Jump to content

Another reason to vote against republicans


Snowguy716

Recommended Posts

It's not as contradictory as someone who's against the death penalty but pro-choice. At least the fetus hasn't committed any crime, much less a crime worthy of the death penalty. It's more consistent to impose the most severe punishment/result (death) on the most severe crime (murder) and oppose the most severe punishment/result (death/abortion) on someone who has not committed a crime at all. And from their point of view, the fetus is a "someone," which is fundamental in establishing this point.

This is in contrast to opposing the most severe result possible (death) on the most severe criminals (murders), yet supporting the most severe result (abortion) on an organic entity (if you refuse the "fetus is a someone" argument) that has not committed that level of act.

pro-choice does not equate to pro-abortion. i do not believe the fetus is just a group of cells. however, i do believe that abortions should not be outright banned. there are certain situations in which they can be necessary, such as when the child is the result of a rape or when the mother's life is endangered. outside of those 2 circumstances, abortion should not happen because other than those circumstances, abortion is being used as a form of birth control. i do not believe it should be the sole decision of the woman (unless she's single and the father isn't in the picture) to have an abortion. if the parents are together, especially if they are married, the father should have a say. and i also believe that anyone under the age of 18, except in situations where the parents are abusive (and possibly the result of the pregnancy), should have to notify the parents of their intentions to have an abortion. if a surgeon cannot operate on someone under 18 except in an extreme life threatening situation, then an abortionist shoudl not be allowed to perform an abortion (which isn't just some simple operation) on a minor either. however, i do not have a problem with access to the morning after pill (aka emergency contraception) as that is not a form of abortion because it does what it says... it's contraception.

so yes, it is more contradictory for someone to be pro-life and pro-war and pro-death penalty than for someone to be pro-choice and anti-death penalty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 264
  • Created
  • Last Reply

As far as democrats taking congress... all the Dem incumbents in Minnesota hold strong majorities over their opponents, and 2 of the 4 republican house members are in serious threat of losing their seats.

Favored at the moment are Patty Wetterling (6th district) and Tim Walz (1st district), both DFL candidates. Patty campaigned against Mark Kennedy in the 2004 election and lost 52-47%. This time with republicans much less popular and facing a much weaker candidate, her win is likely.

The 1st district is home to Gil Gutknecht, a pretty conservative republican. He will likely lose his seat because of his stance on the war in Iraq, saying he supports pulling troops on a set time line. His opponent, Tim, who served in both Iraq wars and is a teacher is pushing a very specific agenda of getting running water and electricity to all Iraqis, stepping up police forces through a regional peace keeping force (Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Egypt), and then withdrawing troops as allowed after that. He says that if the country does fall into civil war and our presence there will not help Iraq, then an immediate and complete withdrawl would be prudent.

Walz is fiscally moderate while Gutknecht is a fiscal Republican (borrow and spend, borrow and spend)

Either way, Minnesota could provide 2 of the 15 seats needed for democrats to take control of the house.

Our senate race (Mark Kennedy vs. Amy Klobuchar) isn't tight at all. The most recent poll showed Klobuchar (DFL) with a 50% to 31% lead over Kennedy .

Anyone who honestly thinks that republicans will hold control of the government and that democrats will break apart has obviously been listening to the republicans spit back nasty comebacks as they slide down a slippery slope.

Mark Kennedy scrubbed his website of all references to Bush.. his ads don't mention that he's a republican.. and his newest video on his website is "reaching across party lines" which apparently means he doesn't support "No Child Left Behind" and supports environmental causes despite agreeing with Bush 97% of the time. A republican that's not proud to be a republican shouldn't be elected.

I can say that in this falls elections, I will be voting democrat across the line with only one exception (a state senator). I just want what's best for our country.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am anti-death penalty.. and pro choice.. but in limited situations.

1st of all, young people should not be taught abstinence only. My sex education was multi-faceted, with abstinence as one facet of that. Teach them that if they choose to have sex, they should practice safe sex and use contraception to avoid pregnancies and prevent STDs (although testing should be done too in cases where they're not sure).

The morning after pill should be allowed. I do not consider this abortion, but it would save a lot of unwanted pregnancies.

All women seeking abortions should be given information about adoption. My mother was adopted, and it is a wonderful thing.

Pregnant women that seek abortions for economic reasons (the vast majority) should have assistance, especially young women. This assistance should be things like subsidized daycare so they can work/goto school, food stamps (WIC, etc.) and cash benefits if absolutely needed.

