Conservatives against Bush? does this make sense? - Page 2

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Conservatives against Bush? does this make sense? (Page 2 of 2)

Posted: 8/30/2004 7:57:59 AM EDT

[#1]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Isn't it amazing how they both graduated from the same college...

I dont know Kerry or Bush, So i'm offering no commentary on their intelligence. But to imply that becuase they attended the same school, they are mental equals, doesn seem very well thought out to me.

Um, the salient point was "uneducated"--
Isn't it amazing how they both graduated from the same college and one becomes president but is considered un-educated while the other is considered a genius?

From the article--
John Kerry is at least an educated man
<snip>

The obvious attempt is to paint GWB as an uneducated hick--which he is not. Sweep was addressing that. He is a degreed man--it's unlikely Harvard "granted" him a degree due to his "daddy's coattails" or wealth. Do you recall how the Left portrayed Reagan as stupid also? It's what they do when they can't find a single legitimate issue to criticize a man over. It's funny--the way "conservatives" (some) on this board portray GWB as being so far to the left, you'd think the Left would LOVE him, and would be working hard for his reelection. A man is well judged by his enemies. I like GWB more all the time, as I want *no* association with his vocal enemies.

Kerry graduated Yale with a C average, iirc. Which is about the same as Bush's, but bush went on and got into Harvard and got an MBA, while Kerry stopped at the bachelor's degree level, iirc. So technically, they are about the same level of intelligence (at least as far as grades are an indicator of intelligence) and Bush is actually MORE educated than Kerry.

Posted: 8/30/2004 8:09:55 AM EDT

[#2]

FWIW, a relative went to Yale - valedictorian in high school (roughly 1000 students in his graduating class) but only did ok at Yale - the level of competition is quite different at a top echelon school than your garden variety NCAA diploma mill.

In terms of absolute raw intelligence, I believe Nixon was at the top (there is a bogus report floating around that claims Clinton was a genius, this report also paints most Democrats at genius or higher level and most Republicans at average or below, with *surprise* W ranking at the bottom)

Perhaps Mr. Reese would like to present his academic credentials and intelligence testing results? (before pressing on with his questioning of the President's intelligence)

Posted: 8/30/2004 8:27:37 AM EDT

[#3]

Quoted:
I have sadly come to the conclusion that President Bush is merely a frontman, an empty suit, who is manipulated by the people in his administration. Bush has the most dangerously simplistic view of the world of any president in my memory.

By far the worst forign policy of a president in my memory was Carter's, and his mishandling of Iran, etc. Clinton's was also bad. Reagan was far and ahead the best (yes, that cowboy), and W's is pretty good.

Quoted:
John Kerry is at least an educated man, well-read, who knows how to think and who knows that the world is a great deal more complex than Bush's comic-book world of American heroes and foreign evil doers. It's unfortunate that in our poorly educated country, Kerry's very intelligence and refusal to adopt simplistic slogans might doom his presidential election efforts.

All the lefties thought Carter was smart, too.

Quoted:
It is not at all conservative to balloon government spending, to vastly increase the power of government, to show contempt for the Constitution and the rule of law, or to tell people that foreign outsourcing of American jobs is good for them, that giant fiscal and trade deficits don't matter, and that people should not know what their government is doing. Bush is the most prone-to-classify, the most secretive president in the 20th century. His administration leans dangerously toward the authoritarian.

Quoted:
This election really is important, not only for domestic reasons, but because Bush's foreign policy has been a dangerous disaster. He's almost restarted the Cold War with Russia and the nuclear arms race.

Actually, I was more concearned about the Clinton administration/Gen. Clark adventures in Serbia causing problems with Russia.

Quoted:
America is not only hated in the Middle East, but it has few friends anywhere in the world thanks to the arrogance and ineptness of the Bush
administration. Don't forget, a scientific poll of Europeans found us, Israel, North Korea and Iran as the greatest threats to world peace.

If true, this says a lot about Europeans.

Quoted:
I will swallow a lot of petty policy differences with Kerry to get a man in the White House with brains enough not to blow up the world and us along with it. Go to Kerry's Web site and read some of the magazine profiles on him. You'll find that there is a great deal more to Kerry than the GOP attack dogs would have you believe.

Besides, it would be fun to have a president who plays hockey, windsurfs, ride motorcycles, plays the guitar, writes poetry and speaks French. It would be good to have a man in the White House who has killed people face to face. Killing people has a sobering effect on a man and dispels all illusions about war.

