Post Reply
Page 2 of 4  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 Next
Switch to Forum Live View Huntsman Challenges party, will not attend GOP Convention
2 years ago  ::  Jul 06, 2012 - 9:04PM #11
Find1Answer
Posts: 7,383

Jul 6, 2012 -- 5:44PM, Jasr wrote:

Wow...I always liked that guy...now I know why.


A sane, practical, can-do Republican. A real collector's item nowadays.


He was a great governor and I will hold a grudge against Obama for conscripting him at the beginning of his second term.   I also hold a grudge against Huntsman for the ethics challenged Lt Gov Herbert that he saddled us with.      

Bush's "de-Bathification program" eliminated all vestiges of Sunni power in Iraqi society and set the stage for the Sunni insurrection against American occupation and the new Shiite-led government. Bush disbanded the entire Sunni-dominated Iraqi Army and bureaucracy. He didn't change it. He didn't make it more inclusive of Shiites and Kurds. He just disbanded it. It is no accident that two of the top commanders of today's ISIL are former commanders in the Saddam-era Iraqi military.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jul 07, 2012 - 9:13AM #12
catboxer
Posts: 14,012

Jul 6, 2012 -- 8:03PM, Jasr wrote:


Jul 6, 2012 -- 7:53PM, aarroottoonn wrote:


Wow, liberals like liberal republicans. Huntsman makes Bush seem conservative by comparison.




What do you mean by this?




What he's saying is that Dubya is not a "real" conservative. It's an escape hatch Republicans provide for themselves, so that in their minds, they're never wrong about anything.


The way it works, if you point out there were no WMD and that the economic clusterschnazzle started in 2008, before Obama was elected, you get that "Bush was not a real conservative" talking point.


It's like during the recent primary season, when all the Rehooligans were wrangling about which one of them was the "real" conservative, as if determining that would mean that all the others are "fake" conservatives.


So the answer to your question is that it's a rhetorical position people use to cover their ideological rumps, totally unrelated to anything in the real world, and means absolutely ø.

Adepto vestri stercore simul.ttr
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jul 07, 2012 - 9:55AM #13
TENAC
Posts: 27,669

Jul 7, 2012 -- 9:13AM, catboxer wrote:


Jul 6, 2012 -- 8:03PM, Jasr wrote:


Jul 6, 2012 -- 7:53PM, aarroottoonn wrote:


Wow, liberals like liberal republicans. Huntsman makes Bush seem conservative by comparison.




What do you mean by this?




What he's saying is that Dubya is not a "real" conservative. It's an escape hatch Republicans provide for themselves, so that in their minds, they're never wrong about anything.


The way it works, if you point out there were no WMD and that the economic clusterschnazzle started in 2008, before Obama was elected, you get that "Bush was not a real conservative" talking point.


It's like during the recent primary season, when all the Rehooligans were wrangling about which one of them was the "real" conservative, as if determining that would mean that all the others are "fake" conservatives.


So the answer to your question is that it's a rhetorical position people use to cover their ideological rumps, totally unrelated to anything in the real world, and means absolutely ø.




Cat thats a little disingeniuos.


No, I dont consider Bush a real conservative, but that is primairly due to his economic policies (farm bill, education bill, TARP, all bailouts, "had to violate free market principles to save the free market" etc). 


911, Afgahnistan, Iraq, while I disdain war, was going into Iraq a mistake, possibly, but given the information he had and the information congress had, this is why we (sometimes unfortunately) have to trust elected officials.   Hindsight is 20-20.  But they did remove 500 metric tons of yellow cake out of Iraq.  He was acting more as a conservative here.  Not giving complete approval (in hindsight) but was for fully prosecuting his actions (in foresight).


Its hard to compare the two and declare one is of greater evil than the other.  Loss of human life is always a horrible alternative.  Destruction of a great nation of human life is perhaps worse?

Any man can count the seeds in an apple....
.......but only God can count the apples in the seeds.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jul 07, 2012 - 10:04AM #14
mecdukebec
Posts: 14,887

Jul 7, 2012 -- 9:13AM, catboxer wrote:


Jul 6, 2012 -- 8:03PM, Jasr wrote:


Jul 6, 2012 -- 7:53PM, aarroottoonn wrote:


Wow, liberals like liberal republicans. Huntsman makes Bush seem conservative by comparison.




What do you mean by this?




What he's saying is that Dubya is not a "real" conservative. It's an escape hatch Republicans provide for themselves, so that in their minds, they're never wrong about anything.


The way it works, if you point out there were no WMD and that the economic clusterschnazzle started in 2008, before Obama was elected, you get that "Bush was not a real conservative" talking point.