I think improving in all these areas would drastically reduce the number of abortions. Abortion should never be encouraged, and it should be used only as a last resort. There are so many alternatives.

My goal would be to get the number of abortions as close to 0 as possible without a ban. So, I guess I am pro-choice... but not completely.

I'm anti death penalty, because I don't understand how it is our right to decide whether someone lives, no matter what (I don't believe a fetus is a person). Punishing someone with death for murder is even more hypocritical.. especially when there's always that "what if they were innocent" factor. Sure, let them rot in prison.. put them to work.. but I don't believe we have the right to kill them even if they do deserve to die.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Clobber,

I tend to agree with you that central government should not have hte most power. Government is more efficient and more representative of the people when it is in local hands.

I just tend to be a lot more liberal than you :)

I tend to really hate authority and I don't want the government or businesses telling me what I can and cannot do as long as it doesn't infringe on others' rights... but I'm mostly like this on the individual level. When people in positions of authority start exploiting people lower down, my liberal side comes out.. and want nothing more than to quash the authority..

For example, I'm all for free enterprise when someone wants to start a business and run it.. but when that business is very successful and grows by leaps and bounds, responsibility comes with it. You start to systematically lower your wages to poverty levels and things like that, it's time for a swift kick in the @$$ to get things back on track.

I guess I'm either just too young and naive or I just have a non-traditional political view.

you're not too young and naive (well you might be, i don't know you). the government should not be imposing restrictions on the way i want to live my life so long as the way i want to live my life does not infringe on others' rights to live their lives the way they see fit. i'm talking about things such as religious beliefs, political ideology, drug use, alcohol use, suicide, prostitution, etc.

about free enterprise and business, i think i quoted it in another thread... since 1980, the ratio of CEO pay to regular worker pay has grown from 10:1 in 1980 to 420:1 today.... an increase of 4200%. data provided by playboy (i read it for the articles and the random facts like that one). that's just appalling and regular americans should be outraged (i know i am). considering the idiot CEO of exxon-mobil had the nerve to say that he deserves his enormous salary while gas prices continue to skyrocket and the oil companies take in record profits... i think we're in a bit of trouble.

i do agree with clobber, however, that the answer to the republicans is not polarizing everything, but coming up with a real solution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am anti-death penalty.. and pro choice.. but in limited situations.

1st of all, young people should not be taught abstinence only. My sex education was multi-faceted, with abstinence as one facet of that. Teach them that if they choose to have sex, they should practice safe sex and use contraception to avoid pregnancies and prevent STDs (although testing should be done too in cases where they're not sure).

The morning after pill should be allowed. I do not consider this abortion, but it would save a lot of unwanted pregnancies.

All women seeking abortions should be given information about adoption. My mother was adopted, and it is a wonderful thing.

Pregnant women that seek abortions for economic reasons (the vast majority) should have assistance, especially young women. This assistance should be things like subsidized daycare so they can work/goto school, food stamps (WIC, etc.) and cash benefits if absolutely needed.

I think improving in all these areas would drastically reduce the number of abortions. Abortion should never be encouraged, and it should be used only as a last resort. There are so many alternatives.

My goal would be to get the number of abortions as close to 0 as possible without a ban. So, I guess I am pro-choice... but not completely.

I'm anti death penalty, because I don't understand how it is our right to decide whether someone lives, no matter what (I don't believe a fetus is a person). Punishing someone with death for murder is even more hypocritical.. especially when there's always that "what if they were innocent" factor. Sure, let them rot in prison.. put them to work.. but I don't believe we have the right to kill them even if they do deserve to die.

i agree with all of that. abstinence only education is ruining our society. give out free condoms, make the pill more affordable and more accessible.

the problem with adoption is that a lot of children go unadopted because too many people look at it as shoppign for a baby rather than helping a child. and they end up stuck in a poorly funded system that can't handle the children. but it's a better answer than abortion.

