In the real world, if there are 10 people on the planet, you are going to have someone with a differing view. Thus I would suggest that unity in policy and opinion shouldn't even be tried for, because it's not possible. The only way to come to a unified opinion of society, is by squelching and intimidating opposing views out of existence.
This is why the left is so quick to control the media, and why left in the past has uniformly resorted to violence. Because at some point the left will always realize that they can't get exactly what they want, so long as people have the option to oppose them. Hugo Chevaz and his armed citizen militias. What's the point of that? Well... to stop people from opposing Chavez. After the last election, protests broke out over blatant irregularities in the reported votes. Snipers shot several protestors, and the protests broke up. Leftists win again.
Nevertheless, I'm more interested in what is best for the country, not what is supported by majority opinion.
It was cloudy all day today. I blame Obama. Correlation is not causation.Second of all Clinton left office Surplus, Bush left office DEBT.
Have I mentioned how ignorant the left is lately? Oh... no I haven't because right now I don't need to.As for "NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND" it was introduced by Bush.
Perhaps if Kennedy had been president it would have worked Bush was president it didn't.
There is no united opinion of Bush from the right. The idea that the right goes around with a universal standardized opinion of Bush, is largely idiocy. I've met those on the right, who think Bush was divine. Others that he was crazy. Others that he was socialist. Others that he was brilliant, and those that said we was stupid. The right isn't a monolithic group.So far I've heard the right wing call Bush a leftist, a neocon and back to Republican.
Just out of curiosity how does Bush a Republican get to be a neocon?
What he ducks in a men's room to change, maybe a telephone booth?
The problem that many on the left fail to comprehend, is that individuals are not Capitalist and Socialist. Policies are. A policies is either in favor of greater freedom, greater capitalism, and greater free-market. Or it is greater government control, more restrictive, and more socialist.
As such, you can look at one Bush policy, and see he more free-market, and then look at another policy, and see he is more socialist. The ultimate view of the individual, can easily be swayed by what aspects the individual values most.
As for him being a neocon, well... Again, this looks like another case where people pull out their ideological label maker, and start slapping labels on everything. I've heard now about a half dozen difference definitions of what a 'neocon' is. I've actually started flame wars between fruity people who had differing views on what the term meant, and I just sat there and laughed at them. Is Bush a neocon? I don't know, and frankly I don't care.
Well look.... you talk about the good economy under Clinton. Right? What economic policies did he pass? He reformed welfare, kicked women and children out on the street, and he signed NAFTA. If you look at everything Clinton passed over his 8 years, and look at specifically what economic policies he passed.... that's its. Those were his two main things.Clinton NAFTA??? FREE TRADE AGREEMENTS these were bad ideas I questioned them and others right and left.
And the economy was good. Right? Now either you learn from what he did, and realize that cutting government spending, and putting people to work, while at the same time offering free trade of goods is a good thing.... or shut up about his great economy.
Really, if you are not going to learn from the policies that made the 90s economy stable, then shut up about how great they were. You can't sit there like an idiot, saying the economy was good but all those policies that made it good are bad, because you have no credibility.
How much more in debt are we now, and how many years has Obama been in office?Bottom line in 2000 America had a surplus Bush took office 8 yrs later America is 3 trillion in debt
First, the wars were necessary. Second, America was broke long before Bush was in office. Third, other countries were loaning us money long before Bush was in office. Fourth, Corporations always have their hands out, so do the American Public. Fifth, Bush didn't cut the budget. Obama grew the budget. That's why it needs cut so much. Sixth.... less tax revenue? I doubt that is true, but if it is.... GREAT. Less money in dirty political paws, the better for everyone.we had iou's to a dozen differant countries including a leftist country named China, we were at war with two nations and the corporations had their hand out 3 months before he leaves. Leaving America broke with nothing to look foward to but budget cuts, less exports, less tax revenue, and printing more money.
Bush bad, DAMN RIGHT,if it would have been Clinton or Kennedy you would have the same response.in fact if Obama doesn't do something possitive soon it's gonna be OBAMA BAD.
And no, if it has been Clinton or Kennedy, most of the left here would be giving excuses. In 1998 when Clinton wanted to go into Iraq, the left excused it constantly. Of course Clinton was an absolute wimp, and only fired missiles into Iraq, but otherwise did nothing.
I meant a Republican that acted, voted, and talked like a Democrat, but pretended to be Republican. RINO = Republican In Name Only.I'd hardly call this Democratic administration RHINOS, maybe lame ass spineless chicken, maybe not that cause some chickens fight.
The Republican. the Libertarian and the Tea Party has been using the Democrats including Obama has a punching bag with no response.