No, and you didn't either because Larry is not doing anything for Bush. If you think he is, then you can't read or are being dishonest.
Fundraisers get paid back
Discussion in 'Free-For-All Archives' started by Pennsylvania Jim, Nov 19, 2004.
Page 3 of 4
-
-
Oh yeah, "Larry isn't really a republican." ;) ;)
-
church mouse guy Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
Well, I am sure, Galatian, that the Easterner probably agrees with you that Clinton is more conservative than Bush. In fact, probably all of the CP agree with you that Clinton is more conservative than Bush. Evidently you left the Democrat Party in 2000 after 8 years of conservative Clinton government....
"Longest period of prosperity in US history. Low inflation, full employment, businesses building and selling lots of products. Why should that be a bad thing?" you ask.
As I pointed out, it was a stock market bubble. You wonder why a bubble is a bad thing--because when the bubble bursts, one has a crash. When there is a crash, the uninformed lose money. So do those who do not heed the warnings. -
Barbarian on Clinton's economy.
Longest period of prosperity in US history. Low inflation, full employment, businesses building and selling lots of products. Why should that be a bad thing?
Isn't it remarkable that the "crash" didn't happen until Bush's economic policies kicked in?
Bad luck, that.
Happens to a lot of republicans. "It's not my fault! Blame it on (last democrat)!
Sure. Used to be the party of personal responsibility. Now it's the party of excuses. -
church mouse guy Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
I am not sure when the stock market crashed but it was before Nine Eleven. AOL was selling so high at one time that it would take 600 years at the then rate of dividends to recover one's investment. That is a bubble. Clinton presided over a bubble. Clinton himself admitted that he had raised taxes too high.
-
-
He's not. Repeating lies doesn't make them true. It simply makes you look silly and uninformed. It is a shame when someone who merely points out the truth is attacked and called a republican. It is a shame that the truth is so lowly valued by Galatian and some others. It is a shame when lies are persisted in even after being corrected.
-
So why do you think people are amused when you deny it, Larry?
-
I don't think they are amused, but I don't know. I think what you have confused is the pursuit of the truth with a politcal loyalty. Your nearly incesssant lies about Bush showed a political loyalty you had, and you seem to have assumed that anyone who points out the truth about Bush is a de facto Republican or Bush supporter. That shows a lack of critical thinking on your part. One can defend the truth about Bush wihtout being a loyal, or even nominal, Republican, just as one can defend the truth about Kerry, Kennedy, Clinton, or other Democrats without being a Democrat.
You simply did not think clearly through that charge before you made it. If you would have thought through it, you probably would have easily seen the problems you created for yourself. Whether or not you would have admitted them or not would be a different story. -
No, I'm amused.
-
-
church mouse guy Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
I believe that a lot of people supported Bush who were not Republicans because they believed that the war was legal and that foreign aid should continue and that Kerry had a bad record in the Senate and when he returned from Vietnam.
-
Really, Larry, your posts are very one-sided in favor of Republicans. That's ok, but you really shouldn't tout yourself as perfectly objective at the same time. Given all the glaring failures of the GOP and President Bush, your constant defense of them causes you to lose credibility as an unbiased observer.
-
church mouse guy Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
Look, Bush is not the conservative dream. He is a moderate and we know his understanding of theology is weak for a President. However, he will not have a Monica in the oval office or anywhere else. He is a war leader and at that he is very good. He is going to make some economic reforms and start things rolling on the cultural scene.
It is wrong to expect any leader to do all the work. Most of the work has to be done by the common man at the grassroots level. The real question is who will the GOP select in 4 years as the stage is now empty and the GOP likes to have a frontrunner. -
1. You are correct that he is not a conservative dream.
2. It's a matter of perspective, I guess but by the standards as they were before the Bush family pushed everything to the left, he's a liberal. And I'd characterize his theology more as heretical than weak.
3. Hopefully he will not have a monica inthe oval office, as you say. But neither did Jimmy
Carter. Big deal.
4. He is a war leader in the unnecessary, bloody mess that HE started. Sort of like the volunteer fireman who sets fires for the thrill of putting them out.
5. I don't see any economic reforms on the horizon that can compensate for his wild,out-of-control socialistic spending spree. Big (huge, massive) government is his hallmark.
6. As to the cultural scene, he remains silent about abortion and I don't see any reason to expect that he'll reverse his promotion of the homosexual agenda in government.
7. I agree that it is wrong to expect a leader to do all the work. I just wish that what he did was for our side, not the liberals.
8. The GOP will select another liberal for 2008, because you and millions of other conservatives have shown that you'll fully support them. -
-
church mouse guy Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
The Constitutional Party lost the election. They borrowed a page from the left about illegal and unconstitutional wars and lost. During the Vietnam war one Boston politican said that he supported the war and thought that the draft-dodgers should be shot. The CP is on the side of the street people and they got what they deserved for their refusal to support the nation at war.
-
Larry, you cannot see your own posts objectively. With all the rantings from other members about Kerry prior to the election (many of which I areed with), there were a GOOD NUMBER that were exaggerations or unfair. But I NEVER ONCE remember you chiming in to correct an unfair statement in defense of Kerry. On the other hand, I cannot remember you ever voluntarily criticizing Bush. You will say "I think he's done a lot of bad things" when you want to prove your objectivity, but never volunteer criticism of the many things with which you claim to disagree, as you did for Kerry. That doesn't look like striving for truth, to me.
I respect your right to an opinion, of course. But your characterization of your biased opinion as defense of truth is laughable. If you think that you are more fair than average, you are blind to your own extreme lack of objectivity.
I wonder why it is that so many threads in which you participate become threads about Pastor Larry, just like this one. -
...as CMG continues to spew unfair and non-factual hatred toward a party who's name he can't even spell.
-
Page 3 of 4