I mean, look....they hated Bush from day one saying he STOLE the election in 2000...LOL give me a break. If it wasn't Iraq, it would be something else. So, what is liberals true agenda?
2007-09-25 07:22:26 · 26 answers · asked by TriSec 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
outsider_27...PROVE HE STOLE THE ELECTION....just prove it buddy
2007-09-25 07:27:48 · update #1
stiggo629...9/11 was planned while Clinton was getting a BJ from a Fat Intern. YES, Clinton set the stage for all the events we face today.
2007-09-25 07:29:55 · update #2
MrNiceGuy...SO, you want socialism? Sorry buddy, this is a capitalistic society, you'll need to move.
2007-09-25 07:34:25 · update #3
They are still wring their hands over losing the White House in 2000 and the 2004 loss just upset them more. There has never been anything Bush could do to appease them.........
2007-09-25 07:25:48 · answer #1 · answered by Brian 7 · 3⤊ 9⤋
If you think the reason liberals dislike Bush is because of the apparent fraudulent election of 2000, please explain why conservatives are still so angry with Bill Clinton. At least with Bush we have a man who has been a total and complete failure as President. Even without Iraq, his presidency would be marked by an unending stream of being unable to accomplish anything positive.
Really, that's why you guys hate Clinton? Because he didn't stop 9/11 in the planning stages? Then why don't you also hate Bush, who ignored a security memo telling him that Bin Laden planned to attack the US, and also ignored Clinton's warnings about Bin Laden?
2007-09-25 07:28:11 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 3⤋
Oh knock it off. That is past history. If a man deserves criticism he gets it. Whether there was a war in Iraq or not would not matter. If he did good people would praise him if he does bad people chastise him. The fact that he is incompetent and corrupt plays a big role in it.
People who love and practice democracy know that democracy thrives on difference of opinion and dissent. Without them there might as well be totalitarianism.
You may not like him or people in his Administration being called Fascists but you do call your opponents Socialists and Communists. Neither of which are true. Cowards can give but can't take so maybe deep down inside those who criticize Bush's detractors are really cowards.
2007-09-25 07:34:10 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
After reading the answers from the Liberals, I would like to ask them one question, Does this mean your not going to contribute any money to the Conservatives for the elections?
2007-09-25 09:12:46 · answer #4 · answered by Johnny Reb 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I love how conservatives feel they need to answer for liberals, anger is a gift I guess
neo-conservative christian ideology is whats scary, and separating our country ... military industrial theocracy is just a by-product
Conservative Christan's (starting with Ronald Reagan) are the ones pushing an agenda of non-tolerance, war, and restricted civil rights
the agenda is simply to stop them from doing it ... and one doesn't have to be liberal to feel this way
conservatives know this, and they like to label 'non-believers' as liberals so they can confuse the issue ... most of todays conservatives no longer understand what there party stands for (or liberals for that matter) ... and they don't know the history of how we got to today
2007-09-25 07:42:52 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
The war in Iraq is hardly the only disappointment to come from our president. He has systematically worked to undermine the constitutional rights of American citizens. He has done great damage to the US reputation and prestige around the world. He has presided over a massive shift of wealth from working Americans to the rich. He has driven our country so deeply into debt it may take generations to recover. He has allowed millions of American jobs to go overseas. He has replaced the findings of the government's own scientists with the pronouncemnets of his political hacks. He has delibrerately undermined any progress on the environment and made it easier for polluters. He has corrupted the law enforecemnt process into a tool for politics. He is the leader of a party that seems to believe in wealth and power above all things, and whose members are marching off to jail in record numbers. If you've noticed, even most Republicans don't like him anymore.
2007-09-25 07:32:35 · answer #6 · answered by TG 7 · 5⤊ 2⤋
Our true agenda is the Truth. He has used 9/11 as an excuse to roll back our Constitutional protections and to degrade the separation of power in our government. He is more dangerous to our country than Bin Laden. Everyone with common sense should hate that vile worm's guts.
2007-09-25 07:29:42 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 2⤋
Let's see...
Trying to overturn Roe vs. Wade
Making stem cell research impossible
Tax cuts for the rich
Lobbyists from the oil companies
Trying to gut the endangered species act
Letting the states assume Godlike land management power
Defunding the National Parks system
Trying to drill ANWAR
Refusing to admit Saudi involvement in 911
Trying to sell the ports to Dubai
Outsourcing American jobs
Refusing to secure the borders
Refusing to crack down on HMO and drug-empire monopolies
Katrina
Gonzales
Rumsfeld
Cheney
Scooter Libby
Karl Rove
Outing of Valerie Plame
Public castration of John McCain
Swift-boating of Kerry
Crucifixion of Max Cleland
Illegal wiretapping
Total destruction of Habeus Corpus
Use of military leaders as political puppets
...how much time do I have?
lib·er·al (lbr-l, lbrl) KEY
ADJECTIVE:
Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism.
Liberal Of, designating, or characteristic of a political party founded on or associated with principles of social and political liberalism, especially in Great Britain, Canada, and the United States.
Tending to give freely; generous: a liberal benefactor.
Generous in amount; ample: a liberal serving of potatoes.
Not strict or literal; loose or approximate: a liberal translation.
Of, relating to, or based on the traditional arts and sciences of a college or university curriculum: a liberal education.
2007-09-25 08:22:45 · answer #8 · answered by howldine 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Probably.
That's why he went ahead and did it anyway.
Liberals would hate him either way, so it wasn't really a consideration.
Neither were the lives of the hundreds of thousands of dead, wounded, and displaced civilians.
Or the trillions of dollars that this war will end up costing the American taxpayer by the time it is over.
Or the face that America has lost around the world.
2007-09-25 07:28:00 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋
And what would it have taken for cons to admit for one second that Clinton was a good president? Don't crow too loudly.
Clinton's BJ never got anyone killed. It just ruined a dress.
Our true agenda is to have a government for the people, not corporations. Whether that is the dems agenda is another story. I feel both repubs and dems no longer really represent their constituents, only the money that bought them.
2007-09-25 07:32:44 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 4⤋
I have two questions for Bush hating Libs...
Name me three bills passed by Clinton or Carter that made the US a better place to live.
And, name for me three bills passed by Bush that have the US worse then it was under his predecessors
2007-09-25 07:37:15 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