I'm serious. I'm a conservative, and he's certainly *never* been a conservative, but more like a liberal on a money drunk, as far as I can see. What is the attraction for those who also call themselves "conservatives?"
2007-11-19 04:52:52 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Jen, please refrain from the projection, 'K? Never supported our beloved Naked Emperor, FWIW.
2007-11-19 05:02:53 · update #1
Thank you!! I agree whole-heartedly! Open borders; deficit spending; pork-barrel projects; did nothing about AMT, abortion, states rights; neglected veterans; did nothing to reform social security; the list goes on!
2007-11-19 05:01:40 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
a huge component to the priority is "liberals" are legislating in prefer of the vast participants like communities that each physique started as environmental communities and now purely care approximately amassing legal expenses in frivalist regulation suits. would we've climate replace if we had not stopped development nuclear capability flora to interchange coal powered ones? Oh wait no marketing campaign donations form coal agencies if we try this. I even have an concept why do not we can charge the utmost electric powered expenditures in the rustic and commence baseline capability use billing and clever meters to gouge the costumers much greater the putting clear out to scrub diesel exhaust that will advance the gas intake adequate that it reason greater pollutants than without the clear out it extremely is this way of sturdy concept too yet a minimum of the "liberals" would have used it to rigidity the autonomous mom and dad agencies to enhance broke perhaps element like MBTE would make average much less indignant if the liberals would admit poising water to scrub air isn't this way of sturdy concept. No harvest of lumber inflicting larger wooded area fires and greater intake of gas importing wood from Canada as a replace of sustainable harvest and hearth breaks. I nevertheless do not comprehend the way being compelled as a Californian to apply a gas can layout that spill greater on the exterior of the device than it gets on the interior is powerful for the ambience a minimum of the "conservatives" are so clueless that as a replace of expertise that we are upset with the "liberals" for being pseudo environmentalists that doing greater harm to the ambience than reliable, think of if we vote for them we don't desire first international wellbeing care that is been my cutting-edge experience that here modern-day potential doing without examine just to do issues "for the ambience" that land up being crimes against the ambience
2016-10-02 00:45:14 · answer #2 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Bush has some loyal followers--unlike you (and certainly never like me). Waiting till he is on his way out and then try to label him as the opposing side? That is weak. It's just so sad to see that people can't admit they were wrong.
*Edit: Feel better now? Why are you now claiming he's "certainly *never* been a conservative"? Is that a projection too?
2007-11-19 04:58:54 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 2⤋
well some support him because he claims to hear the voice of god.
others support him because they favor the neo-con approach, which is anything but conservative.
as his approval rating is under 25 percent, im thinking that just about no real conservative on the planet supports him. at least not the ones who actually know what conservative values are supposed to be...
2007-11-19 05:01:44 · answer #4 · answered by Archduke Gumbercules 2 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Not all have. I support President Bush on many things but his spending, blind support of NAFTA and irresponsible approach to illegal immigration made me part ways with the GOP.
2007-11-19 04:58:39 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 0⤋
More could have been accomplished during the Republican domination.
However, Bush can be credited for banning Partial Birth Abortions and lowering taxes 4 times.
But tired to appeal to liberals by overspending and attempting to grant amnesty to illegals.
2007-11-19 05:00:52 · answer #6 · answered by Fred Head 4 · 1⤊ 4⤋
Because in the past 2 election cycles, he's been the only choice.
I cannot fathom just how much worse off the US would be if he hadn't been elected.
I didn't like him as a candidate in 2000, but nobody better showed up.
2007-11-19 05:05:29 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 4⤋
I've heard him referred to a "corporatist" meaning that he is only interested in what is best for corporations. That would support your observations.
I think oligarch is more accurate.
2007-11-19 05:12:36 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
GWBush a liberal? You can't be serious. The liberal tradition takes care of people. GW hasn't done anything for the people of this country.
2007-11-19 05:01:17 · answer #9 · answered by Jesse J 2 · 4⤊ 3⤋
Conversely, why haven't liberals bestowed upon Bush Clinton like love since George has fiscally out-paced even the most dedicated Democrat?
2007-11-19 05:01:05 · answer #10 · answered by Liability Of The Left III 2 · 1⤊ 6⤋