the morning after pill is actually not abortion in any way. it literally prevents implantation. many people think it's the same as RU-486, but it's not. RU-486 is the abortion pill, that actually ends a pregnancy. the morning after pill prevents pregnancy from occurring.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

pro-choice does not equate to pro-abortion. i do not believe the fetus is just a group of cells. however, i do believe that abortions should not be outright banned. there are certain situations in which they can be necessary, such as when the child is the result of a rape or when the mother's life is endangered. outside of those 2 circumstances, abortion should not happen because other than those circumstances, abortion is being used as a form of birth control. i do not believe it should be the sole decision of the woman (unless she's single and the father isn't in the picture) to have an abortion. if the parents are together, especially if they are married, the father should have a say. and i also believe that anyone under the age of 18, except in situations where the parents are abusive (and possibly the result of the pregnancy), should have to notify the parents of their intentions to have an abortion. if a surgeon cannot operate on someone under 18 except in an extreme life threatening situation, then an abortionist shoudl not be allowed to perform an abortion (which isn't just some simple operation) on a minor either. however, i do not have a problem with access to the morning after pill (aka emergency contraception) as that is not a form of abortion because it does what it says... it's contraception.

so yes, it is more contradictory for someone to be pro-life and pro-war and pro-death penalty than for someone to be pro-choice and anti-death penalty.

How is abortion in the case of a rape or incest not a form of birth control? Are they not actively taking steps to control the birth of a child?

As far as who should be allowed to make decisions regarding abortions under all those circumstances, why should all that matter? Either a fetus is just a group of cells or it is a viable human being. If it's just cells, then it's just an extension of a woman's body and should be able to be removed (aka tumor, growth cell, tonsils, etc.). If it's not just a group of cells, then he/she should receive equal protection under the constitution. Whether the fetus can survive without the assistance of a Mother is negligent, because many people in the ICU would not make the cut because they are also on life-preservation measures. Why would the courts set up the decision making process of the fate of a fetus similar to child-custody rights? This isn't religion, this is science we're talking about. The emotional mantra that is being thrown into this discussion (not necessarily by you) is clouding the issue.

It will be interesting to see what happens once the "viability" argument in the Roe v Wade case becomes a non-issue, and then will a new benchmark be established?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a Republican, I agree that Rove is a detriment to the Republican party.

I will never be a Democrat. They aren't a serious option for me because they also have proven to be inept at spending.

I keep hearing this, and I don't understand why people believe it. Bill Clinton left office with not only a balanced budget but one with a surplus. If we had stuck to Clinton's plan we would be paying off the national debt. A debt that has national security implications and one that threatens to burden down future generations. Most of you in your 20s will spend the rest of your lives paying taxes to cover the interest on the debt that Bush, his cronies, and the Republican congress have run up since they have been in office. Huge amounts of this spending has been pure pork. The Republicans have become the "borrow & spend party". This is about as inept as it gets and they should all be voted out for their excesses.

If you care about government spending then the Republicans have shown their true colors in that they don't know how to stop it.

And I am amazed that anyone today would call themselves, Republican and put the big R on their back. That big R is dragging this country down to irrelevancy on the world stage, that owes the rest of the world money and whose only contribution to the world now is to wage war on others. The GOP appeals to the worst in people and I would like to think that most Americans are better than this. Of course some are not, but America is better than the religous extremists and the war mongerers that have taken control of the republican party. Its time they are voted out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I keep hearing this, and I don't understand why people believe it. Bill Clinton left office with not only a balanced budget but one with a surplus. If we had stuck to Clinton's plan we would be paying off the national debt. A debt that has national security implications and one that threatens to burden down future generations. Most of you in your 20s will spend the rest of your lives paying taxes to cover the interest on the debt that Bush, his cronies, and the Republican congress have run up since they have been in office. Huge amounts of this spending has been pure pork. The Republicans have become the "borrow & spend party". This is about as inept as it gets and they should all be voted out for their excesses.

If you care about government spending then the Republicans have shown their true colors in that they don't know how to stop it.

And I am amazed that anyone today would call themselves, Republican and put the big R on their back. That big R is dragging this country down to irrelevancy on the world stage, that owes the rest of the world money and whose only contribution to the world now is to wage war on others. The GOP appeals to the worst in people and I would like to think that most Americans are better than this. Of course some are not, but America is better than the religous extremists and the war mongerers that have taken control of the republican party. Its time they are voted out.

i think the ungodly number of billions of dollars spent on iraq goes to show that they don't know how to properly spend money...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think any sensible person would like to have lower taxes and have a government that either spends less or spends wisely. In our society we have expectations of the government, highways systems, protection, education, the list is huge -- so realistically we will always pay taxes unless we go back to substenance farming -- unlikely for 300 million people. SO we WILL have taxes, finding a party or leader who spends wisely is our best bet.

I would rather tax and spend than borrow and spend and think any idiot could understand that. Debt is what brings individuals to their knees and is the reason for bankruptsies. Why do we think our government is different?

