Jump to content

Another reason to vote against republicans


Snowguy716

Recommended Posts

If only a Democrat could come forward as courageous and eloquent as Clinton. The current Dems considering a run are Hillary, Biden, Bayh, Kerry, Edwards, (former VA gov) Mark Warner, et al. On the Republican side, there's McCain, Giuliani, Hagel, (VA Senator) Allen, Pataki, Romney, et al. Then there's the wildcard - Michael Bloomberg... A lot of pundits seem to think it will come down to Clinton and Warner on the Dem side and McCain and Giuliani on the Republican side. I think a Bloomberg run might be a great thing...say Clinton v. McCain v. Bloomberg. I'm not sure who would be hurt more by that - the Republicans or the Democrats.

you forgot that gore is toying with the idea of running again, not that he's any better than the rest of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 264
  • Created
  • Last Reply

On the Republican side, there's ...Hagel...

It'll never happen for this guy - his ties to Election Systems & Software (one of the two largest manufacturers/operators of voting systems) would be too much to get him any kind of nomination.

Although the republicans really have no shame in rubbing their "family ties" in our faces. Just look at Florida in 2000.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, I realize we are still in Afghanistan, but there is plenty that could be said about it. If we had remained focussed on solving the problems there, then perhaps the Taliban would not exist anymore and Al Qaeda would be so beaten down as to not be able to mount much of a threat to the western world. Instead, we pulled most of our resources out of there to attack Iraq and now the Taliban has reconsistituted itself and controls a significant amount of territory. Meanwhile, Al Qaeda keeps carrying out successful attacks around the world and their recruitment numbers keep increasing. Hamid Karzai's government barely controls Kabul and you can forget about Kandahar. The same could probably be said about Mazar-e-Sharif and Jalalabad. The point is, we didn't have to go into Iraq when we did. There was little reason to spread ourselves so thin in the War on Terror to go after Bush's old nemesis.

As far as North Korea goes, if it is not a threat then why was it included in the "Axis of Evil?" And, if they have a real military (compared to whom? Iraq?) then would that not make them a legitimate threat?

Al Qaeda isn't just in Afghanistan. They are in all Islamic nations... particularly Indonesia. Do you have the latest Al Qaeda recruitment numbers? I am just wondering how you know that their numbers are increasing. Maybe they are, I honestly don't know.

I find it interesting that Bush opponents like to find fault in everything he does, which is perfectly fine. But for some reason the exception is the "axis of evil," which seems to be infallible. People throw that around all the time.

North Korea has a real military as compared to Al Qaeda, who does not. I do not view the Taliban as a threat. If Afghanistan wants to support that as a government then who cares? I am not clear as to whether they are taking over forcefully or not, but I don't think that it is our job to artificially maintain a government there (or Iraq for that matter). If the government we setup doesn't work, then they can figure out what to do on their own.

Anyway, I don't think that NK has the means to sustain a war. They are a threat to South Korea, but thats about it. Think about it. They aren't going to invade China or Russia. They can't invade us. If they have some missiles that can reach Japan, then that sucks. But if they try to attack anyone I think that the international response would be quick and decisive. Nobody is provoking them. Especially Japan, and especially us.

I think it would be unwise to assume that it is acceptable to use the same critia with one country as you do with another. Do you really want to invade North Korea?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i don't think there is ever a reason to invade another country. the case in afghanistan was somewhat necessary. the taliban did forcefully take over the previous government and were actively and knowing supporting al quaeda, and the taliban is slowly forcefully tossing out the new government. it's almost certain that any new government we put in place in iraq will not be able to support themselves, mainly because of the rift between the sunnis and the shiites (and let's not forget the kurds). once strong religious values and beliefs come into play in a government, there is a strong likelihood that it will not be a peaceful, happy one. this is the main issue i have with bush... while there is a separation of church and state, he uses his religious beliefs to rule this country, which should not have religious beliefs taking things into play... mainly when it comes to abortion, gay marriage, and stem cell research (which is the next big thing and could come and pull our economy out of the pits).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it was pretty heartless for Republicans to have voted in a law requiring Americans to "pay" to be evacuated from dangerous situations by our military. It was an embarrasement when members of Bush's state department held a press conference yesterday and coldly said that anyone being evacuated would have to sign a note saying they would pay the government back. Imagine having to make a decision like that.

