NeoRio1, he called you an apologist. You don't have to praise someone to be their apologist (making excuses for their misdeeds). And you certainly have made a lot of excuses for Bush and the GOP. Here's just a small sampling of your excuse-making for Bush and the GOP: http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=2057590#post2057590 "the higher GNP during the Clinton years and the low GNP during the Bush year's really has nothing to do with either president. Did democrat's and Clinton invent the internet and it's massive popularity? Did republicans and Bush cause this financial subprime mess? The answer is of course no." The High Performance Computing and Communication Act of 1991 (HPCA, Pub.L. 102-194, enacted 1991-12-09) was created and introduced by then-Senator Al Gore. It was thus referred to as the Gore Bill. An important result of the Gore Bill was the development of Mosaic in 1993, the World Wide Web browser which is credited by most scholars as beginning the Internet boom of the 1990s. http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=2086921#post2086921 "Before you start playing the blame game on the republicans you might find it interesting to know that in 1999 Bill Clinton and his administration were the ones that passed the deregulation bill that is still in place that had a stronger negative impact than whatever Bush did in the last 8 years. I say you do a little more research before reciting simple statistics and then making childish statements such as democrats are stupid and republicans are deregulators. Although i do agree that democrats are stupid." Aside from the silly claim that the Clinton adminstration passed legislation (the executive branch does not pass bills), let's look at the most relevant facts: In 1999, the GOP ran both the House of Representatives (222 to 212) and the Senate (55 to 45). The deregulation which you brought up is known as the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. Gramm, Leach and Bliley are all Republicans. So "Clinton's" deregulation act was written and proposed by Republicans, passed overwhelmingly by Republicans and opposed mostly by Democrats. But according to you, we shouldn't blame the GOP for any deregulation, we should lay the entire blame at Clinton's feet. Did Clinton support it? Sadly yes. Did Clinton propose it in the first damn place? No. Did the bill have a veto-proof majority composed mostly of Republicans? You betcha. But don't let the facts deter you from spewing crap, Neo; it's not like they ever have before. http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=2091846#post2091846 "you can't blame Bush for the economic mess because in 1999 Clinton was the one who deregulated everything" See above. Also: The Commodity Futures Modernization Act (aka The Gramm Guts America Act). Let us remember that Gramm was McCain's financial advisor and future Secretary of Treasury. http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=2153582#post2153582 "If Bush is the worst president ever as some claim he is than what three major things did Bush screw up in his 8 years of presidency?" Followed by: "Is waterboarding torture?" Yes, Neo, it really is; it has been well known as torture for centuries, in fact. "Was the Iraq war the biggest mistake ever or not? Is the justification for taking saddam out enough besides the fact of no WMD's." My question: Why does the Iraq War have to be "the biggest mistake ever" to be a major mistake? You're a big fan of bait and switch. http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=2196843#post2196843 "Bush got in a war because he told people there were WMD's. The Iraq war did not affect the average American at all." I'll let the stupidity of that claim speak for itself, given the financial cost of the war has been more than $845 billion to the USA, with the total cost to the USA economy estimated at $3 trillion. http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN2921527420080302?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&sp=true http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=2202223#post2202223 "Free thinker my ass. The only thing your free from is logic." (you responding to a GOP/Reagan critic) http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=2206848#post2206848 "Actually the person that should be blamed for the first attack is Bill Clinton. The extreme lack of airport security Clinton not only implemented but decreased was stunning. It's just another thing the liberal media ignored. Bush was only president for 7 months before the attacks." Blaming Clinton for 9/11! Why not blame him for outting Valerie Plame while you're at it? Makes just as much sense: none at all. In 1998, the bipartisan Hart-Rudman Commission (aka the Hart-Rudman Task Force on Homeland Security) was chartered by the Clinton Administration to provide a comprehensive review of US national security requirements in the 21st century. Released in January 2001, USCNS/21 is the most exhaustive review of US national security strategy since the National Security Act of 1947. In May 2001, the Bush administration announced that, rather than adopting Hart-Rudman, it was starting over with its own committee headed by Vice President Dick Cheney. Dick Cheney's "anti-terrorism committee" never held a single meeting. On September 10, 2001, Attorney General Ashcroft submitted his annual budget for the Justice Department and the funding request for fighting terrorism was cut to virtually nothing. On the same day, Senator Feinstein asked for a meeting with Cheney regarding a potential terrorism threat. Cheneyâs chief of staff scheduled the meeting for six months away. The Bush Administration had not one thought about combating terrorism prior to 9/11. The rest, as they say, is history. You must have a full-blown case of Clinton Derangement Syndrome to say 9/11 is Bill Clinton's fault. http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=2223615#post2223615 "Once again for the 50th time Bush was only in office for 8 months prior to 9/11. The week security policies of Clinton deserves the most amount of blame." LOL! http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=2228481#post2228481 "im a conservative." Oops! The truth slipped out there, Neo. All through last year, you kept calling yourself a moderate. Your "moderate" mask has evaporated. LOL http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=2423474#post2423474 "I invite you to find just one occurence in my post history where I defended Bush or the Republican party." ROTFL!! So, according to you, the GOP didn't lose one seat in 2008. No it isn't what happened. I posted a pic on page 1 of this thread and it still doesn't register for you. Just because Fox Noise has more viewers, that doesn't correspond to GOP approval.