I must give credit to the spin-masters for convincing so many of the public that republicans are good custodians of their money. Blind faith must be the only answer -- Clinton: budget surplus, Bush; Massive debt, but they still fool half of my family into thinking they will lower taxes and make everyone rich. Funny how that hasn't happened yet...but CEO's, corporations, and foreign investors sure have done well in the past 6 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I look at it this way: I pay $3.00/gallon for gas. A good chunk of that is going to line the pockets of rich execs at the oil companies and produce record profits for them.

Prices keep rising on goods and services... my income isn't getting larger.. I have to pay more with less money.

And what do most republicans in this country sit and whine about? Taxes taxes taxes!!! PLEASE! Lay off the taxes just for one second and think about it!

The current republicans seem to think they could balance the budget by giving tax cuts to the rich and cutting financial aid for students, veterans benefits, senior medical care benefits, and welfare. And every idiot Joe Six Pack and Sally Soccer Mom in the suburbs is going "Hell yeah!" while the government cuts their and their kids' futures in the name of "fiscal responsibility"...

I pay $3.00 for a gallon of gas and I think "Greedy beotchs".. I pay $3.00 in taxes and I think "Hey, I'm helping pay for the roads I drive on, the schools I've gone to, my education, medical care for people who can't afford it, food for needy families, our national parks and forests..."

Lower taxes and limited government sounds nice, doesn't it.. why don't we start by lowering and limiting our war in Iraq and other needless spending that is really over oil and ends in the death of thousands of innocent people?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the major concerns that I have with the Democratic Party is that they often whine and complain about things without offering a realistic possible answer. For example, social security, Bush offers a realistic plan that would be transitioned into place and even offers a few options. The democrats said that they did not like it, came up with several unproven answers, yet mentioned that social security is broken, yet was unwilling to give any realistic solution.

Its the same with the war, foreign policy, and just about every other aspect of government.

There are set opinions and goals Republican Party stands for, yet it seems that the democrats will often just argue with the republicans without having a realistic established platform to stand on. I bet most liberals can

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the major concerns that I have with the Democratic Party is that they often whine and complain about things without offering a realistic possible answer. For example, social security, Bush offers a realistic plan that would be transitioned into place and even offers a few options. The democrats said that they did not like it, came up with several unproven answers, yet mentioned that social security is broken, yet was unwilling to give any realistic solution.

Its the same with the war, foreign policy, and just about every other aspect of government.

There are set opinions and goals Republican Party stands for, yet it seems that the democrats will often just argue with the republicans without having a realistic established platform to stand on. I bet most liberals can

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i don't think the democrats, if in power after 9/11 would have started a war in iraq to begin with. now there's not much we can do about it because we got ourselves stuck there and we can't just completely desert them. however, the republicans do need to come up with a realistic plan to have all americans out of iraq and it should be completed within 2 yaers (that's not unrealistic), but bush keeps saying that it's not a good time to come up with a plan. he keeps touting all this stuff about how the iraqis are doing well for themselves, but he won't allow them to work on their own. no matter when we leave, now or 20 years from now, the iraqi government will fall again and not remain a democracy.

bush's plan for social security is not proven either, by the way. and AARP (representing the people currently benefiting from social security) fear that his plan will not work.

i don't personally give a crap what the democratic party as a party stands for, i care more for what the people i vote for stand for. however, most people on the republican side are going along with whatever bush says (aside from lincoln chaffee from RI). guiliani used to be cool... but he's becmoe a blind follower of bush in recent years. i can't stand that. he's playing the political game just like every other republican... wooing the conservatives who voted bush back in office.

Maybe the Dem

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the major concerns that I have with the Democratic Party is that they often whine and complain about things without offering a realistic possible answer. For example, social security, Bush offers a realistic plan that would be transitioned into place and even offers a few options. The democrats said that they did not like it, came up with several unproven answers, yet mentioned that social security is broken, yet was unwilling to give any realistic solution.

The privatization of Social Security was a creation of Karl Rove and was nothing more than a huge taxpayer give away to the corporations in this country. Using tax money to buy stock in corporations was one of the more blatent examples of moving public money into the hands of private companies. Private companys that are moving jobs to China and India. It was a horrible idea and I am not sure why anyone would support it.

If Bush want's to save Social Security, he needs to stop his party from bankrupting the country by deficit spending. The Social Security fund is being raided by these idiots to pay the nation's bills.

The idea died because Bush could not must enough support from his own party to push it through congress.