This when we are spending billions/month to protect Iraqis from shooting at each other which is being paid 100% by the American taxpayer. Bush has said many times that he doesn't watch the polls yet last night he reversed the law, which he signed just 3 years ago, and said that Americans being evacuated from Lebanon won't have to pay the government back. Oh my. :sick:

I won't even bother to address the bungling of the actual evacuation. An EU passport is sounding much better than one issed by the USA. Conservative compassionism, my ass.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it was pretty heartless for Republicans to have voted in a law requiring Americans to "pay" to be evacuated from dangerous situations by our military. It was an embarrasement when members of Bush's state department held a press conference yesterday and coldly said that anyone being evacuated would have to sign a note saying they would pay the government back. Imagine having to make a decision like that.

This when we are spending billions/month to protect Iraqis from shooting at each other which is being paid 100% by the American taxpayer. Bush has said many times that he doesn't watch the polls yet last night he reversed the law, which he signed just 3 years ago, and said that Americans being evacuated from Lebanon won't have to pay the government back. Oh my. :sick:

I won't even bother to address the bungling of the actual evacuation. An EU passport is sounding much better than one issed by the USA. Conservative compassionism, my ass.

i didn't know they had to pay the government back... that's absurd, considering many of them are there working for the government.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Al Qaeda isn't just in Afghanistan. They are in all Islamic nations... particularly Indonesia. Do you have the latest Al Qaeda recruitment numbers? I am just wondering how you know that their numbers are increasing. Maybe they are, I honestly don't know.

I find it interesting that Bush opponents like to find fault in everything he does, which is perfectly fine. But for some reason the exception is the "axis of evil," which seems to be infallible. People throw that around all the time.

North Korea has a real military as compared to Al Qaeda, who does not. I do not view the Taliban as a threat. If Afghanistan wants to support that as a government then who cares? I am not clear as to whether they are taking over forcefully or not, but I don't think that it is our job to artificially maintain a government there (or Iraq for that matter). If the government we setup doesn't work, then they can figure out what to do on their own.

Anyway, I don't think that NK has the means to sustain a war. They are a threat to South Korea, but thats about it. Think about it. They aren't going to invade China or Russia. They can't invade us. If they have some missiles that can reach Japan, then that sucks. But if they try to attack anyone I think that the international response would be quick and decisive. Nobody is provoking them. Especially Japan, and especially us.

I think it would be unwise to assume that it is acceptable to use the same critia with one country as you do with another. Do you really want to invade North Korea?

You're missing my point completely. I'm not advocating invading North Korea, I'm just pointing out that they posed more of a threat militarily than Iraq. And, it is important to remember that it was the Neo-Cons in the Bush Administration who created the "Axis of Evil" to plant the seeds in the public's mind to allow for the implementation of their doctrine of pre-emptive war. Following the logic they laid out, both North Korea and Iran would have been a more logical place to begin pre-emptive action. That is not to say that I would support an invasion of either of those countries (any more than I supported invading Iraq in the first place, which I did not), I'm simply following the way the Bush Administration positioned the argument in order to make the public sufficiently fearful so as to support his doctrine of preemption.