It's like during the recent primary season, when all the Rehooligans were wrangling about which one of them was the "real" conservative, as if determining that would mean that all the others are "fake" conservatives.


So the answer to your question is that it's a rhetorical position people use to cover their ideological rumps, totally unrelated to anything in the real world, and means absolutely ø.





Well, conservatives like to esteem the importance of faith; so, here it is:



"Nabil Shaath says: "President Bush said to all of us: 'I'm driven with a mission from God. God would tell me, "George, go and fight those terrorists in Afghanistan." And I did, and then God would tell me, "George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq ." And I did. And now, again, I feel God's words coming to me, "Go get the Palestinians their state and get the Israelis their security, and get peace in the Middle East." And by God I'm gonna do it."


www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/...


The Wingo party went wingy in Iraq.  "Lights are going out" ....

*******

"Wesley told the early Methodists to gain all they could and save all they could so that they could give all they could. It means that I consider my money to belong to God and I see myself as one of the hungry people who needs to get fed with God’s money. If I really have put all my trust in Jesus Christ as savior and Lord, then nothing I have is really my own anymore."
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jul 07, 2012 - 12:20PM #15
aarroottoonn
Posts: 3,128

Jul 7, 2012 -- 9:13AM, catboxer wrote:


Jul 6, 2012 -- 8:03PM, Jasr wrote:


Jul 6, 2012 -- 7:53PM, aarroottoonn wrote:


Wow, liberals like liberal republicans. Huntsman makes Bush seem conservative by comparison.




What do you mean by this?




What he's saying is that Dubya is not a "real" conservative. It's an escape hatch Republicans provide for themselves, so that in their minds, they're never wrong about anything.


The way it works, if you point out there were no WMD and that the economic clusterschnazzle started in 2008, before Obama was elected, you get that "Bush was not a real conservative" talking point.


It's like during the recent primary season, when all the Rehooligans were wrangling about which one of them was the "real" conservative, as if determining that would mean that all the others are "fake" conservatives.


So the answer to your question is that it's a rhetorical position people use to cover their ideological rumps, totally unrelated to anything in the real world, and means absolutely ø.




Bush wasn't a conservative, he was a Republican. And I have been wrong on a number of things, but not on this.


No one (or not many, and certainly few Republicans) claims that their is WMD, and no one claims things didn't start to fall apart under Bush.


It's funny when someone like you talks about real and fake people, as you support booting out of the Democratic Party the "blue dog" Democrats, and ignore that Obama is the furthest left president since FDR, but because he hasn't closed Gitmo, he is really a Centrist.


So, bottom line, I see your last statement is in regard to both of us.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jul 07, 2012 - 12:51PM #16
catboxer
Posts: 14,012

Jul 7, 2012 -- 12:20PM, aarroottoonn wrote:


It's funny when someone like you talks about real and fake people, as you support booting out of the Democratic Party the "blue dog" Democrats, and ignore that Obama is the furthest left president since FDR, but because he hasn't closed Gitmo, he is really a Centrist.




Any president even remotely favoring progress and embracing the actual (as opposed to the rhetorical) need for change would never have bailed out the banks, nor mounted a drone war in the Middle East, nor signed off on the extension of D1%k Cheney'$ tax giveaway for his diamond-cuff-link pals. Obama takes progressive positions sometimes, but is putty in the hands of a heavily-bankrolled right-wing political establishment.


He's a tool, and a truly progressive, change-oriented presence is not available in politics and economics conversation, except on the internet, and sometimes in the streets, where we are making our presence known.


But no, Obama is not the left of anybody except Boehner and McConnell. He's kind of a purple dog.


Adepto vestri stercore simul.ttr
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jul 07, 2012 - 12:53PM #17
teilhard
Posts: 52,180

Sad, isn't it ... ???


John Huntsman was the ONE GOP Contender who didn't (doesn't) SCARE me ...


Jul 6, 2012 -- 5:25PM, Druac wrote:

politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/07/06...



(CNN) – In an act of protest, Jon Huntsman will not attend the Republican national convention this August in Tampa.


The former Republican presidential hopeful, Utah governor and ambassador to China said in a statement that he won't participate in the convention or others in the future until his fellow conservatives start tackling the bigger issues.


Huntsman said that despite being asked repeatedly about his attendance, this year's convention will be the first he has not attended since serving as a delegate for Ronald Reagan in 1984.


"I will not be attending this year's convention, nor any Republican convention in the future, until the party focuses on a bigger, bolder, more confident future for the United States – a future based on problem solving, inclusiveness, and a willingness to address the trust deficit, which is every bit as corrosive as our fiscal and economic deficits," Huntsman said in a statement, reported first by the Salt Lake Tribune.






