I Haven't Been this Excited about an Inauguration since...

...Bill Clinton was inaugurated in 1993. I was more hopeful about the future of America in 1993 than at anytime in my life. Today, even though the nation's circumstances are incalculably more dire, I, once again, have that same feeling of optimism. I just hope I'm not as wrong this time as I was in 1993.

[edit on 05/1/20 by GradyPhilpott]

Did you watch Scarborough Country?

Pat Buchanan made some GREAT points about the speech. This was not a Conservative talking but sounded almost like a Democrat in his world views. George Washington and Thomas Jefferson warned us about becoming too involved in foreign affairs and he is talking about remaking the world in our image.

I am somewhat less then excited.

I started to post this on another thread but it had already turned into a "Bush is Icky" thread.

I fail to see how Conservatives can back this man, the only time he backs Conservative principles are when it involves someones sex life other than that the man is a closet liberal

George Washington and Thomas Jefferson were right, but the world was very different then and isolationism was a better way, but that was before mass communications and rapid mass transit, including the intercontinental variety. I love Buchanan, because he is so enthusiastically sincere, but he is not realistic. I slept too late to hear Bush's speech, but I did hear him make one very good point. The spread of democracy throughout the world is essential to the longevity of our own. During the Cold War, the imperative was containment. In the 21st century, we must be more proactive, diplomatically and otherwise.

Can you name me any issues that he really is Conservative about? Even the Gay Marriage bit went out the window the moment he was elected.

I didn't catch the speech either except for the parts brought up on SC. I was interested in his Idea that freedom was something the government "bestowed" on its people as a gift.

Also his calling to remake the world in our image.

Does that sound Conservative to you?

Is Scarborough Country a show on CNN? I never watch anything but Fox. I'm watching Greta Van Susteren right now. I think she's hot.

You know, I never worry about labels too much. There are a lot of minor issues that I disagree with Bush about, but his worldview and my worldview are similar enough to please me and I like his style. It would have been a catastrophe for John Kerry to have been elected, so Bush is the man we have, warts and all.

My philosophy has always been that when your man doesn't get elected, that's a call to activism. I wrote Bill Clinton a number of times regarding his policies and joined groups to counter his policies that offended me. That's the beauty of democracy.

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
Is Scarborough Country a show on CNN?

Nope its on MSNBC, CNN is to far left and Fox is too far right, although I watch both every now and then.

It would have been a catastrophe for John Kerry to have been elected, so Bush is the man we have, warts and all.

I didn't vote for Kerry either (Badnarik/Libertarian) but to be honest I don't see a lot of difference between the two. I think the Republicans are commie bastards so the Democrats are out of the question although at least they are honest about their socialism unlike the Republicans.

My philosophy has always been that when your man doesn't get elected, that's a call to activism. I wrote Bill Clinton a number of times regarding his policies and joined groups to counter his policies that offended me. That's the beauty of democracy.

I agree, nothing makes me madder than someone whining about things but refuses to work to change things. I disagreed with a lot of Clintons policies but honestly dont think he was that bad of a president (for a Liberal) and hope I can say the same for Bush 10 years from now. I did not agree with going into Iraq but that is not an issue any more, we should finnish the job we started.

I guess what scares me the most is the direction we seem to be headed as far as freedom is concerened. We are dancing in a minefield and so far things havent gotten to far out of control yet, but it worries me that the Republicans are suddenly all for Big Government. Werent they the ones susposed to save us from the Democrat Big Government?

I will keep fighting the good fight, and unlike some others I dont see us (or even Bush) as the "Great Satan" but the road to hell is paved with good intentions. I see a lot of people passing laws they arent really thinking through. Most I think are doing what they think is right but it could easily come back to bite us on the ass

what bible did bush swear upon yesterday?? rumors say it's his father's mason's bible.. just curious. laura bush closed it so that it was upside down when she closed it. I saw her flip it around when she turned her back.

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
I just hope I'm not as wrong this time as I was in 1993.

I realize this is a popular meme among conservatives to be disappointed in the 90's (hindsight of course), but I swear I'd give a nut to have things like they were then.

I'm not kidding. Like 94 to 99. I just don't see how it could get any better economywise.

Nothing to be excited about now though. Unless you just want stuff banned and care more about China's and Iraq's economy than your own.

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
Is Scarborough Country a show on CNN? I never watch anything but Fox

poor guy, can't really form a decent view of the world with those hatemongers at FOX can you?

Originally posted by RANT

I'm not kidding. Like 94 to 99. I just don't see how it could get any better economywise.

Whoa, I thought the 90s pretty much sucked economically. For me personally anyways. Sure, plenty of people were holding a lot of stock in dot com companies but if you weren't a part of that make believe world, you had to deal with the reality of low wages and high taxes. I don't hold that administration at fault, its just how things were. Everyone was talking about how damn good things were but no one could seem to find those 50,000 a year plus jobs that were all the rage.

It may also be a personal perspective since I have more experience and my pay has increased accordingly. In 91, I had just gotten out of college and found it tough to really find a "professional" position until around 1998. The only thing I noticed that related to Clinton was that for my low wages, I was taxed pretty damn hard. I thought he was the guy and voted his way both times he ran. So, I paid the piper as they say. I couldn't really complain about his taxation since I supported him.

I'm glad now that we have eliminated the tax burden for those with lower income. Just because I was made to go though it doesn't mean I think other young people starting out should. Now, I can afford to pay "my share" but I think there is entirely too much waste at the federal level. I'm not for cutting helpful programs just eliminating waste.

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
George Washington and Thomas Jefferson were right, but the world was very different then and isolationism was a better way, but that was before mass communications and rapid mass transit, including the intercontinental variety. I love Buchanan, because he is so enthusiastically sincere, but he is not realistic. I slept too late to hear Bush's speech, but I did hear him make one very good point. The spread of democracy throughout the world is essential to the longevity of our own. During the Cold War, the imperative was containment. In the 21st century, we must be more proactive, diplomatically and otherwise.

A conservative, constrained foreign policy is not the same as isolationism. The United States should play a role globally. The United States can serve as an arbiter in disputes, like under Teddy Roosevelt. Roosevelt helped negotiate an agreement between Japan and Russia. Howver, the United States should not intervene militarily unless it is absolutely vital to its interests.

With reference to your comments on the Cold War. Containment involved halting the spread of Communism and Soviet expansionism. It did not involve using U.S. forces to overthrow regimes and establish democracies (nation-building). Even at the height of the Cold War, the United States never directly engaged the Soviet Union militarily. There is a difference in supplying the mujahedeen and Nicaraguan Contras with weapons to fight the Soviets and using U.S. troops to overthrow regimes militarily in order to establish democracies.

Also, containment was an utter failure for the most part. Cuba, China, North Korea, Vietnam, and many countries in South American and Africa all fell to Communism. Vietnam fell to Communism and has posed no threat to the United States. Just an interesting thought....

Also, Bush said: "...survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands." This statement does not line up with history. The world has always been filled with dictators, but America (for the most part) has always been free. In fact, we have proped up many dictators over the years. We did it all throughout the Cold War. In fact, the U.S. has supported some of the most brutal dictators in the world.

Even if we do actively overthrow dictatorships in the Middle East, can we be sure that democracy will take root? Probably not. When western Europe's colonial empires were falling part, dictatorships and authoritarian regimes arose to "fill in the gap." The overthrow of the king in Egypt produced another dictator--Nasser. After the monarchy was abolished in Germany after WW1, the Weimar Republic fell to Hitler's Nazi regime. Many will say: "Well we did it in Germany..." Yes, but we de-Nazified Germany.....but you cannot "de-Islamify" the Middle East. The comparison is not quite the same.

A quote from Madison: "No nation can preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare."

John Q. Adams: "America does not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own."

Also by John Q. Adams: "Civil liberty can be established on no foundation of human reason which will not at the same time demonstrate the right of religious freedom." Can religious freedom be ascribed to the Middle East?...I think not.

[edit on 2/21/2005 by XX_SicSemperTyrannis_XX]