It is ideas like this that why these greedy people need to be voted out of office. They are not friends of honest taxpaying people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its the same with the war, foreign policy, and just about every other aspect of government.

There are set opinions and goals Republican Party stands for, yet it seems that the democrats will often just argue with the republicans without having a realistic established platform to stand on. I bet most liberals can

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i hate to say it, but both sides in iraq will never fight it out until the end... unless the end is the US giving up. we have no idea how big the insurgency is or when it will stop (if ever). we have no idea what countries they are coming from, when they will next attack, or where they will next attack. the americans and iraqis are not winning this battle, nor will they win it. we have to accept defeat and allow ourselves to leave iraq in as good a shape as we can and let them deal with it themselves. my guess is the insurgency will cut back quite a bit once the americans are out of the country.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am anti-death penalty.. and pro choice.. but in limited situations.

1st of all, young people should not be taught abstinence only. My sex education was multi-faceted, with abstinence as one facet of that. Teach them that if they choose to have sex, they should practice safe sex and use contraception to avoid pregnancies and prevent STDs (although testing should be done too in cases where they're not sure).

The morning after pill should be allowed. I do not consider this abortion, but it would save a lot of unwanted pregnancies.

All women seeking abortions should be given information about adoption. My mother was adopted, and it is a wonderful thing.

Pregnant women that seek abortions for economic reasons (the vast majority) should have assistance, especially young women. This assistance should be things like subsidized daycare so they can work/goto school, food stamps (WIC, etc.) and cash benefits if absolutely needed.

I think improving in all these areas would drastically reduce the number of abortions. Abortion should never be encouraged, and it should be used only as a last resort. There are so many alternatives.

My goal would be to get the number of abortions as close to 0 as possible without a ban. So, I guess I am pro-choice... but not completely.

I'm anti death penalty, because I don't understand how it is our right to decide whether someone lives, no matter what (I don't believe a fetus is a person). Punishing someone with death for murder is even more hypocritical.. especially when there's always that "what if they were innocent" factor. Sure, let them rot in prison.. put them to work.. but I don't believe we have the right to kill them even if they do deserve to die.

Snowy, you and I agree almost totally on the death penalty. I am pro-choice, not because I think someone should have an abortion, but because I think it should be up to the individual woman to make that decision with certain limitations regarding how far the pregnancy has progressed. I totally agree about the assistance, especially for free or reduced-cost day care so the parents will be able to hold down a regular job.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I keep hearing this, and I don't understand why people believe it. Bill Clinton left office with not only a balanced budget but one with a surplus. If we had stuck to Clinton's plan we would be paying off the national debt. A debt that has national security implications and one that threatens to burden down future generations. Most of you in your 20s will spend the rest of your lives paying taxes to cover the interest on the debt that Bush, his cronies, and the Republican congress have run up since they have been in office. Huge amounts of this spending has been pure pork. The Republicans have become the "borrow & spend party". This is about as inept as it gets and they should all be voted out for their excesses.

If you care about government spending then the Republicans have shown their true colors in that they don't know how to stop it.

And I am amazed that anyone today would call themselves, Republican and put the big R on their back. That big R is dragging this country down to irrelevancy on the world stage, that owes the rest of the world money and whose only contribution to the world now is to wage war on others. The GOP appeals to the worst in people and I would like to think that most Americans are better than this. Of course some are not, but America is better than the religous extremists and the war mongerers that have taken control of the republican party. Its time they are voted out.

I think that is why the Republicans will not keep control of both houses this election cycle. I have always said that I am a Republican, and will continue to do so proudly- but only under the pretext that I, along with countless others are generally disillusioned with the direction this party has taken us. I probably will not vote for my current representative, unless the other guys is a complete idiot. Metro, you say lots of harsh things with big implications, but you haven't said what the Democrats can do better. You've used Clinton as an example, but what about the people who will actually be in power? None of the big players in the Democratic party right now seem like they have any better ideas. Democrats are all about spending money, and they have proven that over the years. They do it through more financially "sound" methods like tax increases. That said, you have managed to prove the point that the liberal end of the political spectrum has only one uniting quality about it right now- hate for Bush/Republicans. Hate is not a platform that can work.

The Democrats are not offering any ideas that are appealing to me, in fact, they seem to be opposed to many of the ideas that I am in favor of, or ways to deal with certain issues. The key thing, however, is that the Republicans are too stupid to do something productive with their unbiquitous power. They control all branches of government, and they still can't do anything right it seems. Thats why I think they will not maintain control over everything.