What about Kerry's Senate record? How come none of his supporters want to talk about that? Hocky? Windsurfing? Speaks French?

Posted: 8/30/2004 8:32:49 AM EDT

[#4]

Quoted:
The issues he raises are of concern to "old guard" conservatives. I've been listening to the discussion for about a year now. It's not about the war. It started before 9/11.

They almost choked but they swallowed the "compassionate conservatism" line during the first campaign but Bush's Fiscal policy is driving them wild. He supports a couple of their "hot button" issues but there is some serious concern about the rest of his policies and where he is going. He is looking like more of a Democrat to them than a "real" Republican.

I'm not taking sides, I'm just reporting what I've been hearing. If the hard-core, "old guard" (fiscal responsibility/government out of our lives -- not the social issue) Republicans feel that neither candidate will advance their program, they might just stay at home on election day.

Problem with this is, the VAST majority of new spending has been on defense/war...

Not entitlements.

We have the perscription drug thing, yes, but the rest of it has most definately NOT been social spending...

Posted: 8/30/2004 8:36:12 AM EDT

[#5]

Quoted:
I'm a Libertarian and I'll admit that I have a problem with free trade and immigration. I have many more problems with Republicans and Democrats. Getting back to original question, IMHO real conservatives have a problem with Bush because he is not a conservatine. He says he is, but his actions prove otherwise. A conservative wouldn't have pissed away 100 billion in Iraq. I'll be voting for Badnarik.

A conservative would not oppose free market economics (free trade)

A conservative MIGHT be a short-sighted house-of-bricks isolationist, however...

Better spend it in Iraq, and advance American interests than to waste it on handouts & protecting unsustainable 'jobs' back here...

Posted: 8/30/2004 8:40:22 AM EDT

[#6]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Isn't it amazing how they both graduated from the same college...

I dont know Kerry or Bush, So i'm offering no commentary on their intelligence. But to imply that becuase they attended the same school, they are mental equals, doesn seem very well thought out to me.

A look at Bush's IQ:
www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20040114-074349-3947r

Basically, Bush is in the mid 120s, slightly less than Gore but higher than J. F. Kennedy. Don't know where Kerry ranks.

Posted: 8/30/2004 8:41:03 AM EDT

[#7]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Bush is no conservative. If I could figure out a way to ensure gridlock, I'd vote for it. The less the gubment can do, the better..... Republican or Democrat.

+1

Stupidest thing I've ever heard...

We have too much to fix for gridlock to be acceptable - both here & abroad...

Geeze guys, is this 1st grade? Is there anything greater/more important in your world view than your ability to 'get yours'? Are you content to 'fiddle while Rome burns'? Of course, what more can you expect from international isolationsits... Won't fight the despots in the Middle East (waah wahh, it costs too much), and would rather have 'gridlock' than fight the leftists back here...

There is a role for the USA to play in this world, one that is greater than any of us individually, and one we cannot ignore if we want to keep the freedom we have...

We either engage the 'other side' and fight to win, or they win. If they win, you will WISH for the way things are today...

Posted: 8/30/2004 9:22:31 AM EDT

[#8]

Quoted:
Then there are the "fiscal conservative" "socal liberal" democrats. Usually they are not really "fiscally conservative" if you probe with questions, and just spout the usual democrat lines.

Hehe what about Fiscally Conservative Socially Liberal Republicans?

Posted: 8/30/2004 9:29:13 AM EDT

[#9]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Then there are the "fiscal conservative" "socal liberal" democrats. Usually they are not really "fiscally conservative" if you probe with questions, and just spout the usual democrat lines.

Hehe what about Fiscally Conservative Socially Liberal Republicans?

Depends...does "socially liberal" mean "anti-gun?" And how does it affect their views on foreign policy?

Posted: 8/30/2004 9:31:37 AM EDT

[#10]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Bush is no conservative. If I could figure out a way to ensure gridlock, I'd vote for it. The less the gubment can do, the better..... Republican or Democrat.

+1

Stupidest thing I've ever heard...

We have too much to fix for gridlock to be acceptable - both here & abroad...

Geeze guys, is this 1st grade? Is there anything greater/more important in your world view than your ability to 'get yours'? Are you content to 'fiddle while Rome burns'? Of course, what more can you expect from international isolationsits... Won't fight the despots in the Middle East (waah wahh, it costs too much), and would rather have 'gridlock' than fight the leftists back here...

There is a role for the USA to play in this world, one that is greater than any of us individually, and one we cannot ignore if we want to keep the freedom we have...

