Yes.

I haven't seen literally millions of people gather (post election) in one place to protest against Obama. I saw it several times against Bush.

wasn't this done to protest the War, not necessarily to protest Bush?

Given that Obama voted to fund the war just as much as anyone else did, they were sort of protesting him too, right?

Where were the million person protests at?

In every lefty's wet dreams.

Were do you live in Houston? The reason I ask is someone who lives in Acres Green or the Montrose will perceive things differently from a satellite community like Katy or Sugarland.

Out in the Woodlands - the very definition of 'suburbs'

I wasnt being sarcastic btw, I knew there were protests etc, but were there really a million people? if not, how many?

Well, Texas is still a conservative state, and houston (at least the suburbs) definitely lean to the right. but there definitely has been a large drop in support of Obama among independents. His liberal domestic policies are scaring the crap out of moderates and energizing conservatives.

I still think the GOP's hatred of Bill Clinton during the 90's is more intense than what's happening to Obama. They accused Clinton of everything from trafficking drugs, killing his associates, shady real estate deals, etc.

Careful throwing around the word "they." There weren't all that many, if any, mainstream republicans seriously accusing him of actually trafficking in drugs and killing folks but it was one of those boogieman things used to diminish him. Limbaugh used to make jokes about it with a wink and a nod for instance. I disliked Clinton at the time because I had little respect for the man but I have grown to appreciate him over time. Whether it was Gingrich and the republican takeover or whatever that made for great checks and balances the results are hard to quarrel with.

This type vitriol happens on both sides quite often, hence the obsession that 911 was an inside job by Cheney/Bush. To believe something like this you have to really reduce your opponent to the most inhuman thing possible. Though I personally opposed the Iraq war I absolutely despise much of the left for its demagoguery on the war. It couldn't be that Bush got us into Iraq because he believed it was the correct thing to do. It had to be because he was an inhuman, evil person with ulterior motives. Is it not enough to disagree with an opponent but you have to assign evil motives to win your point?

What we saw as being different over the last 4 years of Bush imo was the hatred bled over quite a bit into the mainstream of the democratic party and was rarely commented upon in the media or highlighted. Hence the Michael Moore acceptance and growth of Daily Kos. Any criticism of Obama gets reported as if it is blasphemy.

I have personally in my lifetime never seen the vitriol aimed at anyone that was aimed at Bush and I am a lot older than most of you.

this is incorrect actually

Ha, I was hoping you would say River Oaks so I could dismiss it as rich white people. At least you are away from Queen Shelia.

.

I agree with most of your points. As a Reagan conservative, I think Bush failed on many fronts. But the liberals' demagoguery and vilification of his character and motives was quite disgusting. Organizations like MoveOn and DailyKos are now embedded within the Democratic Party; if you don't believe me, look at how every democratic presidential candidate except Hillary, addressed the yearly Daily Kos convention.

What's different now is that the liberal media is acting as Obama's cheerleader, rather than reporting the news. Any negative criticism of Obama's policies is interpreted as being racist. If a conservative criticizes Obama, it's because he secretly hates black people. The liberals' use of the race card is egregious and divisive.

Thanks for elucidating your point

are you actually saying that with a straight face? Or are you basing it on his wild spending alone?

Shall I present a list of his stridently pro-corporation, RW religio-initiatives?

Actually, the practice of CIA-enabled drug importation into this country WAS prevalent under Clinton. Are you disputing this?

What the Limbaugh's conveniently don't mention, however, is that it was going on long before slick Willie was governor of Arkansas.

You followed that Iran-Contra thing, correct?

so: wild spender, supported lots of religious initiatives = conservative?

conservative = small government. the things you listed are the opposite of that.

There are very few real conservatives in government.

wasn't the right thread for it

Off the top of my head, stuff that conservatives like to spend money on to a greater extent than liberals:

Incarcerating drug users
Military
NASA

Stuff that conservatives like to spend money on roughly the same as liberals:

Tons of other stuff.

The word conservative does not mean what you think it means.

Outside of the fact that he was anti-abortion and would generally appoint conservative judges there was literally to no difference between Bush and say Clinton. Whether we are talking about immigration, spending, or prescription drugs or making the tax code even more progressive by removing half the population. It wouldn't have shocked me for a Democrat to have made the same move on Iraq either if he had been in office at 911 given the statements made by most mainstream democrats in the run up, of course the way the war was looked at would likely have been entirely different.



Conservative doesn't mean what you think it means. It doesn't mean what a lot of people think it means. It tilts me to no end that conservatism is often defined by whether a person is pro or anti abortion and that is often within the Republican party.

1 of the 3 things you mentioned is specifically outlined in the constitution of the US btw as a legitimate federal expenditure. And lol at Nasa... Oh yeah, I here republicans just begging for more space flights.

meh, fair enough. don't really care, people who call themselves liberals are usually idiots, people who call themselves conservatives are usually idiots too.

idiots are idiots no matter what label they put on themselves.

This is just hilarious in its wrongness. Clinton's first move in office was to raise taxes in order to lower the deficit, Bush's was to lower taxes and blow up the deficit. Bush's entire foreign policy infrastructure outside of the State department was populated by Neocons (Wolfowitz, Feith, Abrams, plus Cheney) whose number one priority was finding an excuse to get rid of Sadam. There is no possible interpretation of the Clinton administration foreign policy experience (other than the other side is ****ed up too wishful thinking) that gets you from 9/11 to an invasion of Iraq under a Clinton presidency.

this... x10

I'd say 2003-2008, but yes. Most Democrats were supportive of W until he decided to have a war with Iraq. IMO the Democrats got to a state quite a bit more tilted than the Republicans are right now. I'd say it peaked around W's reelection.

yes

Not yet. In this forum, sure. Elsewhere, not so much.

And people who call themselves anarcho-capitalists are usually.......???