The point is that Al Qaeda became what it is today because of its parasitic relationship with the government of Afghanistan that emerged after the Soviets pulled out and the Americans lost interest. Osama bin Laden was neither welcome in his home country of Saudi Arabia nor in Africa where he had been basing his operations. Since Afghanistan was a failed state, the Taliban was able to fill the leadership vacuum and foster the growth of Al Qaeda. (With the current unrest in the Middle East, we're learning more about Hezbollah and the somewhat analagous parasitic relationship that it has with Syria and Iran that Al Qaeda had with the Taliban). While it has cells worldwide in other Islamic countries as well as western ones, it is in Afghanistan and the nearby mountains of Pakistan that you always hear of new recruits going to train at the Al Qaeda camps. So, all I'm saying, is that if we used history as a guide, we would pay closer attention to the stability of the government in Afghanistan to ensure that the leadership there does not devolve into a state supporter of terrorism. But, since we shifted the majority of our military and intelligence resources to Iraq, that seems to be exactly what is happening. Now, we have the same situation in Iraq (leadership vacuum with sectarian factions vying for control) which is why I do not support our leaving until we are assured that there is a future both for the Iraqi people that does not include sectarian violence where 100 people die on a daily basis and for the West that does not include some new brand of state-supported terrorism out of the new failed-state of Iraq.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

there's something to be said for lack of an organized military... look at what the "insurgents" are doing to our military and the people of iraq. an organized military has rules and rules affect what you can and cannot do. lack of organization allows the "soldiers" to do as they please, hide, sneak attack, cheat if you will.

one of the reasons the colonists won the revolutionary war was because of this. they hid behind walls and trees and buildings and picked off the british who stood in formation to fire their guns all in a big group.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, the insurgents just keep coming and they're so efficient. Perhaps we should privatize our military. You know.. let Dick Cheney be CEO and they can have investors and we can fight wars with private sector "efficiency"...

Or just put notices on ballots that if you vote republican then you also agree to paying extra taxes to fund invading other countries...

Meanwhile we'll create "The war on lazy people" which basically means the fat slob, lazy Americans that live off of welfare.. nevermind the fat slob, lazy Americans that sit behind a desk all day and claim to be better than the welfare recipient... if anything, the welfare recipient is the true republican.. they found an easy way to screw YOU over and you can't do anything about it but b*tch...

I think Senator Sam Brownbacks (R-Kansas) three "R"s for getting America on track are great:

RAVISH middle class America and concentrate wealth at the top.

RAID other countries that don't adhere strictly to Pat Robertson's view of the world and raid our children's piggy banks to pay for it.

REJOICE in the fact that you've convinced half of America to go along with you by distracting their attention to hot button social issues like gay marriage and abortion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Boy, some of you people are just seething with anger. Can't wait to see you next year with the Presidential campaign in full swing. :huh:

i'm just outraged by the sleazy tactics of our current president and his lackeys. i can list 8 things off the top of my head that anger me, and there's more that i cna't think of quite so quickly... i need sleep though.

1. extended stay in iraq

2. forgotten about bin laden

3. nsa wiretapping

4. veto of stem cell bill

5. forcing discrimination amendment onto congress (gay marriage ban)

6. forcing his religious beliefs on us

7. promises of research into alternative fuels, specifically hydrogen, that we have yet to see

8. no child left behind without financial backing

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i'm just outraged by the sleazy tactics of our current president and his lackeys. i can list 8 things off the top of my head that anger me, and there's more that i cna't think of quite so quickly... i need sleep though.

1. extended stay in iraq

2. forgotten about bin laden

3. nsa wiretapping

4. veto of stem cell bill

5. forcing discrimination amendment onto congress (gay marriage ban)

6. forcing his religious beliefs on us

7. promises of research into alternative fuels, specifically hydrogen, that we have yet to see

8. no child left behind without financial backing

I can say I agree with all of the above and would like to add the sweetheart no-bid deal for Halliburton - Dick Cheney's old cohorts!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, the insurgents just keep coming and they're so efficient. Perhaps we should privatize our military. You know.. let Dick Cheney be CEO and they can have investors and we can fight wars with private sector "efficiency"...

Or just put notices on ballots that if you vote republican then you also agree to paying extra taxes to fund invading other countries...

