I'm a lifelong conservative activist and I'm backing Barack Obama

The last conservative president was Andrew Jackson.

If this was a contest over the abibility to inspire, present hope and represent change I think Obama would win in a landslide.

Oh, it is?

I would vote for him if I could agree with his core stance on even 10 of his 22 issues on his website, I am in the process of reading through them again carefully and I have not agreed with his solution to one problem yet.

I do agree with the way he frames the issues and if it was just a matter of framing or understanding an issue I would be 100% Obama.

For instance- Disabilities- “We must build a world free of unnecessary barriers, stereotypes, and discrimination .... policies must be developed, attitudes must be shaped, and buildings and organizations must be designed to ensure that everyone has a chance to get the education they need and live independently as full citizens in their communities.”

— Barack Obama

I agree 100% with that statement and understanding of the issue.

But to quote his blueprint- "Barack Obama believes the United States should lead the world in empowering people with disabilities to take full advantage of their talents and become independent, integrated members of society...As president Barack Obama will renew America's Leadership by making the United States a signatory to the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities- the first human rights treaty approved by the UN in the 21st century and a vital foundation for respecting the rights of people with disabilities worldwide. He will urge the U.S. Senate to ratify the Convention expeditiously."

I would not support that solution and I have looked over the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilites and I do not support that approach.

From issue to issue I find that Obama and I differ as to the right and best course of action. It is not the inspiration and hope he offers that I disagree with; it is not his fresh and honest realization of the needs that I disagree with- those things I stand with him on.

It is his view of the future, it is the course of action he is charting. It is his plan and solutions I am opposed to.

If he were to Abolish the Patriot Act, Homeland Security and present a plan to transition us from the Central Bank to sound banking and currency; if he will stop federal borrowing and strengthen state responsibilities; if he will decrease our partnership with UN proposals that are detrimental to our own government, society and Constitution; if he will stop foreign interventist policies- Then I will appologize to him and his supporters that I failed to see his true agenda and support it fully.

 

Thanks for proving my point.

You are beyond audacious, you are bodacious.

 

Awesome.

 

Awesome.

 

Dictionary.com: Bodacious

1. thorough; blatant; unmistakable: a bodacious gossip.
2. remarkable; outstanding: a bodacious story.
3. audacious; bold or brazen.

Thank you.

And I told you in another thread I am not interested in playing your little word games. It is good that you are able to keep yourself amused with your cleverness though, so I hope the sound of my yawning won't be too distracting.

 

The amount of anger at Bush (which I've had for several years) is beginning to surprise me. My best friend was the biggest Bush-lover there ever was and just recently compared him to Jimmy Carter.

 

Our long national nightmare is almost over!

 

In the future, I will try to refrain from playing word games with you, if you can tone down the pompous self-importance that just begs for needling.

 

Killing Indians is part of conservative ideology?

 

Grover Cleveland (best Democrat President ever) and Calvin Coolidge were both more conservative than Jackson. In fact, Jackson wasn't much of a conservative at all. (And yes, I know that he got rid of the National Bank.)

 

The Indian Removal Act was a mistake and a travesty in Jackson's term. He was conservative fiscally. I was actually thinking economics and banking.

I better brush up on his economic policy, but I am certain he favored sound currency and opposed central banking.

I don't know of many other presidents that did.

Sound economics and liberty are two sides of the same coin.

I really meant the phrase conservative in a political sense with regard to the economy, I believe Andrew Jackson paid off the federal debt in his term.

I could be wrong. Look it up for me.

 

OK, that is what I was thinking of.

What ever the central bank was I remember he opposed it.

I think there has been 5 central banks in US history, the Federal Reserve has been the only one to survive and actually take over the economy. I am pretty sure it is here to stay.

I am not as much a conservative as a constitutionalist and that requires subjective interpretation.

So let's just say I am a Christian who is tired of politics.

 

Was going to reply to all this, but on second thought..

Bullseye.

Ya got me.

Wingnuttia surrenders.

Polls replace reality, communism never hurt anybody, no mission is ever accomplished, and the globe has never in 4 billion years ever warmed without man there to cause it.

What reasonable person could ever believe differently?

 

Nero, sometimes I don't know where you were when they handed out the brains. At least the logic part of it.

Can you please stop beating around the bush and explain your "people were sicker of Clinton than they will ever be of Bush" statement? It's entirely baseless and illogical given the facts.

Oh, and the negation of "X is always true" is not "X is always false"

 

Ok, I will say it again, and this will be the last time. It is my *opinion*. And this is not a quantifiable 'fact' which can be anything other than peoples' opinions anyway, I understand that some people may disagree with me. However, I will just have to say that it is 'anecdotal'. Maybe it has to do with the people I have associated with, and maybe other peoples' opinions would reflect their own groups. But the people I have known well enough over the years to discuss politics with were unified in their abhorrence of clinton and his wife, from almost the very beginning.

Remember, as insanely angry as the libs have been since 2000, when Bush 'stole' the election from them, conservatives were just as disappointed in 92, since clinton would never have even been close if not for that little idiot perot splitting the conservative vote. Then add in hillary's brain-dead attempt to bring socialized medicine to America, and then one petty scandal after another over the years, and finally following it up with 11th-hour pardons-for-money, and by the time he was leaving, even the *press* had turned on them.

I was an aware adult during the 90's, and I remember what I saw then. And I remember what people were thinking then. And from my own *personal experience*, the enmity towards clinton dwarfs the media-hyped frenzy against Bush today.

Now I couldn't tell you what any 'poll' may have said then, because I know as well as everyone that 'polls' are not worth the toilet paper they are printed on. Which means I couldn't care less what polls may be saying today.They are divorced from reality - they are the media's attempt to create news rather than report it.

Now today, people want to talk about polls and 'approval ratings', and all that. Fine. And I have no doubt that partisans on the other side of the aisle feel just as vehemently among their own peer groups that Bush is as bad or worse than clinton was, and they are welcome to their *opinions*. But make no mistake about it, that is all they are.

The only thing that really counts is the scoreboard. Come Nov 5th, we'll see.

Oh and I know very well about logic and what statements of X mean and don't mean. Don't fret. Just was responding in kind, from one end of the extreme to the other.

 

So you choose to ignore scientific, statistically sound polling in favor of the thoughts of your friends and family and people you associated with? Do you really think that is an unbiased, politically, demographically, and geographically diverse sample of people in the country?

 

As an "aware adult" during the '90's and the '80's and the '70's and on into the mists of time (at least it feels like that), I can tell you that you are seeing things through a lens of your own construction. Others have pointed out the huge differences between Clinton then and Bush now, and you chose to ignore them. You ignore the approval ratings which, according to the polls, were more than double that of Bush today. You chose to ignore the balanced budgets, the debt reduction, the amazing prosperity. Fine. Just don't expect to not be ridiculed for your position. Frankly, you deserve the ridicule, with all due respect.

I'm trying to remember this nation as disgusted and angry with a President in the past as they are today with Incurious George. The only thing that compares is Nixon. That was worse, because he got the impeachment he deserved... looks like your buddy George is going to weasel out of his very well deserved impeachment and trial. Why? A Democratic Congress without the balls to do what justice demands, in my opinion.



Impeach Bush/Nixon... I mean Cheney.