Newt yet though).

Why is it important to have a conservative in the White House? For that matter, what does it matter if the person is liberal? Judging a person’s ability should be based on more than the their policy centered values. I don’t think this country could handle another conservative in the White House right after this mess.[/quote]

Im tired of repeating that Bush is not very conservative, so you can stop pointing out what a mess he has made. I agree with you.

Libertarian conservative principles are the bedrock of the United States. Many of the things you guys post here are actually libertarian conservative ideas.
America was made great by very strong patriotism, keeping the government small,
believing in personal responsibility and supporting individual freedom. Sadly, the people we call liberals now are most often thinly-veiled socialists.

If you want socialism, there are plenty of places in the world you can get it. We don’t need to slide any further toward that misguided system here however.

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
JD430 wrote:
I too would like to see a man with rock-solid conservative principles elected(Im not sold on Newt yet though).

Why is it important to have a conservative in the White House? For that matter, what does it matter if the person is liberal? Judging a person’s ability should be based on more than the their policy centered values. I don’t think this country could handle another conservative in the White House right after this mess.[/quote]

Bush is NOT a Conservative.

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Bush is NOT a Conservative.

[/quote]
That’s right, he describes himself as a compassionate conservative.

con?serv?a?tive [kuhn-sur-vuh-tiv] ?adjective 1. disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.

I would say he matches the meaning of the word.

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Bush is NOT a Conservative.

That’s right, he describes himself as a compassionate conservative.

con?serv?a?tive [kuhn-sur-vuh-tiv] ?adjective 1. disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.

I would say he matches the meaning of the word.[/quote]

Ha! His words show he is not. Since he adds ‘compassionate’, he assumes that no conservative is compassionate, that the word needed a qualifier. It really is a secret insult to conservatives, that we’re all heartless pricks.

Funny you didn’t pick up on that.

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
bigflamer wrote:
What do you think of Bush’s Medicare Part D
prescription drug program. It’s been a huge success, too bad it never gets talked about huh.

Why talk about one thing he’s done successfully when ther are numerous others that he hasn’t?[/quote]

You’ve just answered your own question. You’d rather hear what he’s doing wrong and fuck what he’s doing right,right?

Why aren’t we hearing what a success this is on CNN?

[quote]tme wrote:
bigflamer wrote:
tme,

What do you think of Bush’s Medicare Part D
prescription drug program. It’s been a huge success, too bad it never gets talked about huh.

I agree, that one thing has been a success. My mother’s monthly prescription bill went down by several hundred dollars on the new plan. That was last year, this year the new plan isn’t quite as good. Still better than nothing, I guess. I think the insurance companies are allowed to gradually start screwing people more every year.

But the fact is that Iraq has been such a complete, monumental, total fuck up that these minor successes are just never going to get much play. Sorry to pop your bubble.[/quote]

Well, I do think that post war Iraq was/is currently handled very poorly. I would like to see more complete coverage from the MSM, however, I realize that sensationalism sells.

Don’t you think it’s a bit skewed that we just don’t hear a peep about such items from the MSM?

Who OUGHT to be President ?

Gore.

[quote]Wreckless wrote:
Who OUGHT to be President ?

Gore.

[/quote]

LMAO!!!
You see he actually lost the election after the recount, nimrod. Of course that was third page news by the time they finished the count.
This is not an endorsment for bush, btw.

[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
bigflamer wrote:
tme wrote:
I even have a great campaign slogan for him:

“Elect Newt, 'cause Bush weren’t near stupid enough”

tme,

What do you think of Bush’s Medicare Part D
prescription drug program. It’s been a huge success, too bad it never gets talked about huh.

Has it? I don’t know much about the practical effects of the program, but do you have any idea what it’s done to the deficit? And it benefits a constituency that is already disproportionately wealthy (but happens to vote in large numbers).[/quote]

Gdollars,

I was wondering which democrat you are planning to vote for in November, 2008. If you had to choose today, who would it be?

I’m curious to see how your candidates shake out and what happens going forward.

Let’s see if your candidate wins the democratic primaries.

Thanks,

JeffR

THIS IS WHO

[quote]etaco wrote:
I would feel like I was in good hands with Dennis Haysbert as president. Let’s face it, the most important quality for a president to have is leadership, and leadership is largely based on gravitas, something Haysbert has in abundance. The president himself doesn’t need brilliance or experience, that’s why he has a cabinet and advisers.

Reagan was one of the most hands off presidents of our era and he was hardly the most brilliant man to hold the position, yet he is revered as a demi-god by the right. Why? He was a charismatic leader and he appointed people whom conservatives could get behind.

With the right people behind him, Haysbert would be a perfect candidate to lead this country into the future.[/quote]

That “in good hands” part MUST’VE been on purpose right? (the Allstate car insurance ads…)

Anyway, I love that guy in The Unit!

[quote]JeffR wrote:
Another piece of wisdom: france/germany/russia are NOT the whole world.[/quote]

The ten million of people on the streets were not enough for you?

Here on Earth, we have a body that’s supposed to decide on those issues. On September 16, 2004 Kofi Annan, the Secretary General of the United Nations, speaking on the invasion, said, “I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter. From our point of view, from the charter point of view, it was illegal.”

[quote]Oh, plenty of countries actively and passively participated in Iraq.
[/quote]

You mean the 2 from Iceland? Or maybe the 4 from Slovenia. The 35,000 private military contractors?

Gotta love the “passively” tongue-in-cheek though.

[quote]lixy wrote:

On September 16, 2004 Kofi Annan, the Secretary General of the United Nations, speaking on the invasion, said, “I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter. From our point of view, from the charter point of view, it was illegal.”

[/quote]

Are you REALLY quoting the great Kofi Annan?

Please don’t.

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
bigflamer wrote:
What do you think of Bush’s Medicare Part D
prescription drug program. It’s been a huge success, too bad it never gets talked about huh.

Why talk about one thing he’s done successfully when ther are numerous others that he hasn’t?

[/quote]I’ve talked to several seniors ,that say the drug plan was B.S. and their scripts actually went up in price instead of down.

What about Fred Thompson? What are his pro’s and con’s .

[quote]ron33 wrote:
What about Fred Thompson? What are his pro’s and con’s .[/quote]

I know very little about him, Ron-do you?

[quote]lixy wrote:
JeffR wrote:
Another piece of wisdom: france/germany/russia are NOT the whole world.

The ten million of people on the streets were not enough for you?

Here on Earth, we have a body that’s supposed to decide on those issues. On September 16, 2004 Kofi Annan, the Secretary General of the United Nations, speaking on the invasion, said, “I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter. From our point of view, from the charter point of view, it was illegal.”

Oh, plenty of countries actively and passively participated in Iraq.

You mean the 2 from Iceland? Or maybe the 4 from Slovenia. The 35,000 private military contractors?

Gotta love the “passively” tongue-in-cheek though.[/quote]

Surely you must be kidding about the Annan comment. The same Annan who was accepting oil kickbacks from the ousted Iraqi government?