Meanwhile we'll create "The war on lazy people" which basically means the fat slob, lazy Americans that live off of welfare.. nevermind the fat slob, lazy Americans that sit behind a desk all day and claim to be better than the welfare recipient... if anything, the welfare recipient is the true republican.. they found an easy way to screw YOU over and you can't do anything about it but b*tch...

I think Senator Sam Brownbacks (R-Kansas) three "R"s for getting America on track are great:

RAVISH middle class America and concentrate wealth at the top.

RAID other countries that don't adhere strictly to Pat Robertson's view of the world and raid our children's piggy banks to pay for it.

REJOICE in the fact that you've convinced half of America to go along with you by distracting their attention to hot button social issues like gay marriage and abortion.

Great quote about Brownback. Where did you find that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i'm just outraged by the sleazy tactics of our current president and his lackeys. i can list 8 things off the top of my head that anger me, and there's more that i cna't think of quite so quickly... i need sleep though.

1. extended stay in iraq

2. forgotten about bin laden

3. nsa wiretapping

4. veto of stem cell bill

5. forcing discrimination amendment onto congress (gay marriage ban)

6. forcing his religious beliefs on us

7. promises of research into alternative fuels, specifically hydrogen, that we have yet to see

8. no child left behind without financial backing

I agree with all of the above. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Boy, some of you people are just seething with anger. Can't wait to see you next year with the Presidential campaign in full swing. :huh:

People should be very angry at the state of our government. Endless wars, incompetance, growing government consisting of cronies, destruction of the environment, corruption, inability to help those in real need, etc etc. It's outrageous the republican party is taking down this county in the way they have.

They were elected to serve the people. Yet the current lot including our president only serve the special interests, religious zealots, big business executives, and of course, themselves.

It's the ones who continue to blissfully support whatever these idiots do that's really sad as I would say they don't understand what it means to be American.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Half my family supports these idiots for one reason: taxes. They don't get it that their little country lower than middle-class income level will NEVER feel the tax cuts that really get implemented and they won't ever read or pay enough attention to realize that. They fall prey to the double whammy of sound bites about taxes, so they think they will pay less, and constant droning about "liberal media" so anyone that points out that they won't be affected are just that, biased liberal media.

I hate to say it but the current Republicans have figured it out, the rich understand and the poor don't and both vote for them. Bubba's for Bush!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People should be very angry at the state of our government. Endless wars, incompetance, growing government consisting of cronies, destruction of the environment, corruption, inability to help those in real need, etc etc. It's outrageous the republican party is taking down this county in the way they have.

They were elected to serve the people. Yet the current lot including our president only serve the special interests, religious zealots, big business executives, and of course, themselves.

It's the ones who continue to blissfully support whatever these idiots do that's really sad as I would say they don't understand what it means to be American.

Thanks for caring about my "Americanism".

As far as that list:

Extended stay in Iraq - yes, we should plan to leave in 2 years or so, let them fight it out and quit "coddling" the world

Bin Laden - who gives a s**t about him. He's a powerless wannabe now. There are much bigger fish then him in the world. He just got lucky with 9/11 and caught us asleep.

NSA wiretapping - How are we supposed to catch terrorists in our country. Unlike traditional law enforcement, you can't wait until after the deed is done. OK I guess we can.

Veto of stem cell bill - I agree with him on this issue

Discrimination amendment - silly and a waste of time, total political pandering

Forcing religious beliefs - I must have missed that press conference

Alternative fuels - total fall on your face move, definitely should be stepped up

No child left behind - I don't understand why raising standards also must include a bigger paycheck to the schools, however, the public school system as a whole is broken and needs to be fixed. I don't think NCLB is the answer. I'm not quite sure what is.

And that's about as worked up as I'll get about it. Each and every one of us has different roles in making America great.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Forcing religious beliefs - I must have missed that press conference

I appreciate the fact that you have an opinion on the issues. Most people only vote on one issue - like taxes, as Charlotte Native pointed out.

But, you didn't miss the press conference on Bush touting his religious beliefs. Most of them are ultimately influenced by his view of Christianity. Bush held one such press conference yesterday. While 70% of the American public (the same public of whom only 30% approve of his performance) are in favor of federal funding of stem cell research and both Republican-controlled houses of Congress passed the bill, Bush enforced his own religious view over the will of the people and vetoed his first bill. Additionally, he has held multiple press conferences to push his religious view and desire to write discrimination of gay people into the constitution. If he was truly a man of Christian ideals, then there would be some consistency in his actions and he would be acknowledging and trying to remedy the fact that the poverty rolls have grown considerably since he took office. Last time I checked, the Bible had a lot more to say about taking care of the poor than beating down homosexuals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its interesting that you say we have a bad economy and stocks are falling, since stocks are as high as they've ever been, we're in a bull market, job creation is up, and signs show that the tax cuts worked. Y'all are sounding like the typical doom-an-gloom liberals that the conservatives talk about so much.

While I am not defending our idiot of a president, I do think that the real republicans and true conservatives have some good ideas. The problem, as y'all have correctly identified, is that the Republican Party has failed to live up to the ideals on which it sold itself to the American public. They have collectively done nothing significant to help our country out. All they have done is cause major increases in our national debt and get is bogged down in the quagmire that is Iraq.

The country runs into problems when its being entirely controlled by one party. Thats what happens when we have a republican president and republican control in congress. There are no checks and balances. Im not a republican becasue I dont believe in republican values that benefit the wealthy. I also dont like how the republican party has demonized democrats leading the impression that republicans are God's faithful and liberals are sinners. Quite frankly I dont think God would even take sides because our government system is corrupt. Bush is putting us in so much debt with Iraq, it will take decades to pay those debts off. These debts will surely secure the demise of social security. God forbid we get involved with the Isreal conflict and drive us into even more debt and I really dont see us getting out of Iraq more many years, maybe even decades. Its just mind blowing becasue Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. It was just a personal score for Bush to get back at Saddam for trying to kill his father. Bush is also a hypocrit. He say hes pro life yet he supports the death penalty

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I appreciate the fact that you have an opinion on the issues. Most people only vote on one issue - like taxes, as Charlotte Native pointed out.

But, you didn't miss the press conference on Bush touting his religious beliefs. Most of them are ultimately influenced by his view of Christianity. Bush held one such press conference yesterday. While 70% of the American public (the same public of whom only 30% approve of his performance) are in favor of federal funding of stem cell research and both Republican-controlled houses of Congress passed the bill, Bush enforced his own religious view over the will of the people and vetoed his first bill. Additionally, he has held multiple press conferences to push his religious view and desire to write discrimination of gay people into the constitution. If he was truly a man of Christian ideals, then there would be some consistency in his actions and he would be acknowledging and trying to remedy the fact that the poverty rolls have grown considerably since he took office. Last time I checked, the Bible had a lot more to say about taking care of the poor than beating down homosexuals.

I don't know that it's so much his "religious" beliefs, as opposed to his "spiritual" beliefs. Frankly, I have no idea which religion Bush belongs to. Is he Baptist, Muslim, Christian?? (not trying to be sarcastic, although I know he's not Muslim).

I would prefer to have someone in office who is at least somewhat spiritual, as opposed to a man or woman who is agnostic or of strict science. A true person of science would probably determine that the poor, elderly, handicapped and destitute should just be exterminated, especially in times of growing National Debt like we have now. It would make sense. They might also take drastic actions against environmental hazards and emissions, and might likely put a great deal of the population out of work, (increase unemployment to the 12 - 15% range). But maybe it's worth it?

I've heard the argument that if he is a true Christian (I guess that answers my question), then he should take care of the poor. But do the people who believe that just want him to exercise his spiritual beliefs only if it fits certain items? In other words, "Bush, you can be spiritual, as long as it matches my particular moral/spiritual beliefs".