Huntsman is the first of Romney's former rivals from the Republican primaries to indicate they would not attend the convention. But a smattering of other Republicans have already indicated they will not be there.





Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jul 07, 2012 - 4:59PM #18
Unworthyone
Posts: 3,212

Wait a minute!  Didn't Limbaugh and Hannity declare that McCain was not a conservative?  Over and over again?


Huntsman is not a conservative because he served as ambassador to China under a democratic president. And now he dares to call out the wingos? Putting one's country before party is old fashioned. That is simply unacceptable! George H. Bush served essentially the same position, but that was under president Richard Nixon.  Can you imagine a republican president reaching out to another country in friendship today? 


Haven't many of the other candidates and pundants been saying that Romney is not a conservative?  That his record as governor of Mass. proves he is not a conservative? Based on the rhetoric, I guess Romney is the nominee because he is the most electable of the candidates, not the most conservative.  And winning is more important than principle apparently.  After all, senator McConnell made it clear that the most important goal of the republicans in Congress was to make sure 'Obama is a one-term president.'


So, who exactly is a true conservative these days?  Besides Attila the Hun and Darth Vader?

Anyone who thinks sitting in church can make you a Christian must also think that sitting in a garage can make you a car.”
― Garrison Keillor

A friend is someone who will help you move.  A great friend is someone who will help you move - a body!
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jul 07, 2012 - 6:25PM #19
TENAC
Posts: 27,669

I have no illusions Romney is going to govern as a true conservative.  None.


I am getting out of the illusion business, particularly after Roberts.



Huntsman has a conservative record, but hasnt necessarily shown leadership in same vein.  It is one thing to be a governor of a particularly conservative state, then to have to lead a contrary congress as president.


It was his daddy's business, and he ran it for a while.  We have a governor in our state right now that is much the same.  So far so good with him.


Say what you will about Romney, he made his own money.


I think both are likely to be too willing to compromise with the opposition rather than stake out leadership.



But either are superior to obama.


Including Atilla and Darth.

Any man can count the seeds in an apple....
.......but only God can count the apples in the seeds.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jul 07, 2012 - 7:43PM #20
aarroottoonn
Posts: 3,128

Jul 7, 2012 -- 12:51PM, catboxer wrote:


Jul 7, 2012 -- 12:20PM, aarroottoonn wrote:


It's funny when someone like you talks about real and fake people, as you support booting out of the Democratic Party the "blue dog" Democrats, and ignore that Obama is the furthest left president since FDR, but because he hasn't closed Gitmo, he is really a Centrist.




Any president even remotely favoring progress and embracing the actual (as opposed to the rhetorical) need for change would never have bailed out the banks, nor mounted a drone war in the Middle East, nor signed off on the extension of D1%k Cheney'$ tax giveaway for his diamond-cuff-link pals. Obama takes progressive positions sometimes, but is putty in the hands of a heavily-bankrolled right-wing political establishment.


He's a tool, and a truly progressive, change-oriented presence is not available in politics and economics conversation, except on the internet, and sometimes in the streets, where we are making our presence known.


But no, Obama is not the left of anybody except Boehner and McConnell. He's kind of a purple dog.





Failure to bail out the banks results in the collapse of the country. I know that is what you want, but the sane side of the rest of us don't favor that.


We could debate forever his inability to do, as you would want, imperial policies, though he has certainly tried his best (see inability to get a carbon tax, so he simply declares to the EPA to take steps to regulate the problem, or the recent amnesty, which he claimed not too long ago to not have the power to simply grant amnesty to illegals, until he decided he did). He couldn't close Gitmo, because, and I know you hated this, but they are guilty, and we have to do something with them. Since no state in the country wanted them, Gitmo stays open. Same with the tax. He had already lost the battle, when he screwed himself over. He had a deal with Boehner to raise taxes 800 billion, but then demanded an additional 400 billion. The TP got ahold of Boehner's "work" and let him know that wasn't going to fly. After that Obama either had to give up, or get crushed in the public. He choose honorable defeat.


As the left loves Obamacare as the best of the possible, Lilly Ledbetter, the EPA stuff mentioned above, Dodd Frank, the consumer waste of time or whatever its official name is, his pissing off every ally we have, the abandonment of our want to be allies in Eastern Europe, his cancelling the job creation of the XL pipeline, his saving union jobs both at the state level (at least for a year) and by fooling the public by telling us that GM would have gone away without the govt purchase of it, and the subsequent saving of the union pensions, the hard left has little to complain about with Obama. Now the libertarian/green left, such as yourself, he is more problematic.

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 2 of 4  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook