C. P.'s Comments
Page 1 of 8  first | prev | next 
Nov 6, 2009 | comments: 11
C. P. Nov 6, 2009, 12:15pm EST
(In robot voice) I AGREE, OBAMA IS WEAK, THE DEMS IS THE REASONS WHY EVERYTHING IS BROKEN. CHENEY WOULD HAVE STOPPED THIS FROM HAPPENING, BUSH NEVER DID ANYTHING WRONG, REAGAN IS MY HERO....

I AM A CONSERVATIVE, THESE ARE MY BELIEFS!
Nov 6, 2009 | comments: 20
C. P. Nov 6, 2009, 12:06pm EST
I think it would have been better not to issue the stim package and instead just waited and watched what happened. Maybe we would have failed, maybe not. (In robot voice), I am a conservative. These are my beliefs.
Oct 28, 2009 | comments: 13
in reply to a comment by jJack Midknight
C. P. Nov 6, 2009, 9:11am EST
I am beginning to think that you "Conservatives" use your political philosophy to mask your true desires and intent. It seems your beliefs and policies are based on punishing, and controlling people, places, and things. You would rather bomb than talk, ignore than help, destroy rather then build, shut out rather than bring in, I just don't understand what you guys want. There is always an enemy that must be stopped, or some threat that has to be removed. If you guys are all about "self identity" why are you always in some else business?
Oct 28, 2009 | comments: 13
in reply to a comment by jJack Midknight
C. P. Nov 6, 2009, 8:56am EST
I don't have a problem with tax cuts, you would have to be an idiot to have issue with them, tax cuts is a great thing, more money in my pocket is great news. I just don't see how you can have it both ways. You want to enjoy all the things that make us a great nation over all, i.e. freeway systems, bridges and dams, military power, schools, etc, but you don't want to pay for it. You can't have it both ways, either accept some type of taxes, or accept nothing working in this place.

You can't be against paying rent, but want to stay in your nice home all at the same time!
Oct 28, 2009 | comments: 13
in reply to a comment by norman chambers
C. P. Nov 6, 2009, 8:48am EST
Its funny that GW is conveniently not a "conservative" simply because he is a failure. Yet Reagan expanded the government just as much as Bush did both in spending and size, yet he's your hero.
Oct 28, 2009 | comments: 13
in reply to a comment by jJack Midknight
C. P. Oct 28, 2009, 5:56pm EDT
And I will read that article, I'll let you know tomorrow what I think.
Oct 28, 2009 | comments: 13
in reply to a comment by jJack Midknight
C. P. Oct 28, 2009, 5:53pm EDT
I agree Jack, and I did take that into consideration, behavior vs. political philosophy, but Jack i must say, I don't see the difference. Like that one woman said during the health care town hall debates over the summer, she said "I want my America back" which would imply going backwards not forward. Now of course I wouldn't suggest she speaks for all conservatives, but in her statement a truth was reviled. That truth being the need to maintain and return to the old ways, with no insight towards new ones, "conservative".

See Jack, America is broken, anybody who thinks otherwise should be considered a fool, so I say if conservatives feel as if America is broken, whats been their solution to fix it? We just witnessed a past administration that had 8 years to put your grand ideals to work, 8 years to prove to all the world that only by conservative principles can this country grow and remain strong. We did the tax cut theory, you know the one where we give money back to the rich and powerful, and then they was suppose to trickle it down to you and I, but that didn't work. We tried the faith based governance theory, so are we a stronger nation cause of it? Are we closer to God today then we was before 2000? We tried the super strong American military presence route, you know the ideal that you can bomb people into Democracy, well, you get back with me when that starts to work, but I won't wait, cause military history is against you.

Conservatives had an opportunity to show us the merit of their ideals. Their answers for today's problems, to secure tomorrows future, is yesterdays tactics. Which will make you Conservative and insane, but only by definition.

