Bush was a religious nutjob?

Bush is the best president there's been for years, I mean he brought the lulz
 
Bush was definitely not a religious minded conservative, he and his administration just knew that they could cater to this (rather large) group of voters in order to gain power, a pretty common neoconservative tactic.

[youtube]E4mMRGDrqDI[/youtube]
[youtube]CNkUKTXMDkc[/youtube]
 
I agree with BenW, neocons couldn't care less about social issues if it didn't get in the way of making money off of war. Cheney actually supports gay marriage more than Obama, if only for his daughter's sake. And even she was quiet about it during the 2004 election:

In 2004, public attention focused again on [Mary] Cheney's sexuality when the Bush administration supported the Federal Marriage Amendment, a proposed amendment to the United States Constitution that would limit marriage to heterosexual couples and also ban civil unions and domestic partnership benefits. Cheney did not publicly express her opinion of the amendment at the time. In her 2006 autobiography Now It's My Turn, Cheney stated her opposition to the amendment. However, at the time, she remained silent to support Bush's re-election bid
Click to expand...
 
I doubt it. Bush wasn't a religious nut job, but his, Cheney's, and, namely, Rove's strategy was to mobilize a religious base to get them into office. It worked for them, but it has hurt the Republican Party because now people are far more politically polarized and the Republican base is fragmented. Until they learn how to gain general appeal again, they aren't getting the White House or Congress back.

BTW, I don't care if you think I'm scum for pointing the finger at Rove. MC Rove can take the heat, and Cheney is a vampire.

[YOUTUBE]<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/hYZre8kEsuw&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/hYZre8kEsuw&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/YOUTUBE]
 
Dragon said:
I doubt it. Bush wasn't a religious nut job, but his, Cheney's, and, namely, Rove's strategy was to mobilize a religious base to get them into office. It worked for them, but it has hurt the Republican Party because now people are far more politically polarized and the Republican base is fragmented. Until they learn how to gain general appeal again, they aren't getting the White House or Congress back.

BTW, I don't care if you think I'm scum for pointing the finger at Rove. MC Rove can take the heat, and Cheney is a vampire.

[YOUTUBE]<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/hYZre8kEsuw&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/hYZre8kEsuw&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/YOUTUBE]
Click to expand...

Wth did I just watch?
 
BenW said:
Bush was definitely not a religious minded conservative, he and his administration just knew that they could cater to this (rather large) group of voters in order to gain power, a pretty common neoconservative tactic.
Click to expand...

I'd say catering and pandering are common political tactics. I don't think it is limited to neoconservatives by any stretch.
 
lol mobilizing the base is an evil conservative tactic, what about all the race and sexual identity politics the Dems use?
 
You mean appeals to freedom of sexuality and equality of race, as opposed to advancing one single religious extreme?
 
Billy said:
lol mobilizing the base is an evil conservative tactic, what about all the race and sexual identity politics the Dems use?
Click to expand...
First of all, I didn't say it was a conservative tactic, I said it was a neoconservative tactic... BIG difference between these two statements.
Neocons are the only people who specifically cater to religion, which is where my statement stemmed from.

Just because I'm making a statement against one group doesn't mean I'm making it in support of another.
Obama was a racial token, and he outright lied about his war policy and his intent to decriminalize cannabis.
I have no obligation to defend his administration while attacking the Bush administration.
 
If you believe what politicians say you are naive at best. Even thier actions are specially formulated to manipulate you.
 
I'd rather have a political party working towards equality than making appeals for it. Maybe that's too much to ask for though in politics.
 
Shai Gar said:
You mean appeals to freedom of sexuality and equality of race, as opposed to advancing one single religious extreme?
Click to expand...

lol democrats dont appeal to that, who are you kidding? They appeal to playing favorites and class politics, as opposed to the majority of conservatives like myself who are uninterested in social issues and only care about appealing to TRUE constitutional freedoms like the freedom to make money without having it stolen away by democrats and thier welfare programs.
 
BenW said:
First of all, I didn't say it was a conservative tactic, I said it was a neoconservative tactic... BIG difference between these two statements.
Neocons are the only people who specifically cater to religion, which is where my statement stemmed from.

Just because I'm making a statement against one group doesn't mean I'm making it in support of another.
Obama was a racial token, and he outright lied about his war policy and his intent to decriminalize cannabis.
I have no obligation to defend his administration while attacking the Bush administration.
Click to expand...

NeoCon is democrat code word for Republican Jews by the way so be careful about tossing it around.
 
Azure_Knight said:
I'd rather have a political party working towards equality than making appeals for it. Maybe that's too much to ask for though in politics.
Click to expand...

Bingo, which brings me to the crux of why I cant stand Democrats. They want to be judged for their appeals and intentions and not their actions, you cant have racial equality by denying white firefighters promotions just because a black one hadn't been in that specific group. Sotomyer just got put on the supreme court though.
 
when was the last time any american politician passed a law that actually helped the people they are supposed to be serving, without that politician, their friends, old companies they used to work for, lobbying groups that got them elected, or special interests getting a kickback. you wont be able to find one. they dont pass laws to help the populace out. they pass laws to keep the same people in control of the country. its been like that since the founding of this country. if you think otherwise, youre extremelly naive at best.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top