Under George Bush and his Republican fanatics, we have become a country that exports fear, instead of a country that exports hope. This is why most of the world hates us now.

The Republicans have stolen this from the American people.

You preach against hate, yet you spout it in every post you make in this thread. Interesting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Spartan,

I think you should take a look at the Blue Dog democrats. They tend to be in the middle politically with a strong emphasis on fiscal responsibility. They propose higher spending on things like education and transportation while cutting fat out of the budget and raising revenues with responsible measures like raising taxes when needed.

Most of them also tend to be social conservatives, which is appealing to many people in mid-America.. that is why you will see many democrats from places like the Dakotas, Iowa, and western Minnesota that are very bi-partisan on many issues.

The problem is, however, that these people often fail in primaries because the people that vote in primaries tend to be in the extreme wings of their own parties. We need to re-figure the system so that moderates have more of a chance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Under George Bush and his Republican fanatics, we have become a country that exports fear, instead of a country that exports hope. This is why most of the world hates us now.

The Republicans have stolen this from the American people.

BINGO. We used to be the shining example that other countries aspired to be like -- not any more, and in such a short period.

Hate is not a platform that can work.

Karl Rove has proven this statement is not correct.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You've used Clinton as an example, but what about the people who will actually be in power? None of the big players in the Democratic party right now seem like they have any better ideas. Democrats are all about spending money, and they have proven that over the years. They do it through more financially "sound" methods like tax increases.

Have you bothered to actually look at the Democratic party platform? Thay actually have plenty of reasonable proposals on a variety of issues. Because the Democrats are a minority party in all areas of government, of course their ideas aren't very influential at the moment, but the notion that they have no ideas and rely only on partisan attacks is nothing more than right-wing propaganda.

Furthermore, if you admit that the Democrats are more financially sound than the Republicans, how can you cite their spending as a reason to oppose them? As the last three Republican administrations have demonstrated, they are "all about spending money" as well. The only differences are that the Democrats have proven better at balancing their income vs. expenditures, and that they spend in areas that benefit the American people, rather than on warmongering and handouts to mega-corporations.

The key thing, however, is that the Republicans are too stupid to do something productive with their unbiquitous power. They control all branches of government, and they still can't do anything right it seems.
The Republicans aren't stupid at all. They know exactly what they are doing, and this far everything has gone exactly according to their plan. They don't care about this country, and if you aren't in their elite club, they don't care about you. The Republicans in power and their corporate allies are making billions in profit off of everything that has gone on in the last several years. The aftermath of 9/11, Iraq, Katrina, gas prices, you name it. The thing is, it doesn't even take much effort to see for yourself what is going on. It is all out in the open. The Republicans (correctly) assumed that the average citizen won't pay attention to politics beyond the front-page headlines, and therefore won't question their rape of this country.

You preach against hate, yet you spout it in every post you make in this thread. Interesting.

History will prove that the people now in power have earned every bit of disdain they receive from, well, anyone who pays attention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You preach against hate, yet you spout it in every post you make in this thread. Interesting.

Actually that quote came from the Meet the Press this morning. However it is very appropriate and the truth and I agree with it.

In regards to the Democrats and spending. Any sensible person should realize that spending more than we take in is fiscally irresponsible. You have said you don't know what the Democrats policies are, but you refuse to acknowledge that Bill Clinton left office with a balanced budget. It's fiscally irresponsible to spend literally trillions that we don't have and your taxes will have to be raised just to pay the interest on this debt.

Yes I hate Bush, his cronies, the Republican platform and the leaders that push their hateful policies. I see no problem hating a bunch of people that are responsbile for the needless deaths of tens of thousands of people. Bin Laden killed 3000 people, Bush's wars have killed over 100,000 people and the carnage in Iraq is killing more than 100 more each day. They are bankrupting the country, exporting our jobs, technology, and manufacturing base to 3rd world countries, destroying the environment, have done absolutely nothing to get us less dependant on oil, have assaulted the constitution, taken away rights of the people while as the same time ignored laws that dictate how the are supposed to operate, pandered to hateful religious fanatics and the list goes on. How anybody, beyond big business, the extreme wealthy (the selfish ones) and the fundamentalists, can support these asses is beyond me. Yes there is plenty to hate here and there is absolutely no excuse for them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i never thought i could retire on social security alone... to think that is just asking for trouble.

as for the war, we need to pull out and we need a plan to do so... until the current administration is gone, we will not see that plan (or until congress decides to take power away from bush, which they have a right to do).

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.