But Jack, your still my man, and your smart too, so I always enjoy talking to you.
Oct 27, 2009 | comments: 27
in reply to a comment by Dorothy H.
C. P. Oct 28, 2009, 3:24pm EDT
But Marilyn you speak as if Obama created the czar in American politics. Didn't Reagan have czars? Both Bush's had them, Clinton too. Why all of a sudden your concerned with the title czar? Don't tell me it's cause of Beck!!!
Oct 27, 2009 | comments: 1
C. P. Oct 28, 2009, 3:17pm EDT
But Rob, we don't have to image what Bush did cause we lived it. Four hour stop in New Orleans...so what, are you trying to suggest this is worst then not even stopping there when the whole city was under water. Secret deals with drug markers? So I guess Bush had no secret deals in which to discuss? Freezing out TV network? Notice you said TV network as in one, the plural is networks, and yes Bush froze out many, to that point his administration got TV network personnel fired i.e. Dan Rather, so I don't get that point. Doing fund raisers, are you serious? I doubt Obama has spent more time golfing then Bush spent back home on the ranch clearing brush, so... And I don't know if Obama has done more fund raising then Bush, but I am sure Bush did a lot of it.

If all these things you say are true, I am not going to give comfort to Obama, but it would seem your trying to give it to Bush.
Oct 27, 2009 | comments: 28
in reply to a comment by Diana B.
C. P. Oct 28, 2009, 3:04pm EDT
Diana, I agree with your comment. To be a well rounded person like the ying & yang you must have both conservative and liberal ideas, I just don't thing its a one or the other affair. The issue with just being solely conservative means you rob yourself of the ability to progress. Can one see the future always clinging to the past. And yes being to liberal isn't going to work either. There will always be times in ones life where your going to have to take it slow and have a more measured approach to an issue.
Dec 4, 2008 | comments: 47
C. P. Oct 28, 2009, 11:07am EDT
I am not trying to be funny, but can any of you provide a list of Conservative policy successes? I am not talking about every Conservative policies that has been put forth, just the ones you would deem a success. For example, Prohibition, which was a Conservative movement, and the goals of that movement I believe to be admirable, but hind sight suggests it was a total failure, so I wouldn't list that one, but President Reagan's policy towards the "Union", which I agree had a great deal to do with the collapse of the "Evil Empire", that would be a policy I would list. Can anyone help me out, I am trying to do research on the success of the Conservative moment, NOT IT'S FAILURES...
Oct 27, 2009 | comments: 28
C. P. Oct 28, 2009, 11:04am EDT
I am not trying to be funny, but can any of you provide a list of Conservative policy successes? I am not talking about every Conservative policies that has been put forth, just the ones you would deem a success. For example, Prohibition, which was a Conservative movement, and the goals of that movement I believe to be admirable, but hind sight suggests it was a total failure, so I wouldn't list that one, but President Reagan's policy towards the "Union", which I agree had a great deal to do with the collapse of the "Evil Empire", that would be a policy I would list. Can anyone help me out, I am trying to do research on the success of the Conservative moment, NOT IT'S FAILURES...
Oct 14, 2009 | comments: 190
in reply to a comment by micky d.
C. P. Oct 15, 2009, 3:22pm EDT
I hear you guys on the right always talking about what Gen. Petraeus said, when it comes to war he is like a god, his instructions must be followed. Even know you on the right are starting to support what Gen. McChrystal is saying, and your applying pressure on Obama to follow his instructions, which I think Obama should, you guys know the importance of the experience of those who wear the inform, but in the cause of Powell, you didn't care what he had to say. I wonder why?
Oct 14, 2009 | comments: 190
in reply to a comment by micky d.
C. P. Oct 15, 2009, 3:06pm EDT
I mean the proof in in the pudding. Take Gen. Powell for example. Obliviously Bush can't be a racist cause he gave Powell an important position, Secretary of State, but you can tell he didn't respect Powell because he dismissed his military knowledge as being out dated and and irrelevant. Hind sight is 20/20, so think about how different the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan would have looked if he just took the opinion of one of the most decorated men in US military history as military fact.
Oct 14, 2009 | comments: 190
in reply to a comment by micky d.
C. P. Oct 15, 2009, 2:50pm EDT
He didn't do it cause he hate black people like Kayne West said, he did it cause he don't respect black people, at least politically speaking. Personally, I don't think Bush has a problem with any one race, his style comes off to cool for school to be a racist, racist tend to be cowards, and Bush got balls, I couldn't see Bush scared of anything or anyone, and that's important to the debate of racism, fear. Racism is a reaction to fear. Most whites that find themselves afraid of blacks, tend to be very afraid of them, both physically and mentally.
Oct 14, 2009 | comments: 190
in reply to a comment by micky d.
C. P. Oct 15, 2009, 2:41pm EDT
To be honest with you Micky, I think Katrina was more an example of a dying nation, rather then a racist policy. It would be unfair to put it all on Bush, for the decline of this great state has been in the working for decades. With that said, Katrina was a calculation, due to the Iraq, and the Afghanistan wars, and of course the decline in tax revenue under Bush, I don't think the government had the resources to handle Katrina, I know for a fact she didn't have the military resources at ready, needed to ensure the order needed after such a devastating event like Katrina.

Now here is where the policy goes racial. Bush had a choice, to call on already stretched resources to come to the aid of New Orleans and its people, or, wait and see what happened, see if the people could ride out the storm, and wait to see if the damage was to reach levels that would require the help of the military, it was a gamble, a gamble that didn't pay off, in fact, there is not one thing Bush did that had more of a devastating effect on his presidency then Katrina. The only reason Bush choose this gamble was because of the people who he held in the balance. The people of New Orleans wasn't his people, both in race and in political support, so even if his gamble didn't pay off, which it didn't, Bush and his hacks calculated minimum backlash from the public. They never saw things getting to the point that they did, and it was only the carnage that was seen on TV that showed people the scoop of this terrible tragedy.

Yes, I believe the people left in New Orleans was judge insufficient:
1. cause of the race,
2. cause of the politics

And only by that judgment could Bush and his hacks calculate there tepid response. Now this is only a theory, I'll submit to that, but my deductive skills are keen, so this is the only possible conclusion based on all the facts we do know.
Oct 14, 2009 | comments: 190
in reply to a comment by Julie Ann Dawson
C. P. Oct 15, 2009, 2:11pm EDT
Yes, Julie Ann has said it all, there is no more to be said on this issue. If none of you can understand her point, there is no hope for this debate, her comment is the most logical explanation to date. Her wisdom is beyond approach. But I am sure one of you will make a poor attempt to counter. Well said Julie!
Oct 14, 2009 | comments: 190
C. P. Oct 15, 2009, 12:34pm EDT
Jack, what ever you think of me is cool, I just want to say that I am always impressed with your ability to provide thought provoking material for us to debate, that's why I always follow your articles, good shit.
Oct 14, 2009 | comments: 190
in reply to a comment by micky d.
C. P. Oct 15, 2009, 12:31pm EDT
Micky D, the true spirit of Rush can be witnessed in your comments, there is no science in your words, just childish rants and half thought statements. Of course there is racism in the Democrat Party, lets remember, before all you right wingers went Republican, you all were Democrats. And it's just childish to assume one party more racist then the other, racism knows no party, person, color or creed. You suggesting that the Democrats are the party of racism would be like me suggesting that it's not racism when black people do it. Please, I am not your enemy, I just want true debate, of mind and intelligence. I don't need you childish boy like rants. Come to me with thoughts, ideal, in the spirit of true debate, you can leave you nonsense for the consumption of those who need it.
Oct 14, 2009 | comments: 190
in reply to a comment by C. P.
C. P. Oct 15, 2009, 12:20pm EDT
Awww, Jack that's sweet, is it not our way to inform the uninformed? You expressed my statement as being "a stupid mischaracterizatio", So Mr. Jack, teach me, make me understand. I"ve spoke with you before, your usually more open to explanation then this, don't tell me your becoming intellectually cheap.
Page 1 of 8  first | prev | next 
 
C. P.
Buffalo New York
Gather | Friends | Groups | Share
About Gather | Engagement Marketing | Make New Friends | Gather Points | Advertise on Gather | Gather Press | Privacy | Terms of Service | Community Guidelines
Books | Celebs | Entertainment | Family | Food | Health | Moms | Money | News | Politics | Spirituality | Sports | Travel | Writing
Version 16961, "Pacino"; Copyright © 2009 Gather Inc. All rights reserved.