We either engage the 'other side' and fight to win, or they win. If they win, you will WISH for the way things are today...

Fuck the rest of the world and the profiteering of the cartels which currently influence the US foreign policy that goes along with it.

Why couldn't we have just spent $200 billion on alternative fuel/plastics research and ultimately sent those cricket eating Bedouins back into the Middle Ages where they belong?

Posted: 8/30/2004 9:34:07 AM EDT

[#11]

Quoted:
Fuck the rest of the world and the profiteering of the cartels which currently influence the US foreign policy that goes along with it.

Why couldn't we have just spent $200 billion on alternative fuel/plastics research and ultimately sent those cricket eating Bedouins back into the Middle Ages where they belong?

Because it's not the job of the government to develop alternative fuels, it's the job of private industry. Because having the government subsidize it wouldn't work...when the market is ready for alternative fuels, there WILL be alternative fuels. The government's job is to protect our interests and do things that the private sector CAN'T do. Period.

Posted: 8/30/2004 9:39:00 AM EDT

[#12]

Sure it is. If foreign policy dictates that we must spend $200 billion to protect American interests, then you can spend the money and protect the interests in many ways.

The short sighted approach is to send troops to the middle east in a stabilization effort.... which ultimately perpetuates more of the same.

The long term approach is to cure the problem once and for all, giving tax credits, grants, and other incentives to completely eliminate our reliance upon middle eastern petroleum. Once that happens, we've cut off a major source of their power to do anything because we quit buying their shit.

Posted: 8/30/2004 9:39:52 AM EDT

[#13]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Fuck the rest of the world and the profiteering of the cartels which currently influence the US foreign policy that goes along with it.

Why couldn't we have just spent $200 billion on alternative fuel/plastics research and ultimately sent those cricket eating Bedouins back into the Middle Ages where they belong?

Because it's not the job of the government to develop alternative fuels, it's the job of private industry. Because having the government subsidize it wouldn't work...when the market is ready for alternative fuels, there WILL be alternative fuels. The government's job is to protect our interests and do things that the private sector CAN'T do. Period.

Ask him if he knows what plastic is made from--and where (the cheapest by far) of THAT comes from.

Posted: 8/30/2004 9:47:23 AM EDT

[#14]

In large scale production, bio-plastics from renewable sources are generally the cheapest. Because there's no push to convert, the economies of scale won't allow the economics to play out.

You should read up on what Monsanto does with good ol' corn and beans these days.

Posted: 8/30/2004 9:47:33 AM EDT

[#15]

Quoted:
Sure it is.

No, it is not. You're simply wrong, as usual.

Posted: 8/30/2004 9:52:15 AM EDT

[#16]

LOL... right Rikky...

If YOU are right, then what are all of the technology transfer initiatives as a result CRADAs (or Cooperative Research And Development Agreements for you) between private industry and universities and agencies like the Department of Energy and the Department of Defense?

I happen to know a lot about these. We have a little place called Wright Patterson AFB and Mound Laboratories about 20 miles from my house.

The investment in pure research is generally driven by the government's policy need, but conducted by private entities.

Nope... I'm wrong again.

You ought to actually do a little research beyond your GOP platform pamphlets before you start attacking the actual business/policy things that I happen to know about.

Here's just ONE...

www.nal.usda.gov/ttic/faq/bus.htm

What is a CRADA?

A CRADA is a Cooperative Research and Development Agreement. It is a written agreement between a private company and a government agency to work together on a project.

In 1986 and 1989, legislation was enacted as part of the Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act to enable federal laboratories to enter into cooperative research and development agreements (CRADAs) with private businesses and other entities. CRADAs provide the means to leverage R&D efforts and to create teams for solving technological and industrial problems. Through CRADAs, companies or groups of companies can work with one or more federal laboratories to pool resources and share risks in developing technologies. More detailed information can be found on the FLC Home Page.

The Technology Transfer Improvements Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-113), was created to help reduce the time and effort required to develop CRADAs with the federal laboratories. This law also guarantees private companies the option of choosing an exclusive license for an invention created under a CRADA.

The Federal Laboratory Consortium's "CRADA Handbook" provides an overview of the fundaments of Cooperative R&D Agreements. Information about this and other FLC publications can be found on the FLC Home Page.

Additional information about CRADAs can be found in Techtransfer and CRADAs with Federal Laboratories. This publication, produced by Som R. Soni of AdTech Systems Research, Inc., presents basic information on what CRADAs are, negotiating CRADAs, and how to use CRADAs are presented from the corporate partner's point-of-view.