Is Bush leaning too far to the "religious/spirituality" side, probably so. Is he doing irreparable damage to our country? Probably not, IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know that it's so much his "religious" beliefs, as opposed to his "spiritual" beliefs. Frankly, I have no idea which religion Bush belongs to. Is he Baptist, Muslim, Christian?? (not trying to be sarcastic, although I know he's not Muslim).

I would prefer to have someone in office who is at least somewhat spiritual, as opposed to a man or woman who is agnostic or of strict science. A true person of science would probably determine that the poor, elderly, handicapped and destitute should just be exterminated, especially in times of growing National Debt like we have now. It would make sense. They might also take drastic actions against environmental hazards and emissions, and might likely put a great deal of the population out of work, (increase unemployment to the 12 - 15% range). But maybe it's worth it?

I've heard the argument that if he is a true Christian (I guess that answers my question), then he should take care of the poor. But do the people who believe that just want him to exercise his spiritual beliefs only if it fits certain items? In other words, "Bush, you can be spiritual, as long as it matches my particular moral/spiritual beliefs".

Is Bush leaning too far to the "religious/spirituality" side, probably so. Is he doing irreparable damage to our country? Probably not, IMO.

The problem is that president subscribes to fundamentalist Christianity which preaches that the rapture is indeed upon on us. That is scary because he may move the country toward what he thinks is going happen any way, ensuring that the world does end. :ph34r:

Fringe extremists shouldn't be in power, especially not in the country with weaponary like the United States has.

"God told me to strike at al-Qaeda and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East." - Bush.

I like this article: http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=3084

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem is that president subscribes to fundamentalist Christianity which preaches that the rapture is indeed upon on us. That is scary because he may move the country toward what he thinks is going happen any way, ensuring that the world does end. :ph34r:

Fringe extremists shouldn't be in power, especially not in the country with weaponary like the United States has.

I don't know that I believe that he believes that the rapture is upon us. I've met whack-jobs like that, and I just don't see it in Bush. Do you have any sources for this information?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wouldn't call the President spiritual.. i'd call him religious. Spirituality is more of an individual thing and has less to do with morals than religion.

I would say that Bush is trying to please a growing fringe of angry Christians that believe the end is coming and that they are constantly under threat from "worldly" forces. If you notice, Catholics are split evenly between Republicans and Democrats.. and many mainline protestants vote more democratic (Lutherans, episcopaleans, some methodist churches).

I think we need someone with some spirituality.. but whose morals are not dictated by an angry group of extremists that believe their translation of the Bible word for word. Someone with a good heart and common sense solutions to our problems.. not act-on-a-whim, shoot-em-up, no-bid-contracts solution.. like Garrison Kiellor.. yeah, he'd be great. (You should read his autobiography, "Home Grown Democrat" to see what I mean).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wouldn't call the President spiritual.. i'd call him religious. Spirituality is more of an individual thing and has less to do with morals than religion.

I would say that Bush is trying to please a growing fringe of angry Christians that believe the end is coming and that they are constantly under threat from "worldly" forces. If you notice, Catholics are split evenly between Republicans and Democrats.. and many mainline protestants vote more democratic (Lutherans, episcopaleans, some methodist churches).

I think we need someone with some spirituality.. but whose morals are not dictated by an angry group of extremists that believe their translation of the Bible word for word. Someone with a good heart and common sense solutions to our problems.. not act-on-a-whim, shoot-em-up, no-bid-contracts solution.. like Garrison Kiellor.. yeah, he'd be great. (You should read his autobiography, "Home Grown Democrat" to see what I mean).

Fair enough Snowguy, I can agree with much of what you're saying. People who do believe the "end is near" are brain-washed extremists and have no business running the Country. And if Bush is TRULY one of them, he needs to go. I'm surprised though that most extremists are exposed during Primary season, and certainly don't get a second pass into a second term. Clinton was certainly more centrist than most Democrats admit, and most likely the reason he was re-elected.

I am more than ready for a change late next year though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.