It is wishy-washy people like David Brooks who have hurt the conservative movement. Brooks was a fan of obama ,taking in by a smooth talker without a philosophy only to later recant that love. Same with Buckley who supported Obama only later to regret that support. We have so called conservatives who feel they need to compromise to the immoral left to get the independent vote. It only takes sticking to traditional values to get the independents.
I posted correctly the situation. Brooks, McCain both feel they needed to compromise to get votes. Me ,Beck, Rush, Hanniety don't support that. We feel you can win by staying true to conservative values. Roomey flip flopped on many conservative issues, he was unsupportable. The real issue is that there was no candidate who represent the solid right. After Bush betrayed the conservatives with his spending no one was going to support anyone who was not a true conservative. In 2008 there was no true conservative candidate except Palin and she was strongly accepted. The is no illusion that Beck in from the middle.
Rise of Beck, Hannity, Bill OâReilly has correlated perfectly w/decline of G.O.P. This has to be the most idiotic claim I have ever heard. Rush's rise occured during the late 80's. They won the White House in '88 and captured Congress in '94. How exactly did Rush's rise correlate perfectly with the GOP's decline? O'Reilly's rise occured in the late 90's. The republicans won the Presidency in 2000 and '04 as well successful wins in Congress in several election cycles. Hannity's show started in '96, which the GOP has had their fair share of victories since then. Beck's radio show went national in 2002, whcih once again had republican victories afterward. To say that the GOPs decline correlated perfectly with the rise of these guys is a complete crock. Get a clue and think for yourself.
The correlation that needs the most attention is the Pelosi / Reid Democrat takeover of Congress and the collapse of the US economy.
You mean the collapse of the false economy created under Bush, which began unraveling under Bush? Your lover Bush inherited a budget surplus from Clinton, presided over the greatest exodus of jobs to foreign countries at the behest of corporate sponsors to the GOP, quickly pissed that budget surplus away with tax cuts benefiting mostly the wealthy, deficit spending, and a false economy based on people refinancing their homes, started two wars that continue on longer than WWII, etc., etc., etc.,... Bush left the biggest pile of shit ever for an incoming president to try and deal with...
Bush sucks and Obama sucks more. The NeoCons destroyed the republicans. The only rise we are seeing in republicans is the backlash against Obama's crazy incompetence. Both parties suck and the working people are voting against what sucks. Right now the suck pendulum is moving back and forth. We need real leaders with ideas that work. Spending money we do not have on programs which do not work - sucks. Libertad and a few other people are advocating flat taxes and changes like that which could make a difference. A flat tax would eliminate much of the politician buying which has gone on for years. A flat tax might get our govt back for the people instead of the bankers. Please do not confuse the current rejection of Obama's lunatic policies for an increase in love for republicans. Right now both parties suck - the democrats are just proving their old ideas suck more because they never worked.
Unlike you who blindly defended Bush year after year, I did not support Obama in the primary and I have no problem with legitimate criticism of Obama. Obama is a disappointment to many people, but given what he inherited from the worst president in our history, I expected anyone who became president to struggle mightily... Of course, even if McCain had been elected, and even if the republicans controlled the house and senate, like they did during Bush, we would still see Beck, Hannity, and O'Reilly spending their time attacking the opposition party... Republicans are a bunch of whiny fearful biatches...