Now, go back to your little brainwashed hole.

Posted: 8/30/2004 9:57:24 AM EDT

[#17]

Posted: 8/30/2004 9:58:33 AM EDT

[#18]

Quoted:
If YOU are right, then what are all of the technology transfer initiatives as a result CRADAs (or Cooperative Research And Development Agreements for you) between private industry and universities and agencies like the Department of Energy and the Department of Defense?

I never denied that the government HAS tried to subsidize new technologies...I only argue that it's WRONG. It's not the job of government. Unfortunately, the government has undertaken MANY things in the last 80 years or so that are not its business. So you're still simply wrong. As usual.

Posted: 8/30/2004 10:02:43 AM EDT

[#19]

LOL... good thing you aren't calling the shots. Otherwise we might not have things like plasma displays and air bag restraints.

Posted: 8/30/2004 10:07:11 AM EDT

[#20]

Quoted:

GWB believes he is on a Mission for God. He will not be swayed from what HE percieves as being God's will for this nation..........

He shouldn't.

He should remain true to his core beliefs.

Then we get to decide in November if he was right or wrong.

I'm confident EVEN IF he doesn't get re-elected, Bush will STILL beleive in the mission.

And I can respect that.

Posted: 8/30/2004 10:08:26 AM EDT

[#21]

Posted: 8/30/2004 10:09:51 AM EDT

[#22]

Quoted:
LOL... good thing you aren't calling the shots. Otherwise we might not have things like plasma displays and air bag restraints.

Yeah, I am sure those NEVER would have been developed if the government didn't subsidize research...

Posted: 8/30/2004 10:12:32 AM EDT

[#23]

The ONLY reason you have inexpensive plasma displays for computers is because the Federal Government determined that there was insufficient manufacturing capacity in the USA and it was a matter of national security (?). Free market economics had already dictated that the cheapest market for manufacturing was Asia.

Posted: 8/30/2004 11:31:07 AM EDT

[#24]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Then there are the "fiscal conservative" "socal liberal" democrats. Usually they are not really "fiscally conservative" if you probe with questions, and just spout the usual democrat lines.

Hehe what about Fiscally Conservative Socially Liberal Republicans?

Depends...does "socially liberal" mean "anti-gun?"

No, it means non bible thumping.

Posted: 8/30/2004 11:42:24 AM EDT

[#25]

I have been reading Reese for years. He's gone off the deep end.

GunLvr

Posted: 8/31/2004 6:22:38 AM EDT

[#26]

Quoted:

Problem with this is, the VAST majority of new spending has been on defense/war...

It would appear that the CATO Institute disagrees with you:

Total federal outlays will rise 29 percent between fiscal years 2001 and 2005 according to the president’s fiscal year 2005 budget released in February. Real discretionary spending increases in fiscal years 2002, 2003, and 2004 are three of the five biggest annual increases in the last 40 years. Large spending increases have been the principal cause of the government’s return to massive budget deficits.

Although defense spending has increased in response to the war on terrorism, President Bush
has made little attempt to restrain nondefense spending to offset the higher Pentagon budget.
Nondefense discretionary outlays will increase about 36 percent during President Bush’s first
term in office. Congress has failed to contain the administration’s overspending and has added
new spending of its own.

Full report:
www.cato.org/pubs/briefs/bp87.pdf

In particular, read pages 4 to 7

Posted: 8/31/2004 4:32:44 PM EDT

[#27]

You exercise your freedom of speech and I exercise mine. Freedom of speech is not the right to muzzle the people who disagree with you. Shoot your mouth off on the web at your own risk, feedback has always been part of that risk. Also, come up with your own damn insults. You are going to have a miserable November, loser.

Not afraid to use my REAL name,

Greg Donovan

----- Original Message -----
From: [email protected]
To: 'GDonovan'
Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2004 11:37 AM
Subject: Re: Kerry

So I guess that freedom of speech stuff is only for people who think like you do.

As an American citizen I take your narrow mindedness as a personal insult.

Republican

On Mon Aug 30 2:41 , 'GDonovan' <[email protected]> sent:

As a Vietnam veteran, I take your vote for Kerry as a personal insult.

Greg Donovan
Everett, WA

Vietnam - 1971-1972, after Kerry sold us out.

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Conservatives against Bush? does this make sense? (Page 2 of 2)

General » General Discussion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us